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.
Just a quick poll, so to speak, on who out there prefers which option. I have met very few marriage-minded men over 40, few at all, actually, but plenty of women who still care for the idea.
Why is a "shacking up" situation acceptable for those who choose it?
I shacked up before we married, we were engaged though. I have zero interest in dating someone long term who is not marriage minded (if I were single), and from my experience there is absolutely no shortage of men wanting to get married.
We are two 40-somethings in a long-term domestic relationship.
We are both long-time (introvert, loner) singles who didn't even really plan, want, or need to live together, but real estate got in the way. Basically we found a super-cool old house that neither of us wanted to live in/renovate alone.
We are lucky in that my SO's employer recognized DRs and offers them to all co-habitating couples, regardless of gender. I'm on his health plan, I'm his beneficiary(he's mine), we bought the house together. Life is good.
We prefer not to be "married" even though we are heterosexual, since we are not religious. We both view the current legal state of "marriage", as it exists in the United States, as a huge breach in the separation of church and state. Until ALL adults who desire to form legal unions are recognized by the US government, it's just not for us.
We have no plans for children, I'm a widowed empty-nester and he's divorced (we both married young...). For us, this works.
Also, just FYI, the term "shacking up" is pretty out-dated and offensive. How would the married folks feel if I referred to y'all as "joined at the hip"? Or called your spouse the "old ball and chain"?
I am going to let this one ride after one more comment. I am really regretful I ever posted the question. Not one person has stepped up in defense of marriage, and I am genuinely sad and appalled at the hate I see coming through these words of yours, regardless of the fact that you say you are not being hateful. You seem pretty angry, all things considered.
Well, some of us know that the dog-whistle phrase "defense of marriage" means limiting marriage to only certain pairings of consenting adults.
Personally, this atheist is very happy in his 16-year marriage (which was proceeded by 3 years of what you sneeringly refer to as 'shacking up'). He's also very happy to see that the institution is being extended (albeit it too slowly) to those couples who happen to be of the same gender as each other.
So you can chalk me up as another poster who you incorrectly view as 'not stepping up in defense of marriage'...
If you just "shack up".... then if you stay together till one of you dies, then you lose a lot of benefits....
There may be some benefits. Then again....
When my late wife died I got $255 from her Social Security to pay for her funeral, etc. That was it -- the sum total of "benefits".
Of course the funeral cost around $10,000. I also got to pay for her medical bills, and even after bc/bs paid their share, and after her organs were donated (which cut a small amount off the bill), I had to pay another $5,000 to the hospital. I had to pay that only because we were married.
My late wife and I were married when we were in our late 40s. Neither of us really planned to marry in the beginning, but after we'd been together for a few months we both knew we'd remain together for the rest of our lives, so we just decided to make it legal. We had no idea that the "rest of our lives" would only be a couple years.
My current wife moved in with me about 12 years ago. I mentioned marriage not long after that and she said she didn't want to get married again. No problem.
A couple years later she asked me if I intended to marry her. Heck, I thought we'd already had that discussion. She felt funny introducing me as her "boyfriend". I suggested she just use my name. That's how I introduced her. Turns out that also bugged her. So we got married. I must admit that I like it better that way. I like calling her my wife.
I don't know how old you are Jaybrown but I can tell you it does make a difference. If one of you get sick you have no say in treatment and in some cases you may not be allowed in to see them if it is for family only in a hospital. You are not considered family if you live together.
You are also not entitled to SS if one of you dies and you are not old enough for SS.
I know from experience you need to consider all things when you marry.
Well, my SO and I chose to "shack up" for numerous reasons. We wanted to be together all the time and at the time we moved in together we hadn't even shared I love you. That came later, secondly, we both had been married a couple times before, and neither of us were sure that's what we wanted to do, it was more economical, as we were always at his house...
I am not offended, call it whatever you want, I know in my heart what our deal is, what others think is not a factor in my decision.
Just a quick poll, so to speak, on who out there prefers which option. I have met very few marriage-minded men over 40, few at all, actually, but plenty of women who still care for the idea.
Why is a "shacking up" situation acceptable for those who choose it?
I prefer to shack up over getting married. Ive been married and divorced twice. Ive worked hard to obtain and keep my home/farm which I plan to pass on to my kids. At this point in my life, I see no reason to marry. Ive already built my life and had a family. Another marriage holds no positives for me.
I think that men, in general, are less interested in marriage than women. I doubt whether being over/under 40 has much to do with it.
Why are women more interested in marriage than men? In their child-bearing years, it undoubtedly has to do with the fact that they have more invested in the relationship (pregnancy & child-rearing). But at all ages, women are more interested in relationships and emotional bonding than men. Not to mention a long tradition of women being dependent (unwillingly) on men for financial and legal reasons.
Why do people choose to live together without getting married? Many reasons, including: (don't apply in all cases)
fear of commitment
not ready financially
want to test-drive before purchasing, so to speak
fear that things might not work out
bad luck in previous relationships/marriages
more interested in sleeping together than long-term commitment
fear that family won't accept the other person
etc.
---------------
As a side note, it's too bad this thread was hijacked by someone who really had nothing to contribute. The next time I find a thread on homosexuality, maybe I'll crash it and tell them how wonderfull heterosexually marriage is. I guess some people just need attention and will go out of their way to demand it. Poor fellow.
....and he didn't PROVE his commitment to her until he said some hollow words "Till death do us part" in front of a weirdo clergyman.
I have always put more stock in someones actions rather than someones words...
The words have nothing to do with it. It was the fact that he put it in writing and made it legal.
It's like if your parents (or anyone) tell you that "You will get this house one day." Them telling you that doesn't mean a hill of beans unless they have that statement backed up with legal documentation (will, deed, etc.).
I agree that actions speak louder than words. That's why I think taking the necessary steps to legally commit to someone means a lot more than just telling them you are committed to them.
The words have nothing to do with it. It was the fact that he put it in writing and made it legal.
It's like if your parents (or anyone) tell you that "You will get this house one day." Them telling you that doesn't mean a hill of beans unless they have that statement backed up with legal documentation (will, deed, etc.).
I agree that actions speak louder than words. That's why I think taking the necessary steps to legally commit to someone means a lot more than just telling them you are committed to them.
I can understand that, I just don't agree. But like I said, people should get married if they want too, but it's sort of silly to make marriage a "deal breaker" on what could otherwise be a very fufilling a loving relationship.
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.
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.
Heck, I thought we'd already had that discussion. She felt funny introducing me as her "boyfriend". I suggested she just use my name. That's how I introduced her. Turns out that also bugged her. 
So we got married. I must admit that I like it better that way. I like calling her my wife.
The next time I find a thread on homosexuality, maybe I'll crash it and tell them how wonderfull heterosexually marriage is. 
