co-habiting couples - Page 2

panther · 01-08-2007, 06:36

well im not married, and have been with my partner for for 12 years, we have 2 kids, and doing fine thankyou, i know people who have married and its all ended in divorce, so i think whats the point, its only a peice of paper, and very hard to get out off if the relationship breaks down!.
it should only apply to people with kids, thats all, just to carry on supporting them,, its the kids who need it!,, at the moment if my partner suddenly dies, i would not get widows pension, or anything else,...i think it should change for all, we should still get it if married or not, but only if you have been co-habiting for years and have children

MUMMIBOO · 01-08-2007, 11:10

I have been with Daddiboo for over 11 years now we both work and we have done everything together we have 2 children and 1 more on the way we have bought a house together and cars and all the furniture in the house and everything else that life brings on the way the only thing we havent done is get married I agree with what else has been said throughout the thread that Marriage means different things to different people. I dont see why people who are not married but have lived the same way as married people for longer than some people are actually married for should not be treated the same way with the same benifits as married folks.

And then theres the small matter of Divorce which seems to happen all to offen these days messy costly divorce who needs that eh!

MargaretR · 01-08-2007, 11:51

Divorces vary like marriages vary.
My 1st divorce after 10 years of marriage was amicable and cost £15 because no solicitors were involved. The maintenance of 1 child was agreed and legalised in the courts (without solicitors)
My second divorce after 8 years was a horrendous battle which cost me a hell of a lot emotionally and financially.
My 3rd was a cohabitation relationship which lasted 17 years.
I recommend cohabitation for childless couples. There are safeguards which you can put in place, such as joint ownership of property, and making a will in each others favour. I would not like the existing laws on that changed.
If you have children in the relationship it is better to safeguard them by marriage. You will be able to continue to live in the matrimonial home until the youngest is 16 - essential to provide them with some small element of security during the (maybe) turbulent divorce.

PS experience has taught me that nothing is forever - or, you are very lucky if it is

West Ender · 01-08-2007, 20:12

Why should anyone who doesn't enter into a legal contract have any legal rights to another's property?

What's so terrible about marriage? I've heard so many people say they can't afford a wedding - blah-blah-blah - or do it when their children are school age etc., as if marriage was purely about "The Big Day". It isn't. It's the ultimate commitment and, even if you're not the romantic type, it's saying to the world at large and the Law of the Land, "I'll stay with this person". It can be a big, expensive fuss or 15 minutes at the Registry Office - they're both as binding. Sure, it can go wrong but so can cohabitation and maybe that makes walking out just a little bit easier - and a little harder on the one who's dumped.

Cohabit if that's what you want but don't expect a free ride if you won't buy a ticket.

Lilly · 01-08-2007, 20:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by West Ender

Why should anyone who doesn't enter into a legal contract have any legal rights to another's property?

What's so terrible about marriage? I've heard so many people say they can't afford a wedding - blah-blah-blah - or do it when their children are school age etc., as if marriage was purely about "The Big Day". It isn't. It's the ultimate commitment and, even if you're not the romantic type, it's saying to the world at large and the Law of the Land, "I'll stay with this person". It can be a big, expensive fuss or 15 minutes at the Registry Office - they're both as binding. Sure, it can go wrong but so can cohabitation and maybe that makes walking out just a little bit easier - and a little harder on the one who's dumped.

Cohabit if that's what you want but don't expect a free ride if you won't buy a ticket.

Well said West Ender.Karma on its way

shakermaker · 01-08-2007, 20:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by West Ender

Why should anyone who doesn't enter into a legal contract have any legal rights to another's property?

What's so terrible about marriage? I've heard so many people say they can't afford a wedding - blah-blah-blah - or do it when their children are school age etc., as if marriage was purely about "The Big Day". It isn't. It's the ultimate commitment and, even if you're not the romantic type, it's saying to the world at large and the Law of the Land, "I'll stay with this person". It can be a big, expensive fuss or 15 minutes at the Registry Office - they're both as binding. Sure, it can go wrong but so can cohabitation and maybe that makes walking out just a little bit easier - and a little harder on the one who's dumped.

Cohabit if that's what you want but don't expect a free ride if you won't buy a ticket.

Marriage isn't the be all & end all of long term relationships for many people.
Surely people can commit to each other without being married?
Just because you decide not to marry doesn't mean you expect to break up.

carpon · 01-08-2007, 20:49

From one who has been stung by this co-habitting situation it's a definate NO! from me.My ex-partner contributed nothing towards our home and now has the audacity to expect half of something she paid nothing towards!! She was the one who was unfaithfull,she was the one who left.I'm currently in the legal wrangling stage and it is a minefield!! I think the laws concerning Co-habitting should be clarified (regarding financial rites in the event of the relationship breaking down) especially where Children are involved,with financial circumstances been taken into account(i.e. WHO contributed What??) Fortunately there where no children as a result of my relationship with my ex. ,as sadly it's the kids who suffer when any marraige or relationship breaks down.

MUMMIBOO · 01-08-2007, 21:50

Why should people be bound together by words just because you as a couple feel it right for you doesnt make it right for everyone!!

Im not married but as i said before we have been together since we were teens and 3 kids and a house and numerous cars and so on we are still toghether and going strong maybe we should go and make those vows just for the stuff we would get if we were i would get a new ring, a new dress and shoes and a certificate oh and a share of his pension.

Nah i still cant see those as being good enough reasons to go and marry and everything else we already have!

There are lots of different situations in which people live with houses, without houses with kids and without.

Its funny how mostly people who think it should be allowed are the non marrieds and those who dont think it should be allowed are the married ones it would be interesting to see the ages of the people with their thoughts is it mainly younger people who agree? (by the way its not an assumption just curious).

Lilly · 01-08-2007, 22:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by MUMMIBOO

Why should people be bound together by words just because you as a couple feel it right for you doesnt make it right for everyone!!

Im not married but as i said before we have been together since we were teens and 3 kids and a house and numerous cars and so on we are still toghether and going strong maybe we should go and make those vows just for the stuff we would get if we were i would get a new ring, a new dress and shoes and a certificate oh and a share of his pension.

Nah i still cant see those as being good enough reasons to go and marry and everything else we already have!

There are lots of different situations in which people live with houses, without houses with kids and without.

Its funny how mostly people who think it should be allowed are the non marrieds and those who dont think it should be allowed are the married ones it would be interesting to see the ages of the people with their thoughts is it mainly younger people who agree? (by the way its not an assumption just curious).

Why don't you get married? As has been said already in this thread,marriage is a commitment.Make that commitment to each other and you will receive certain rights.Don't and you won't.You can have a very simple wedding that needn't cost much at all.Some people don't want to get married but want all the rights that go with it.They want the ha'penny and the cake.

ANNE · 01-08-2007, 22:17

Unless people are religious and want to make a commitment in the eyes of God, then why get married for the sake of a bit of paper.
If people want to get married then fine but i don't think people should be pressured into doing so.
I'm sure the ridiculous amounts a wedding costs can be put to much better use.
A couple in a long term relationship should have all a married couple gets.

lancsdave · 01-08-2007, 22:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by West Ender

Why should anyone who doesn't enter into a legal contract have any legal rights to another's property?

In that case the simple solution is for unmarried couples living together to sort out a legal contract while together. That way it saves all the mess if they split up. Mind you marriage can create that mess just as well as non-marriage.

shakermaker · 01-08-2007, 22:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lilly

Why don't you get married? As has been said already in this thread,marriage is a commitment.Make that commitment to each other and you will receive certain rights.Don't and you won't.You can have a very simple wedding that needn't cost much at all.Some people don't want to get married but want all the rights that go with it.They want the ha'penny and the cake.

Marriage is a religious bond, not just a legal contract. People should enter into it because they believe in the concept of marriage, not because they want legal benefits - and it certainly isn't a higher sense of commitment than cohabitation.
Anne said it perfectly:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anne

Unless people are religious and want to make a commitment in the eyes of God, then why get married for the sake of a bit of paper.
If people want to get married then fine but i don't think people should be pressured into doing so.
I'm sure the ridiculous amounts a wedding costs can be put to much better use.
A couple in a long term relationship should have all a married couple gets.

Busman747 · 01-08-2007, 22:34

I have no problem with couples whether they are living together or married.........but how many times have you heard either one or the other say that they "don't want the commitment?"

They get a mortgage together, they have children together, the two biggest commitments anyone is likely to take in their lifetime but one adult (tends to be the male) will not show their commitment to the other through marriage and leaves the other partner on an insecure footing.

In my opinion, if a couple choose to live together and raise a family outside of marriage, the financial rules that govern married couples should also apply to them. Why should one partner have an easy option of opting out of a relationship? The other partner will be just as distraught married or not.

garinda · 01-08-2007, 22:41

A lady should keep a hand on her tuppence, until the man puts a ring on her finger.

Simple.

West Ender · 01-08-2007, 22:47

Anne, why should a wedding cost a ridiculous amount? My son married 8 years ago, in a Registry Office, a short but pleasant ceremony with just a few guests. They had been living together for 13 years but decided to make it "permanent". He wore his nice suit, my daughter-in-law bought a dress she's worn loads of times since, and we had a meal at a local hotel - we all paid for our own. The wedding cost very little but they are as much married as anyone else. There's no more commitment in wearing a white dress and a veil and having a huge party, that's just a display.

I said before, it's the choice of the individuals whether to marry or not but it's a question of legality. When you consider that same-sex couples have fought for, and got, the right to have a legal contract drawn up to give them "married" rights why should those who won't legally commit themselves have those rights by default? Call it marriage or what ever you like, no contract - no rights.