# Why are you married?

Category: Dating and Relationships

## Post 1 by Nicky (And I aprove this message.) on Saturday, 28-Oct-2017 22:14:09

cali cowboy
Posted a thred
Why do you think you are still single
A response...
Post 19 of 27 vh
This site is so "educational" 426 posts
Thursday, 26-Oct-2017 22:35:46
There is something inherently wrong in having to explain why you are single. Are married people asked to explain why they are married? Rarely.
There is nothing wrong with being single or unmarried, or married or with a partner and none require explaination as though admitting to guilt or flaw.
So lets go at it.
Why are you married?
Lets here
The Good
The bad
and The Ugly
Or why did you stay married if you aren't now.

## Post 2 by forereel (Just posting.) on Sunday, 29-Oct-2017 10:53:51

Smile.
Love this.
Lets see what happens.

## Post 3 by Voyager (I just keep on posting!) on Monday, 30-Oct-2017 12:16:28

Yeah, why get married?
I believe at least half of all mariages end in divorce.
Marriage is a terrible idea if one or especially both inmates live on government benefits. Either the government thinks married people need to eat less, or they just don't want disabled (nonworking) people to marry.
A long time ago I married a friend. I thought I wanted the stability of having someone around whom I liked and who wouldn't leave. I didn't want children and I quickly satisfied my curiosity about sex. He didn't understand this last part; he insisted that I must either already be interested in someone else or easily tempted.
I just wanted to build a computer.
Both entering into and extricating myself from this arrangement cost more energy and resources than they were worth.
So unless the goal is to produce offspring and the chances of things working out in the longterm seem reasonable, why marry?

## Post 4 by Imprecator (The Zone's Spelling Nazi) on Monday, 30-Oct-2017 12:24:13

Yup. Just live together. No need for paperwork and metal circles.

## Post 5 by forereel (Just posting.) on Monday, 30-Oct-2017 19:27:16

On the why I am single, I said I have some odd views.
Not needing to marry is one of them.
I was married, but I cohabitated with her for a long time.
All it did was give us a piece of paper, but the feelings, togetherness didn’t change at all.
Now, I could cohabitate with someone for the rest of my life, and not care if we had the paper. You only get one, and it cost about $50 for it. Expensive for one sheet of paper, I think.
The divorce piece even cost more.
Laughing.
If you set things up legally, so that if you should pass before your lover, they will be able to remain in your joint home, and receive any benefits, that is all that is required.
I know that gay people had problems with this, but only because families would fight the living partners after, so they had to get married.
Married, or not, relationships last as they last. Some for life, some only for a few years.
Being married doesn’t change or guarantee longevity.
But, we regress her topic.
Smile.

## Post 6 by Shadow_Cat (I've now got the silver prolific poster award! wahoo!) on Monday, 30-Oct-2017 21:45:53

OK, so I'll be the odd voice out on this one. Disclaimer: it's up to each couple what they do. If they don't want to marry, don't. But if they do, more power to them. My now-husband and I wanted to. At first we didn't think we'd be able to, as we are both receiving government benefits. that was incredibly frustrating. A lot of the country lobbied for equal rights for same-sex couples, but where was the lobby for disabled couples who wished to marry, and couldn't? For that matter, I still ask where is the lobbying for that? It's said that the US has marriage equality now, but we don't. Not until those who are disabled don't have to choose between keeping food on their table, or needed medical care, and marrying the one they want to.
In my case, we found that through a series of government loopholes, we could marry and keep our benefits, so we did. We married because we wanted that level of commitment. Of course we knew we had it, but it felt more..solid, somehow. You can say it's only a piece of paper, and to some it is. To us, it was more. It was a bond that included the spiritual as well as the legal. I don't feel we, or anyone who sees it that way should be criticized, even if others disagree. It brought a oneness that I can't put words on. I'll also be honest enough to admit that it was nice to finally have that bond recognized by society. Sure, maybe I shouldn't have cared. If we couldn't have married, society could just deal, but since we were able to, it felt nice to have it recognized. Not to have to give separate last names, but to share one. No, I'm not one who thinks a woman should always take her husband's last name, that's up to the couple. But for me it was important, and meant something when I could finally do so. To have that ring on my hand, not just for a piece of jewelry, but as a visible symbol that we are together. To be able to say the terms my husband, my wife, instead of just my partner. Again, doesn't matter to some, did matter to us. All external signs of the bond and the commitment we have to each other internally.
The bad; It's work. A lot of people think that when they marry, they've arrived. They've accomplished some societal milestone, and they can just relax. That's bS in my opinion. That's when the real work on the relationship starts. But if both do so, it pays off. Which leads to, the good. Work though it sometimes is, the reward, at least for me, is more than worth it.
In short, does everyone need to marry? No. But I wish all who wanted to could, and know that I am fortunate to have been able to. No marriage is perfect, and mine is not. But I don't regret it in the slightest.

## Post 7 by Pasco (my ISP would be out of business if it wasn't for this haven I live at) on Tuesday, 31-Oct-2017 1:42:30

Though it is not a reason in itself to get married, if you are living together, and totally committed, there is a significant tax advantage to being married. Also, necessary if you fall in love and live a a foreign national who wants to stay.

## Post 8 by season (the invisible soul) on Tuesday, 31-Oct-2017 6:38:16

Hmm, one question though, beside the legal marriage, can you be married, beyond the
paperwork? Beyond the legal matters, maybe, more like what Cat says, in a commitment,
spiritual, soul, whatever you want to call it level? Will that marriage means more to you
than just the paperwork, the legality, the assurance that if anything happen, your other
half will get their share?

## Post 9 by Imprecator (The Zone's Spelling Nazi) on Tuesday, 31-Oct-2017 11:37:08

If I ever do, it will be just a legal thing. No ceremonies.

## Post 10 by lalady (This site is so "educational") on Tuesday, 31-Oct-2017 11:58:56

Marriage is only a meaningless word without real commitment that begins in the heart and continues to grow. A piece of paper cannot change that reality. I do understand that piece of paper is the icing on the cake for some people however. I had that piece of paper two times and it did not seal the deal because the commitment was missing. It's more important in my opinion to work on the bonding rather than focusing on the legality.

## Post 11 by LeoGuardian (You mean there is something outside of this room with my computer in it?) on Tuesday, 31-Oct-2017 12:15:56

I wonder how many on here who say it's just a piece of paper are heterosexuals? I'm a heterosexual also, but I've known a friend of my sister's who is lesbian, they have a child together that for a long time was legally her partner's. My sister's friend had to legally adopt the child and when travelling out of state, had to carry adoption papers with her if she was travelling alone with the child, to prove it was hers, in the event of a medical emergency.
It's all well and good for us heterosexuals, or for us who are not on public assistance as Alicia talked about, to be down on marriage. But we can be, because it's pretty low risk for us to do so. Alicia and her husband had to go through loopholes, and my sister's friend and her now wife had to stay in certain places where their marriage was recognized until the 2015 decision.
If it was merely a piece of paper, the LGBT's wouldn't have fought for it. But as things go, when you are married, buying a house together, raising kids together, caring for each other in older age or after an accident, are all legally easier. The reason for that is you have paper to prove the relationship.
I personally respect all relationships or lack thereof. And I agree about the commitment factor. I don't remain faithful to my wife as a means to uphold an institution, as the conservatives would call it. I remain so, out of love and respect for Her. The institution as they call it, expresses that relationship in an outward fashion so we can legally do things as a partnership.
I doubt the LGBT's and disabled people who are fighting for equality in this manner would do so if if it were a mere piece of paper. My views might be different if I had not heard from my sister's firend, or ahad not read from Alicia and others on this topic over the years re: disabled people getting their marriage rights.

## Post 12 by Remy (I've now got the silver prolific poster award! wahoo!) on Tuesday, 31-Oct-2017 12:59:53

Simply put, because it's the best decision I've ever made. Been married for almost ten years now after a series of relationships that barely lasted beyond a year or even six months. We've built a life together, still have fun together, and talk all the time. We also have a child together. Is it perfect? Not at all. We fight sometimes, and there are still hurt feelings and mis-communications, but relationships require effort, and even when we do fight, we resolve those conflicts. The good far outweighs the bad. There's a statistic that 50% of marriages end in divorce, but that's a stupid statistic, not because it might or might not be accurate, but because people use it to counter the idea of being married. To me, marriage is far more than a piece of paper; it's a symbol of a life long commitmes a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, the temple sealing portion of my marriage is also a means of binding my wife and I together beyond mortality. I'm pretty sure I could pick out those who would bock at that notion, but to me, it makes a lot of sense. It's spending a lifetime building a relationship only to have it severed at death that doesn't. Plus, it's just nice to be able to tell people "yeah, I'm married." Rather than "Yeah, I have a girlfriend. We live together." No offense meant to those who are fine with the latter.
And in case you're wondering if I wasn't religious, I'd still feel the same about marriage.

## Post 13 by forereel (Just posting.) on Tuesday, 31-Oct-2017 15:45:05

Ah, but you see, I can call my partner my wife. I'm fortunit I'm not gay, so as stated this is easy for me.
Before I was legally married, I viewed, and saw my partner as my wife, mate.
I say, my wife, and no one ever disputes that. Smile.
So, to me the paper isn't important, it is the bind, commitment, soul that I care about.
In the old days a couple would jump over a broom and stay connected for life.
Now we've got people with enough paper to cover a wall.
I do agree, it is sad that gay people must jump this hoop to make the union valid, but not they have it, so well for them.
This isn't to cause a debate, but I've seen religious people use marage as a means to opening the door so they can enjoy sex with each other.
After that thrills gone, they divorce. I know of a minister of a large church here in my city that has been papered 7 times. I understand why he must, but you can see my point.

## Post 14 by Remy (I've now got the silver prolific poster award! wahoo!) on Tuesday, 31-Oct-2017 18:46:40

Honestly for me I never really think about the "piece of paper". It's more about everything else that went into our wedding, and the commitment we made to one another. (It was a very small wedding by the way). I'm not saying one can't have the same level of commitment without that "binding contract". The getting married to fornicate without God and humans getting involved is a great example of how marrying without commitment can go terribly wrong.

## Post 15 by season (the invisible soul) on Tuesday, 31-Oct-2017 20:04:24

I get what Pasco and Lio are saying. and yes, being Married, or being legally tied to each other might offer a certain stability, especially of all the reasons and more that Pasco and Lio mention. But, do you married just for that legality, that formality, the preparation journey towards your wedding day, or the wedding day itself. what happen then? I know a lot of girls especially wanting to be married because of the fantacy of a wedding. but then, when they get to plan, prepare, and participate for their own wedding, they regreted it, because the fantacy is different from the reality. the fantacy is about the lovers itself, but the reality often involve other party, e.g. families, friends, in-laws etc.
do you consciously change your attitudes, behaviours, thoughts, just because you are married, or you aren't married? If you are married, does it mean that you have less chances to go after other men or women beyond your marriage, and if you are not married, do you then, seeking for the potential partner, or, having that flexibility, knowing that you are not in a legal commitment or legal binding for your partner?
Just want to stress though, there is no right or wrong answer. it is the choice of a lifestyle, and for me, I do believe that you can be married but still single, or you can be single but married. yes, maybe not physically, not legally, but you can definitely have that kind of emotional commitment, a spirit or soul level bind, or tie with each other. will this kind of unceremonial marriage less important or less profound than those who married under the eye of the laws, or the eye of religion etc?

## Post 16 by forereel (Just posting.) on Tuesday, 31-Oct-2017 21:12:00

Well, there are lots of jokes, and such that go around about how getting married does change a person's prospective.
I guess there is lots of truth in them.

## Post 17 by Shadow_Cat (I've now got the silver prolific poster award! wahoo!) on Tuesday, 31-Oct-2017 21:56:00

Leo said it so well. If marriage was only a piece of paper, then why did the LGBT population fight so hard for it? Why weren't they content with civil unions that gave them the same legal rights, and why weren't their supporters content with civil unions as well? When my husband and I weren't sure if we'd ever be able to marry, we had a lot of people tell us it was only a piece of paper, then turn around and advocate for the rights of the LGBT population to legal marriage. How can the same people tell one minority group it's only paper, only legality, and yet fight for another to have the right? I don't get that one, and I never will. I see this even in the disabled community. I imagine a lot of you on this board would have supported gay marriage, but now you say to the rest that it's only paper. Unless I'm much mistaken, and the posters here were against gay marriage all along.
Remy, thanks also for saying what I was trying to, only better. I feel the same way you do about this, about my choice to marry my husband. Yes, it's a perspective changer, but in my case anyway, for the good, not the bad.

## Post 18 by Pasco (my ISP would be out of business if it wasn't for this haven I live at) on Wednesday, 01-Nov-2017 1:12:45

In post 9 and post 11 Pina and Leo speak to the two aspects of the question. Marriage is a state of mind. I would treat my commonlaw wife, which is a marriage without the paper, just as lovingly, and legally fairly as if I had to by law. The truth is though, some people are not that way. They do only what is required and not even that if they can get away with it. In such a case, the piece of paper may be a person's only legal and financial protection. So, I can understand why some are cautious that way. But Pina is right, being a true mate of the soul is far more important than the piece of paper. And, if it is a genuine bond of such a profound type, then the partners will be honest and fair even though not bound by law to do so.

## Post 19 by forereel (Just posting.) on Wednesday, 01-Nov-2017 7:11:43

The reason it wasn’t just a piece of paper for the LGBT population, was people insisted in keeping even the spiritual, or commitment union invalid.
In many states it was, and still is illegal for them to have sex, live together as a couple.
It is socially unacceptable for them to claim a union still for many.
Okay, so your life partner, wife/husband, because this is how you view and think of them, must be in hospital. The family comes along and sets up a rule that only family can visit.
Your family, you are closer then family, but you aren’t allowed to visit. You can’t get any medical information about the person you’ve love, doweled to spend your life with.
If you were a different sex couple, no one would even think to keep you from visiting, not even with a family rule set up.
Even though I see it as a piece of paper, some people want the validation, and they were denieghed this.
When they got the paper, no matter what other felt, it was validated.
It is also the quickest way to legalize your union.
The LGBT population sure could hire lawyers, and such to fix much of this, but not the hospital, or release of information issue.
Insurance companies used this as a way not to pay legit benefits.
As a disable person, if I have a union with someone, I’d be just fine.If I were strictly on government payments, and had never worked, nor my partner, and we didn’t care about the paper, validation, we’d be okay.
If even one of us worked, it be different.
If that person were non-disable, we could marry easy. No one will check. Isn’t that strange?
So, it is the same as the LGBT population, people not thinking the disable deserve to even think in a couple union setting, and if that disable couple happen to be same sex, they’d add more coals to the hate fires.
I was thinking this other day. Stevie Wonder has been married several times, and has several children.
It never gets reported as other entertainer’s relationships, breakups, and such do. Why’s that?
So, sure, the document has a legitimate place, but for some, even the legitimate is over looked.

## Post 20 by season (the invisible soul) on Wednesday, 01-Nov-2017 7:33:16

i'm not objecting the legality of marriage. in no way i'm saying that marriage is not a reunion between one person and another, or even more than 2 persons. I was simply pointing out as a fruit for thought, if there is other way of marriage, beyond the legality, beyond the union between two persons, beyond what is require or what is acceptable, beyond the social norms. in fact, I don't see marriage as purely a man and a woman, I see it as a union of two party. if they both want to be women, or men, or genderless, that's their choice. if they want to married someone with colour, without colour, someone that is blind deaf etc etc, that's also their choice. and who said that marriage must only for two persons? maybe in a poligony setting, it might be more than two partners within the union? I was just trying to provoque the concept of marriage only for legal, religion, economical, and societal purpose to something deeper, in a sense.

## Post 21 by Remy (I've now got the silver prolific poster award! wahoo!) on Wednesday, 01-Nov-2017 13:57:05

I'd love to be shown a setting in which poligamy truly works for the happiness and benifit of both genders.
For me, it was a huge change of mindset. We weren't living together at the time, though we spent a lot of time at each other's places, had the sex and did pretty much everything together. And even after all that, being married was just such a new experience. The novelty lasted quite a while. She also took my name, which was rather an honor (though definetly not a necessity). I can see how marriage might not be for everyone, especially after all the nightmare senarios and crude jokes portrayed in modern culture, but I do wish people wouldn't belittle those of us who choose to do it. And that's happening more and more these days.

## Post 22 by forereel (Just posting.) on Wednesday, 01-Nov-2017 17:23:58

To see how poligamy works, and works well, you'd need to look at some Eastern unions/marages without bias.
Again, in many cultures, this is a social, and religious negative, but works and works benefitually.
Lets say you are a Woman that lives in a country were you can't really survive alone. A poligamy union not only gives you stability, respectability, but famly.Your husband has the benefit of several wives to care for his children, and himself.
For the exchange of having variety at home, he must pay for this luxury, and sometimes, the work load that can get done if he is say a farmer, or like that.
He needs no outsiders, so safety, and trust aren't an issue.
I once saw a Mullah explain it this way.
Why should his female population be with out when they could have someone to care for them and love them?
They have more women then man, so why should some women have to suffer loneness, or survertude?
You'll never hear me downing marage, I was once married, and would again if my lover required that validation. I just don't.

## Post 23 by season (the invisible soul) on Wednesday, 01-Nov-2017 18:43:34

this raise up another debate. more of a gender debate than marriage itself though.
why when we think of polygamy, we automaticly think only for a man with many women? why not the other way round, a woman with many men? and also when we talk about married, or in a relationship, why it is kind of automatic biased that the female population of the relationship must always be the one who be nurture, take care of, be protected, be provide by the male population? what makes it ok for a man to provide to his woman, but it is "quite not ok" for the woman to provide for the man? why when the man is not working, and dependent on the woman, the society will view him differently, but if a woman is not working, and relying on her man, the society will view her as quite normal?
disclaimer, when I talk about man and woman, , i am referring to the masculine vs feminine, not just male vs female or such.

## Post 24 by Remy (I've now got the silver prolific poster award! wahoo!) on Wednesday, 01-Nov-2017 19:51:23

Ooooh, good questions which I don't have time to delve into right this moment, but would like to.

## Post 25 by Nicky (And I aprove this message.) on Wednesday, 01-Nov-2017 22:10:53

Not at all how I had expected this thread to go but I do like it so far.
Good posts.
Thanks, you guys.

## Post 26 by forereel (Just posting.) on Thursday, 02-Nov-2017 10:10:40

Yeah, good questions.
My first response is, I've not known many women with more then one man. It just seems as if women really don't care to have more then one mate at a time in this setting anyway.
As to if a woman is the provider, I've seen that often, and it seems to be getting even more so.
I've never had a problem with that, and see it as fir, or normal. If a women wishes to provide for her male, it is par.
This in Western society goes on more then you think.
Even in olden times, and some places, women were the providers, and that was due to them being able to find work were the men were not.
That is now a reason too. Many women are able to earn and have decent jobs.
The rest, protector and all, I'll have to think on that.

## Post 27 by forereel (Just posting.) on Thursday, 02-Nov-2017 15:10:04

I forgot to add to my post.
Men, in the past were able to get jobs before women no matter what that job was with the acception of maybe child care.
This is still vary true in many societies, so for that reason women are seen as they are.
So, if you are a woman, you'll need some means of support, and husbands/males have been that means.

## Post 28 by Pasco (my ISP would be out of business if it wasn't for this haven I live at) on Friday, 03-Nov-2017 2:25:18

Polyandry is actually still practiced in some places. In the case I've read about, The women rule, each has a home that men may only visit, and they may not stay or live in her home. If it works for them, who am I to judge.

## Post 29 by forereel (Just posting.) on Friday, 03-Nov-2017 6:39:42

Yes, vary true. I have read this as well.
In fact, I've seen on several dating sites were the women say they will accept this, or are interested in it.
Many of these women live right here in America.
They can't get the piece of paper, in America, of course, but if they believe it is a marriage, it is.
If faithfulness is a reason for connecting one on one, I'd say these type relationships have even a stronger chance of keeping the male part faithful to his family over the traditional type.
It seems, but not the rule, that men are usually the unfaithful party. If accepted, or not, many have mistresses the wife knows about, but looks on as sort of a servant. I’m married to him, so she’s not valid.
Especially in upper class societies were marriage is for money, social status, title, this is the norm.
This technically makes the man faithful. He does not go outside the mistress, wife arrangement. He doesn’t have to.
Is monogamy natural?
In nature, even females will have more than one mate over a lifetime.
We technically do this all the time through dating.
How many girlfriends/boyfriends, do we sometimes have before we settle down for a while?
If the settled relationships end for some reason, most of us go back to dating again.

## Post 30 by starfly (99956) on Monday, 06-Nov-2017 12:22:39

smile
So here is my two sense take or leave it. With out going into much detail, past events sure have showed me with out the commitment level of marige, I would have been a divorce statistic. To me its one aspect to have a girlfriend who was not as committed to the relationship as I was. In my nind there are plenty of fish in the sea. However, sense in my case its not a girlfriend at play its my partner/wife with my last name. Working with her, counseling etc is and was wurth the frustration, growing pains which sense has paid off. Does my wife and I have happy fluffy disny marige, no I question those who do. She she a awesome firend, partner yes, I frankly love she has my last name.
Dan Mathis SF

## Post 31 by Remy (I've now got the silver prolific poster award! wahoo!) on Monday, 06-Nov-2017 18:39:48

I don't think anyone has a happy dizney marriage. Though considering it's very rare to see an actual marriage in a Disney movie (since the movie ends after partners get married, or Disney kills at least one of the parents off as a matter of course), I'm not sure that's much of a standard. Happily ever after can exist, but nobody said it's happily every day after.

## Post 32 by Pasco (my ISP would be out of business if it wasn't for this haven I live at) on Tuesday, 07-Nov-2017 2:42:02

Not sure I agree that the so called Disney marriage is unknown.

## Post 33 by season (the invisible soul) on Tuesday, 07-Nov-2017 3:56:04

ah, another provoking discussion...
why must wife carrying the husband name, but not the other way round?

## Post 34 by forereel (Just posting.) on Tuesday, 07-Nov-2017 7:33:42

Actually that is about history, or family.
If you look at sociology, the father is the link. You father a child, that child carries your name.
Now, the mother is the birth person, but her child is not her fathers, so she carries the man's name.
It wouldn't be correct for a man to take his wife's name, because his child is not her fathers.
However, it isn't necessary for a woman to take her husban's name, and this is often not done anymore for the child to keep the family going.
It seems nature has made the male part head of a family. We don't have much choice in that.

## Post 35 by Remy (I've now got the silver prolific poster award! wahoo!) on Tuesday, 07-Nov-2017 12:16:36

Pasco, do be so kind as to elaborate.

## Post 36 by Pasco (my ISP would be out of business if it wasn't for this haven I live at) on Wednesday, 08-Nov-2017 1:11:53

Not true Wayne. In some cultures lineage is traced through the mother not the father. There is no biological reason to have the male as the so-called head of family, and it is not that way everywhere. It is custom only. I would have no problem taking the name of my wife. In Spanish traditional families, when the name is stated formally, it gets longer with each generation tracing back through the female line.

## Post 37 by forereel (Just posting.) on Wednesday, 08-Nov-2017 6:51:56

I have heard this, but have not actually seen it.
Why, if this is terditional, do the Spanish culture take the mans name?
Isn't his name added someplace in the formal listing?
I understand Jewish people do this to a point, but still, the family takes the mans name.
If I'm correct, a child is a Jew if his mother is. It doesn't matter what his father is.
We also have geneology, but I'd need to do some reading to pronounce on that one.
Smile.

## Post 38 by Pasco (my ISP would be out of business if it wasn't for this haven I live at) on Thursday, 09-Nov-2017 0:11:17

It has been a while since I studied this, but as I recall, the man's last name is listed first, but then the rest of the formal name traces back through the female line. So it would be Wayne Sanchez de Cruz de Gomez de Coranza etc.

## Post 39 by forereel (Just posting.) on Thursday, 09-Nov-2017 8:12:24

Okay. Thanks for this. I'm always interested in things like this.
In my view, she can keep her name, religion, or whatever. All I want is her soul.
Laughing.

## Post 40 by Shadow_Cat (I've now got the silver prolific poster award! wahoo!) on Friday, 10-Nov-2017 20:38:06

Remy, incredibly well said in post 31. My marriage is still a good one, my husband and my relationship still strong, though cancer does not figure into anyone's happy ever after. But even though circumstances are horrible right now, I'm still happy I married him, happy I'm with him.
Joanne, I don't think it does always have to be the woman who takes the man's last name. It's what I chose to do, but that was my own choice. I know of situations where both spouses have kept their own last names, even ones where the man has taken the woman's, or they've both gone to hyphenated names. That's totally between each couple.