HitsRus;1394295 wrote:^^^^and as I said, that is a sophomoric observation, because while it is true that you don't need a piece of paper or legal force, in reality it is more often an excuse for not publicly acknowledging that you assume the financial and legal responsibilities that a relationship can bring. If you are really committed, than you should have no problem with that acknowledgment. Just as in a business relationship, you should have no problem signing a contract that you intend to honor.

And if you are really committed, you don't need a piece of paper to affirm that.

sleeper;1394309 wrote:And if you are really committed, you don't need a piece of paper to affirm that.

Ultimately, I agree. At some point, here, I think we get into a semantic discussion when we discuss these points of marriage.

O-Trap;1394408 wrote:Ultimately, I agree. At some point, here, I think we get into a semantic discussion when we discuss these points of marriage.

I agree as well. OTOH, you have people having kids together not getting married because they don't want to commit. WTF???

queencitybuckeye;1394409 wrote:I agree as well. OTOH, you have people having kids together not getting married because they don't want to commit. WTF???

Well, at some point, whether or not they sign a piece of paper, if they are committed to one another, are willing to make that known, are giving their lives to each other, and are raising a family, I'd say they are married in every sense except the legal sense.

To be perfectly honest, I don't have a problem with that at all.

...and my point is that the argument that you don't need a piece of paper to prove committment is an unsophisticated argument in that it is obvious that the only way to measure committment is thru actions. There are plenty of people who have married that truly are NOT committed. I'm sure there are people who aren't married whose actions would prove that they are committed. The point I am making is that if you really are fully committed, there is no reason not to marry. Unless you are a welfare Queen working the system, there is no financial disincentive not to marry(it may even be financially stupid) unless you don't intend to honor your committment, or if you forsee circumstances that would cause you to abandon 'your committment'. Either way... you are not fully committed if you can't make that vow.

In ANY relationships of import, there are papers to sign documenting your full committment to the deal. Why should this be any different? You may claim to do all your business with a handshake alone....but nobody, but nobody, would believe you are fully committed to the deal unless you sign the papers.

Well, at some point, whether or not they sign a piece of paper, if they are committed to one another, are willing to make that known, are giving their lives to each other, and are raising a family, I'd say they are married in every sense except the legal sense.

Indeed...in the eyes of the law, if you have a baby with someone, you are married in terms of your financial obligations.

How about my point, its stupid and unequal. Marriage is allowed to everyone in the USA, thus isn't fair and promotes bigotry.

In ANY relationships of import, there are papers to sign documenting your full committment to the deal.

You alluded to it but ignore the obvious. Is it really a commitment if divorce is so prevalent in society? I find it hilarious that you chastise people for not wanting to sign legal commitment documents but ignore the reality if the commitment is there, then it's there; papers are meaningless.

HitsRus;1394454 wrote:In ANY relationships of import, there are papers to sign documenting your full committment to the deal. Why should this be any different?

I would disagree. My relationships with family members, paper or not, remain strong.

In any BUSINESS or LEGAL agreement, there are papers to sign documenting your agreement to fulfill obligations, which implies a commitment to the deal. I would suggest that this might be different because, at its base, a marriage ought not be operated like a business deal or other kind of legal contract.

O-Trap;1394564 wrote:...a marriage ought not be operated like a business deal or other kind of legal contract.

I agree. There's no reason we should have to get a license to have such a relationship commitment.

I think I established that getting married does not guarantee committment....that you can marry with little or no committment. Ialso said you can be committed and not married. What I'm asking is "why would you not marry if you indeed are fully committed?"

I would suggest that this might be different because, at its base, a marriage ought not be operated like a business deal or other kind of legal contract.

But married or not, a long term domestic relationship will entail financial and legal obligations (children, joint property etc.)...so there are 'business and legal' consequences in a domestic relationship whether you want to acknowledge them or not.

HitsRus;1394631 wrote:But married or not, a long term domestic relationship will entail financial and legal obligations (children, joint property etc.)...so there are 'business and legal' consequences in a domestic relationship whether you want to acknowledge them or not.

Eh, those only turn legal when couples call it quits, really. As for business, eh, I haven't found marriage nearly so complicated as I do any business partnerships I've had. There is a difference between handling corporate finances and handling personal finances, although a lot of the same principles apply to doing each successfully.

O-Trap;1394426 wrote:Well, at some point, whether or not they sign a piece of paper, if they are committed to one another, are willing to make that known, are giving their lives to each other, and are raising a family, I'd say they are married in every sense except the legal sense.

To be perfectly honest, I don't have a problem with that at all.

I agree completely. The people I take issue with are those, and I hope it's a small number, who have a kid or kids together yet don't get married because they don't want to commit. If you stand for anything at all, you have already made that commitment when you cranked out a child.

queencitybuckeye;1395147 wrote:I agree completely. The people I take issue with are those, and I hope it's a small number, who have a kid or kids together yet don't get married because they don't want to commit. If you stand for anything at all, you have already made that commitment when you cranked out a child.

this