Because all successful marriages consist of people who agree on everything they discuss.SenorToenails wrote:
It would be.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Wouldn't it be nice if all women were that logical?
But, if you can't discuss and agree on something before marriage, what makes you think that things will be better after the wedding?
Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2008-04-11 22:05:18)
I think you know what I am getting at. If only 'whiny little reasons' exist, then there are larger problems. I am not saying that all couples can agree on everything, because that just isn't true.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Because all successful marriages consist of people who agree on everything they discuss.
The one of the problems is that both sides of the issue think that their stance is reasonable. One or the other would have to give.SenorToenails wrote:
I think you know what I am getting at. If only 'whiny little reasons' exist, then there are larger problems. I am not saying that all couples can agree on everything, because that just isn't true.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Because all successful marriages consist of people who agree on everything they discuss.
But in the situation given where your stuff means so much to you that you won't risk losing it in a divorce, then get a prenup. If she won't, then you gotta work something out. If you are incapable of dealing with a reasonable request that one person has in a relationship, then you have some trouble ahead.
Why doesn't she want a prenup? Find out what fears/concerns she has, and account for them. Even in the prenup itself, if appropriate. If it came down to "No prenup or no marriage" with reasons "just because", then I don't know. That seems completely unreasonable and that kind of logic would certainly spill over into other aspects of the relationship. If I were in that situation, I would want to think things over before getting married.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
The one of the problems is that both sides of the issue think that their stance is reasonable. One or the other would have to give.
Let me restate - there's plently of different types of marriages that may or may not be "traditional". Don't like a big wedding? Go to the courthouse. Don't want to change a name? No one is forcing you to.imortal wrote:
There is a lot more to marriage than just tradition. I am speaking as one whose marriage is 22 days away. If done correctly, a marriage is MUCH more than just living together. If you are not married, there is always the feeling of "if things get bad, I can always leave." Once that ring is on your finger, you are stuck; you had better work it out.Pug wrote:
And to add, there's always the option of skipping all the traditions and just going to the courthouse.Deadmonkiefart wrote:
It's tradition; it doesn't really mean anything; it's just a fancy way of agreeing to be good to each other.
Oh, and for those who want to say you can just get divorced, look at those wedding vows. You are swearing by all that you hold dear (or to God himself, for those among you who believe in such), that you will be together as long as you both shall live. Nothing in those wedding vows about divorce. If you do the marriage right and marry for the right reasons, then you should not need to worry about divorce.
Marriage has meaning as long as those who get married believe in it. Marriage, as with most concepts, only means as much as you believe it does. If you do not believe in marriage, find a partner who agrees with you, and live happily ever after without getting married. I will not think badly of you. But just because you do not believe in marriage, don't knock the concept or the people who do believe in it, just because you do not agree with it.
Taxes /threadFallenMorgan wrote:
Also - maybe someone can give me a GOOD reason why marriage is important and can't be substituted for a couple just being together.
Last edited by jsnipy (2008-04-12 03:44:15)
My pubes are doing quite well, thank you.Pug wrote:
Let me restate - there's plently of different types of marriages that may or may not be "traditional". Don't like a big wedding? Go to the courthouse. Don't want to change a name? No one is forcing you to.imortal wrote:
There is a lot more to marriage than just tradition. I am speaking as one whose marriage is 22 days away. If done correctly, a marriage is MUCH more than just living together. If you are not married, there is always the feeling of "if things get bad, I can always leave." Once that ring is on your finger, you are stuck; you had better work it out.Pug wrote:
And to add, there's always the option of skipping all the traditions and just going to the courthouse.
Oh, and for those who want to say you can just get divorced, look at those wedding vows. You are swearing by all that you hold dear (or to God himself, for those among you who believe in such), that you will be together as long as you both shall live. Nothing in those wedding vows about divorce. If you do the marriage right and marry for the right reasons, then you should not need to worry about divorce.
Marriage has meaning as long as those who get married believe in it. Marriage, as with most concepts, only means as much as you believe it does. If you do not believe in marriage, find a partner who agrees with you, and live happily ever after without getting married. I will not think badly of you. But just because you do not believe in marriage, don't knock the concept or the people who do believe in it, just because you do not agree with it.
The bottom line is most of the questions raised in this thread...well let me put it this way: grow some pubes.
None of these issues matter, and if you think they do...well, lets say you aren't going to be getting married anytime soon.
Do I favor marriage? You bet. I'm celebrating my ninth anniversary this year.
are you that medic whore?Nyte wrote:
Marriage gives tax benefits. I guess you won't like this too much if you hate free money.
Ceremony is there for kicks and being with your past friends and such. I guess you won't like this too much if you have no friends (or you are anti-social).
Marriage emotionally binds 2 people together till death do they part. I guess you won't like this too much if you prefer extra-marital affairs.
I'm right because I'm Nyte.
Moderators, please close this thread because discussion is over.
I wasn't talking about your pubes...you get it. I get it.imortal wrote:
My pubes are doing quite well, thank you.
I am getting married in 21 days.
Congrats on your anniversary .
If you are making your argument in that area, I do tend to agree. Personally, I think that the civil benifits of marriage should be seperated from the relegious act of marriage. I see no problem behind gay marriage, clan marriages, or even line marriages (for those here who are confused, read "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" by Robert Heinlein sometime). If your faith allows a "non-traditional" type of marriage, it is not the place of the state to determine if it is moral or allowed. Because most marriages involve a priest, pastor, preacher or similar holy figure, the faith of the wedding party IS involved.
All the tax and civil benifts should be available anytime two or more people wish to enter into a contract of a civil bond. Yes, I say two 'or more.'
I think it should be the act of the civil union which provides all of those wonderful benifits. If you are marriaed from the church, you also enter in a civil union (ie getting a marriage license), but you can also enter into a civil union without getting married in a church (that would be going to the jp).
Although my wedding will be of the most traditional type. By choice.