IMHO, I don't think that a piece of paper should be relevant in this day and age.
If two people want to be together, then they will be together.
And if they don't any more, then, don't be together any more.
The piece of paper brings out the worst in people, way too much legality involved with it.

Fuck knows. My one and only attempt went tits up. But that's down to the dynamic not the institution. But still not sure it's necessary, if two people are committed (that's in love not the asylum) isn't it just a piece of paper?

Not for myself. If it works for others, who am I to say that it's not a good idea?

It's an unnecessary, antiquated, social construct.
It serves no useful purpose other than generating revenue for the government,
and divorce attorneys.

Unless minor children are involved, why?

I don't expect to remarry, I just want a long term shack up. There are financial penalties if I remarry, so I'd rather not go there.

I have no problem with marriage. At least if it doesn't work out, the law will decide who gets what, instead of coming home and FINDING ALL OF YOUR SHIT IS GONE! It took me two weeks to find my stuff. Living with someone or marriage, either one is fine with me.

I've always thought that the Ancient Egyptian method of 'marriage' (for want of a more suitable term) was one of the best.
A couple would mutually consent to spending 3 days ( the days being measured then from sunset to sunset) in the same house and Voila they are considered as being 'married.'
Should they decide to split up at any later time, then she would merely bundle up the belongings of the man, hand them to him through the door, retaining EVERYTHING that was hers, and they were then considered as being separate people again.No fuss, no lawyers, no division of property, etc.

Sure, why not? My parents are still together (41 years). There are a lot of people who have stayed married. There's also a lot of people who get divorce. Marriage can be tricky and complicated. For some people, marriage isn't for them, and that's ok.

The legal clarity is helpful in medical emergencies, unexpected death, etc. I think if people paid a lot more attention to prenups, divorces could be less stressful.

For me personally, no. I won't speak for anyone else.

I firmly believe that to have a marriage, the couple must have personalities that work together!

Depends on where you are in life. I'm glad I had 38 years of marriage and that we both had the protection of that piece of paper when it came to Financial issues. I'm also Overjoyed that I was lucky to find what I would consider a soulmate. I would love to have another soulmate but life's too complicated for older folks when it comes to marriage so I have no desire for marriage even though I do believe in that level of commitment.

There are still economic and legal issues involved. Marriage should be right for all but certainly not obligatory.

It's a matter of personal expectations and decisions. My wife and I have been happy together for 32 yrs. My parents were together (as far as i could tell happily) for over 50 yrs. 'til she passed. And all my siblings are still In their 1st tries in their mid 30 yrs.
I don't know. Maybe we're (and our wives) all just boring.

After trying it once and giving it everything I had, I don't see it in nearly the same way that I did before.

Going into it, I saw it as romance and a commitment to someone, that we'd have each other's backs. A few years in, it suddenly became her picking and choosing what parts of what she was doing that I got to join in on, what things she deigned to let me know what was important to her, and outright refusing to let me know how I could make things better when I saw a sudden drop in her engagement. Despite being shut out and isolated, I still was committed to fixing and improving things and saving the relationship right up until the day she moved in with one of our friends and his parents.

Now I see that marriage itself doesn't guarantee anything other than legal considerations. There is no extra dimension to the relationship that the costly ceremony adds - if you didn't have an exceptionally strong relationship that just works before getting married, you won't have one after.

I would still get married to the right person - there's the tax benefits, inheritance, medical decisions, and it's been shown to be be a major benefit to any children's development. I won't change how I treat my partner in the relationship, I'll still give it everything, but I won't take the fact that they married me as any indication of commitment beyond their behavior and treatment of me before we were married.

I certainly won't be having a religious ceremony, I've already had too much smoke and sunshine blown up my ass in that respect.

Something else that has tarnished my view of the institution is that in the last dozen years or so, I've seen marriage weaponized. Very many churches have been pushing their own particular set of beliefs as the only valid definition of marriage and used that to espouse hate towards people that don't belong to that particular faith (and it's narrow definitions of sexual orientation and gender) - despite it being present in more or less every religion mankind has dreamt up since we came up with ways to record records of it, they think they alone have a claim on the practice. I think that as a society, we should separate the legal and religious portions of the institution - all legal benefits and obligations come from a civil union, and all religious entanglements come from a separate, independent ceremony that carries no weight of law or legal requirements/enforcement. If you want the same thing that your parents had, you'd have to go through both ceremonies. If you want something functional, you get just the civil union, and if you want delusions, you go to church.

Getting married is like getting a dog license. You are subjecting yourself to more government bull shit and control. On top of that, any logical thinking entity would avoid it simply on the grounds that humans are far to unreliable, and promises are pretty much worthless in the face of time.

In theory, yes. But I just got out of a 32 year marriage with five grown kids. I'd like to get aquainted with being single, enjoy myself, and reestablish a strong me before I am able to recommit to make a strong "us".

But if the right person comes along, I wouldn't rule it out if we both want it.

Before I say another word, let me clarify that I love my wife and am commited to her. I made her a promise many years ago, she means a lot to me despite our many differences, and I'm a man of my word. That being said, I think it's absolutely ridiculous that marriage is still a thing. It's a tool of an archaic patriarchy designed to keep women "in their place," as it were. The Bible, on which modern marriage is based, makes it clear from the beginning that a woman's purpose is to serve a man. Still today as part of the ceremony, the father is asked "Who gives this woman im marriage?" As if he owns her, and as of the end of the ceremony she will be owned by her husband. Ownership of humans is obviously wrong, and even more so when the right is exclusive to one gender. I believe the government doesn't have in personal relationships and that marriage should be strictly religious.

I said 'yes', but I need to add caveats. First, it depends largely on the intents and purposes whether it should be marriage in the 'legal' sense, marriage in the 'traditional+legal' sense, or a solemn commitment between the participants.

The 'legal' and 'traditional+legal' both have the common element of being recognized by the state and there are manifold intents and purposes involved. Tax and property are generally accepted elements that are frequently not benefits of a personal commitment by the two parties without state involvement. Children from such unions have the benefit of an accepted identity with the state that may or may not be important, but it appears that it is more often important down the line.

If just the personal commitment is desired, then there is no need for the other two options. I the parties are religious or associated with some cultural traditions, the the 'traditional+legal' option -- or just the 'traditional' without state involvement is good.

Another of those 'chance-choice-pick a winner' deals.

I've been down that road twice. I'm skeptical that I am capable of doing it again. It would have to be someone really incredible, smart, sexy, sassy, funny, fun, optimistic, POSITIVE, and diverse. I might as well be asking for a fucking unicorn that shits $100 bills.

i never DID believe in marriage. so why, you ask, am i engaged to be married? well, it's mostly because my guy and i are old and poor and have medical issues and one of us could die at any second. being married would interfere with our skimpy benefits but guarantee the survivor some minimal security that our current relationship would not. as it stands now, we've been engaged since 2004, and we have a plan that if one of us is dying, we get married immediately. in the meantime, we have for some time now been cohabiting, and sometimes folks think we're married. our relationship is not defined by someone else's marriage, or a standard view of what marriage should be. it is what we make of it.

g

It's a long term financial contract engaged for the purpose of creating a positive environment for child rearing. Otherwise just be a couple without the financial entanglement.

Yes, I still believe in it which kinda surprises me.

It sounds like a large percentage on this site started out religious.