U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Retirement
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 09-16-2019, 06:06 PM
 
6,672 posts, read 5,317,378 times
Reputation: 13841

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by XRiteMA98 View Post
if you ask me it is weird to get married. Marriage is such a huge commitment! Just for perpetuating the specie?
Oh, no, not worth it. Been there, done that. Will never marry again. In e relationship, yes. Married? No.

It is not weird at all to own property no matter your age and social status. Just ignore! Just because there are families around you it doesnt mean that's the norm and you should adhere to it. Single is better.
I kind of agree

You can legally make the same stipulations about relationships and not have to get married.

I personally do not think that the average person was meant to be monagomous.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-16-2019, 06:13 PM
 
8,318 posts, read 5,246,865 times
Reputation: 14154
Quote:
Originally Posted by lenora View Post
There is also no reason I need to identify myself as "divorced." It's just stupid. I am, in fact, single. Just ask the IRS.
This is another nasty hangover from a doctrinaire past (the divorce part, not the IRS part... that's very much in the present). What is the difference between a person who had never married, and one who was married in the past, but no longer is? Well, maybe there are financial consequences from the divorce, such as alimony payments, or one's ex's claims on one's future pension (this is of particular relevance to military officers - which is one reason why the military, that arch-conservative institution, so vilifies divorce). But what if there are not?

Then ought we to have two separate categories: "divorced and encumbered", vs. "divorced and completely free"? But why stop there? How about, "Divorced, but not of my volition... my former partner instigated it". Or how about: "Divorced because my former partner abused me"? Surely there ought to be more sympathy for a person who's marriage had to end, because he/she was abused, than one who's marriage ended on a whim? But there's only one choice to make on that form: tick the "divorced" box, or not. Not much of a choice, eh?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-16-2019, 06:14 PM
 
Location: annandale, va & slidell, la
7,889 posts, read 3,221,248 times
Reputation: 6770
How is this a topic? My departed brother never married. Shrug.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-16-2019, 07:38 PM
 
5,467 posts, read 3,562,554 times
Reputation: 13882
“In 2017, the Census Bureau reported that a record number of adults in the U.S. were not married. More than 110 million residents were divorced or widowed or had always been single; that's more than 45 percent of all Americans aged 18 or older. And people who did marry were taking longer than ever to get there.”
https://www.cnn.com/2018/01/05/healt...ner/index.html


In 2017, the U.S. census reported 110.6 million unmarried people over the age of 18—that’s 45.2 percent of the American adult population—carrying out their lives to a new set of societal norms.”

“To previous generations, America’s single population might be seen as outrageous. In 1960, 72 percent of adults were married.”

More Americans Are Single Than Ever Before
https://observer.com/2018/01/more-am...healthier-too/


“There is little debate that American adults are far less likely to be married than they were two generations ago. In 1950, married couples represented 78 percent of households in the United Stat
es. In 2011, the US Census Bureau reported, that percentage had dropped to 48 percent. In 2014, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that 124.6 million Americans 16 years and older were single, or 50.2 percent of the population, compared with 37.4 percent of the population in 1976.”
https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Societ...-are-unmarried
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-16-2019, 07:43 PM
 
26,545 posts, read 33,589,094 times
Reputation: 33389
Quote:
Originally Posted by Serious Conversation View Post
I'm lifelong legally single. I just closed on a property Friday. I've met various people at restaurants, bars, etc.., since then. I've gotten the impression from them that being a single male property owner is "weird."

I don't see myself marrying. This "condition" will likely persist. It's unlikely that I'll marry or have kids within the next couple of years.

As you aged and remained or become single, how did you handle it? Logistically and socially? Do you feel discriminated against because you choose to remain legally single?
Nope. Never have.

I was married, and have been divorced (single) for many many years now. I am a single property owner. I know many other single property owners. Too many for anyone to think it is "weird".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-16-2019, 09:29 PM
 
Location: VT; previously MD & NJ
2,293 posts, read 1,439,848 times
Reputation: 6697
The only time I encountered anything related to this was when I bought my second home. Went to settlement and the deed was made out to "Ansible Singlewoman. " When I questioned it they said they always did it that way. When I asked if they made deeds that said "Singleman" they hemmed and hawed, never really answered. But I don't think anyone I ever met thought it was odd that I owned a home by myself.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-17-2019, 12:00 AM
 
26,592 posts, read 29,009,242 times
Reputation: 25608
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clemencia53 View Post
I personally do not think that the average person was meant to be monogamous.
I think that's true. It's basically the "it's not natural" argument. But lots of things aren't natural. Going on our natural instincts alone almost always leads to a life that's nasty, brutish, and short. So, if we don't want such a life, we have to give up certain things.

Without monogamy, 80% of the women will go for 20% of the men, which leads to lots of other problems.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-17-2019, 08:39 AM
 
3,202 posts, read 5,287,457 times
Reputation: 1824
Quote:
Originally Posted by Serious Conversation View Post
Agreed. I don't know why people are getting tripped up on that. You can be with a partner for years and be legally single in the eyes of the law.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ohio_peasant View Post
That’s it. In modern dating culture, referring to oneself as “single” implies that one doesn’t have a girlfriend/boyfriend. To announce that “I’m single again” means that the boyfriend/girlfriend broke up, and have reentered the dating-market. Meanwhile, two persons who’ve shared romantic closeness, a house, and maybe a checking-account, but who have not married, are still “legally single”.
That's the way I would define "legally single".


A never-married person could be living with a partner, and have the appearance of and be living as a married couple would, but "legally", they would be defined as "single". By the same token, a married couple could be living independently of each other, with separate living quarters and income sources, but are not legally separated or divorced, so "legally", they are still a married couple, although they have the appearance of and be living as unmarried persons would.

Last edited by ged_782; 09-17-2019 at 09:06 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-17-2019, 09:27 AM
 
3,810 posts, read 2,917,394 times
Reputation: 4737
What would be an “illegally single retiree”?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-17-2019, 10:31 AM
 
8,318 posts, read 5,246,865 times
Reputation: 14154
Quote:
Originally Posted by slyfox2 View Post
What would be an “illegally single retiree”?
Mr. Rochester, in the novel Jane Eyre.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Retirement
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top