Having experienced both, my vote goes to long-term relationships over marriage.
They aren't very different from one another. Marriage only provides legal recognition of the relationship. The ending of either provides the same basic emotional upheaval. The biggest difference is that marriage is FAR more expensive to get out of, and the long-term ramifications can last for years. If I were to ever enter into another relationship, there is no way I'd be open to marriage again. Been there, done that, burned the t-shirt.

Defiantly long term!! So many reasons I can't list them all lol. One pro to marriage is tax benefit lol.

LTR committed to myself, a.k.a. autonomy.

I kinda want a cabana boy that will do my bidding and make me coffee hahahahaha really though i don't see the benefit of getting married at this point unless for legal/tax reasons

I was in a long term relationship, 18 years. At times we thought about marriage but we never did. Boy am I glad because it was easier to walk away when shit hit the fan.

In years past there were definite advantages to being married now there are less benefits to it. I would urge you to watch this video.

Long term relationship, definitely. I understand people wanting a ceremony to celebrate their relationship with people close to them, but the property aspect of marriage is a bit archaic.

I have no problem admitting when I'm wrong. Like that one time I got married.....

Been there wrecked that. I honestly can tell I will not be getting married again. Totally open to an LTR and cohabitation.

I believe in marriage with the right person. I think it is best to live together for a while to REALLY get to know each other and only then get married.

Single..loving it..

That’s a damn good question, one I can’t even suggest an answer to for my own daughters.. The ‘till death do we part’ stuff comes quite natural, we’d die for our mates. But it rarely lasts. And, it’s an excellent way to eventually lose your family’s century farm…

In order to keep ‘gay marriage’ from happening here in the US, ‘unwed partnerships’ appeared to have been given nearly equal status to marriage. I’d keep it at that. You can both agree on a ‘child’s name,’ but keep your inheritance, income and assets separate. Tuff call.. I’d get with an attorney specializing in such stuff and familiar with your local laws, and go from there. Don’t worry about the fees, as they might spare you the most expensive mistake of your life ~

Ya gotta do what ya gotta do...
Divorce is really freakin expensive though...!!!!

At my age, safad, LTR. Been the other route (more than once) and after a certain point, marriage is quite pointless. Besides, marriage, though technically a civil union, was an instrument of the church for eons, and was a way of controlling women. I believe it's an archaic institution.

I believe that every marriage license should have an end date. The initial term should be 5 years, and after 5 years the marriage would be over. If both parties believe that the marriage should continue, then a new marriage license for 5 years could be granted.

After the next 5 years, if both wanted to have the marriage continue, then longer periods could be requested ... and upon the judge's consideration (no domestic brawls, etc.) be approved. I think that if both parties thought that the marriage would end at a particular date, and they weren't stuck in it, then marriages would be much happier and most likely there will be a lot less spousal abuse.

And actually, there should only be civil unions. A marriage is a device of a religion and should not be recognized by a secular government. The government can recognize a marriage as a civil union (after the correct paperwork has been completed) and then grant the marriage a "civil union" status, but only civil unions should be the instrument of two individuals tying the knot.

That way, the government would control who gets to be the partner of whom - and not the churches.

I have no problem admitting when I'm wrong. Like that one time I got married.....

Been there wrecked that. I honestly can tell I will not be getting married again. Totally open to an LTR and cohabitation.

It depends on the people involved. The best answer is a combination. Long term friends to see if they are compatible. Then, if there are legal concerns marriage perhaps with pre-nups.

I have been married, twice and had a LTR (I thought the military was bad about acronym's). The first marriage and LTR failed but the 2nd marriage was successful. My late wife wanted to get married, but afterward realized that wasn't as important as she thought. It turned out it was very important due to legal and health benefits.

it's the same thing but marriage is some old-time religious based bullshit that like death costs you lots of money.

I don't think there is anything wrong with marriage if it meets your needs. I think we could do better on the specifics. Author Robert Heinlein, in some of his books, discussed ideas of marriage that included limited term marriage and group marriage. The key being that it was mostly a legal contract that fully spelled out duration and how it ended in advance, so there would not be surprises. I think that we should shift our thinking around what marriage entails, and allow for a flexible design process that produces a contract the people involved can agree on. Much like any business merger. Barring that, I think LTRs are a better idea.

Sounds like a bad game show... door # 1 or... ... back in the day, those options weren’t so ”socially acceptable”, choosing today... no question, opt for long term.

I just finalized my second divorce a coupe of weeks ago. I'm done with marriage.

Only been on a marriage once, for 19 years. Marriage do not come with love certification. But I am proud my 3 kids were from the same marriage/woman. Long term won't guarantee you anything different that marriage do on a sentimental aspect. Whatever the adults prefer to do. I never wore a wedding ring. I did not demanded her to wore hers and deep down... my disregard for the rings since I don't do jewelry may have sealed the deal for divorce... I guess my preference is Love and no... I was not miserable while married. I will be hard to catch because... I will not do companionship for the sake of companionship. Alone is my natural state... if I choose someone to be witness to my life... She will be worth every minute of every moment. With or without a married license. I prefer Love, for as long we can make it last under the commitment of a Collective Freedom between Equals.

I think it all depends on what you do for a living, and whether or not you can protect your assets in the even that one of you dies. My sister’s husband was a marine, and was killed on July 10 when his C-130 fell apart over Mississippi. Because she was married, she had access to everything, even over Brendan’s parents. She got to decide where he was buried (Arlington), she decides what happens to his assets.

One of the other wives, on the other hand, was only engaged, and she had access to nothing. None of his benefits, his retirement, anything. That all went to his family. Fortunately, they’re good people and are taking care of her, but that might not always be the case. Even in states with common-law marriages, there can be issues.

If you’re thinking long-term, but not “full-term,” it might not be as big of a deal. Or if you live in a state, or have wills made up (which can be fought) things like that in place, then that might works as well. But you never know what the future holds.

Basically what I’m saying is this: whether you “marry” or not, you’re still going to need to make a legal commitment to each other in one form or another.

I can't think of a single benefit of marriage.

The marriage trend is ending. People today are more individualistic than ever & cohabitation is just as rewarding as marriage without the law/lord into it.