The "value" Of Marriage

[murtle]

There are at present no financial advantages to being married as the married person's allowance has been discontinued.

 

I don't think paying people to get married will improve the stability of society. In fact, if more people get married as opposed to living together there are likely to be more proportionately more divorces.

 

I have read the link and wonder what on earth David Cameron has in mind when he suggests "relationship classes".

 

 

At a guess I would suggest something like the marriage classes that Catholics have before getting married!

 

As much as people knock them, I think they can be quite useful and give tips on how to resolve things, work things through and raises issues that are useful to discuss before getting married and having children. Some very basic things, like "how would you want your children schooled"? simple/basic if your ideas are so far apart and you can't compromise it's going to cause problems further down.

 

x

[Allie No Dots]

Im the same as Kathy, living in sin with OH and kids lol OH has been married before ended (badly) and took years to sort the divorce out. Me n OH have been engaged for years, causally decided a few years ago to get married on such a date but never had time to sort it lol Since then its never been anything im too fussed about, tho my brother is getting married in a months time and the idea of having a major p1ss up sounds good. Thinking ill aim when the kids are older so they can stay with grandparents and i can have a holiday too tho lol As for kids, the only one who gives two hoots that we arent married is my 11 yr old and thats cos he wants to be andys best man lol

 

And thats what it means to me lol

[Red Rotties]

I like being married.................. this time............. didnt last time though

 

I am old fashioned enough to think if I am good enough to live with I am good enough to marry

 

Am I right in thinking though that there was at one time a "married man" tax allowance, so although Mr Cameron has worded it different its just an old thing re branded?

 

However my parenting skills were the same married, divorced, and married again so feel insulted when I am told its married people who make the better parents!

[ReikiAnge]

Am I right in thinking though that there was at one time a "married man" tax allowance, so although Mr Cameron has worded it different its just an old thing re branded?

 

Not sure about married man's tax allowance, but there was a married couple's tax allowance which either husband or wife could take, or it could be split I think. This was still in effect for a while after Rob and I got married (about 8.5 yrs ago). I had the allowance.

[Sheplover]

Anything that the government releases that isn't about giving money solely to children, homeless, people on drugs, single parents, benefit claimants is something I potentially welcome.

 

I am sick of slipping through the net of earning too much to receive any help, yet earning too little to actually make ends meet

[redditchlady]

Anything that the government releases that isn't about giving money solely to children, homeless, people on drugs, single parents, benefit claimants is something I potentially welcome.

 

 

 

But not all single parents and people on benefits are scroungers. Some can not help asking for the help.

 

I can see where you are coming from with certain people though. But we can not tar them all with the same brush. I really do think that is unfair.

 

Kazz xx

[Ian]

Personally I think the tax & benefits system is made far more complicated than it should or needs to be so I wouldn't really favour the proposal as such but I think the aim is to restore some equality to married couples after previous allowances were removed rather than to pay people to get married as it may appear to some.

 

Unfortunately whilst the intention is good I think Government may need to influence society through education etc rather than try to legislate on everything.

 

Personally I'm of the view that I would like to meet Miss Right have "2.2" children and live happily ever after - and in that order. I do view marriage as more of a commitment (though I view having children with someone as the biggest / best sign of committment) and would tend to think that the aim should be to live happily ever after and work at a marriage.

 

That's not to say that I judge anyone who does choose to live together, think they are automatically poor parents, oppose divorce or think people should stay together for the sake of the kids - sometimes, sadly divorce or seperation is both necessary and for the best - but I do think it has become far too easy for some to get married and divorced before either party really even knows the other properly & living together in that "state" is probably even more common.

 

There are certainly many young kids - and that's all they often are - having children and living together before they even know how to look after themselves let alone a child.

[Sheplover]

Anything that the government releases that isn't about giving money solely to children, homeless, people on drugs, single parents, benefit claimants is something I potentially welcome.

But not all single parents and people on benefits are scroungers. Some can not help asking for the help.

 

I can see where you are coming from with certain people though. But we can not tar them all with the same brush. I really do think that is unfair.

 

Kazz xx

I think you have mis interpreted my quote, it was not about one set of people or the motives behind their situation, merely the fact that *I* would like to see more schemes aimed at helping people who do not have children or who always fall on the wrong side of cut off points for tax credit (etc) payments.

[Annie]

I know exactly what you mean sheplover

It doesn't affect me now but when our children were young we applied for benefits etc hoping that it would mean I could stay at home with them until they started school. The result of it was that our income came to £10 over the benefit limit and we found ourselves poorer than those who qualified. I ended up having to go back to work when my youngest was 2 1/2.

It isn't a pop at anyone who can claim benefits genuinely, just an observation that the system can still fail people

[redditchlady]

I think you have mis interpreted my quote, it was not about one set of people or the motives behind their situation, merely the fact that *I* would like to see more schemes aimed at helping people who do not have children or who always fall on the wrong side of cut off points for tax credit (etc) payments.

 

 

Sorry if I misinterpreted you.

 

Re-reading the thread I can sort of see where you are coming from.

 

Good god I'm agreeing with you on a part of it. There is a first.

 

A bit like me and Dave. We ru=n a company. Just the 2 of us. Lots of people think we are well off. Not at all. We are struggling.

 

If things don't get better we may need to work for others apart from us. In other words fold the business. I don't see any other option.

 

I don't want any hugs or sympathy. Just stating facts.

 

Kazz xx

[mum24dog]

I don't mind if you do knock my views Kathy, i'm used to people taking the pee anyway I'm quite old fashioned in that respect i guess

 

I can only say what it would change for me as it obviously wouldn't change anything for some people and different things for others.

 

It would mean i was completely commited to that person for the rest of my life. To me it is the ultimate commitment, to make my marriage vows before God and promise to be with that person forever.

 

People can have that level of commitment without a piece of paper but only because they see it as a 'piece of paper' to me it is much much more.

 

Although i don't attend church regularly i am catholic so i guess that has a lot to do with it. If i were to get married on a football pitch for example it wouldn't be the same - that's when iit would turn into a 'piece of paper' to me. I wouldn't feel married unless it was in a church.

 

Does that make sense

 

 

I was pretty screwed up as a teenager, largely as a result of my parents seperating.

 

I was lucky enough to marry a man who held strong beliefs like your own and whose large extended family set a perfect example of what marriage and family life entailed.

Every one of his parents' generation was in a long and happy marriage and our generation followed suit. Our children and their cousins etc, have also (in the main) grown up stable, confident and able to sustain long term and mature relationships.

The only exceptions are cousins who lost their mother at a very early age and who still seem to be trying to find their way in life. Not that they are delinquent by any means - just that something seems to have been lacking in their lives, even though they had a lovely stepmother.

So whilst I don't make any moral judgement on those who choose not to marry, my own experience is that the stability that marriage can afford (if entered into with the right attitude) is beneficial and to be encouraged.

 

Pam

[KathyM]

My parents are married, so that's not the reason I chose not to marry this time around. I still don't understand how marriage offers any more stability than a long term relationship. I *do* get religious beliefs about marriage, I just don't get non-religious views of it being more "stable" than the commitment Baz and I have with no need for a certificate. Just doesn't make sense. Edited to add: Got to admit I don't get the inference that it has something to do with how I was raised either, unless it's about me not having being raised under a religion. I don't have any lower moral standards than anyone else here, I don't think (lol).

Edited July 12, 2007 by KathyM

[Maria]

I still can't find the words to adequately describe why marriage is important to me, but I don't of it as just a certificate.....

I did have a strict Irish Catholic background , and adored my Dad, so maybe partly it means more to me because it meant so much to him He was always telling me how I'd have the best wedding he could afford, and how he'd started to save for it (I was about 15), but he died before I got married.

Before my first marriage, we did have the 'lessons' with the Catholic priest, and it did cover a lot of ground that maybe when you are in love you don't consider to be issues.....so I felt like a complete failure twice over when I finally left my marriage after trying really hard to make it work (unreasonable behaviour which led to me the verge of a nervous breakdown).

I then went through a cynical phase of saying I'd never marry again, and that you can't be certain of anything anyway, etc etc and Chris and I lived together at first. That always felt 'temporary' iyswim, because it felt like either of us could have just packed a bag and disappeared ,and because there would be nothing to 'unravel', it felt less secure. Some people might think it keeps you on your toes......

After a couple of years we did decide to marry - not for a certificate, but probably because we wanted everyone to know we wanted to be together for the rest of our lives, and make a public declaration of that commitment. It was more important for Chris than for me at the time tbh, although his family are by no means religious (his parents married very young and have been together 50 years, but his sister has been married 3 times).

Probably not explained myself very well, but we weren't after a bit of paper.

[kiri_tc]

Anything that the government releases that isn't about giving money solely to children, homeless, people on drugs, single parents, benefit claimants is something I potentially welcome.

 

I am sick of slipping through the net of earning too much to receive any help, yet earning too little to actually make ends meet

 

You and me both!! I am married, i work night, OH works day and we have two children. We earn too much to get help, but too little make ends meet. We cannot afford childcare for me to be able to work days so i have to look after little one all day then work at night so i am knackered constantly, and spend no quality time with my family as one of us is always working.

 

yet my sister, lone parent, gets full childcare costs, money for clothes to attend interviews, Free college courses, full rent and council tax paid, and more money each month than me and OH earn together.

 

It makes me mad that the government is saying, go out have babies and we'll give you lots of money so you dont have to work.

 

I do realise that there are single people out there that do want to work, i am not tarnishing everyone with the same brush.

but i do feel that married couples (and that includes co-habiting!) should be given more help.

 

I wanted to go to college, OH earning, i wasnt at the time, but because OH earned too much (apparently) then i couldnt get any funding for college.

I'd love to know where they expected us to find the college fee when oH was on £900 a month. Rent £500, C.T £100 bills (not including food) £250

 

 

ETA cos i went off on a tangent there ooops

 

I dont think people should get married just becasue of an extra income, Marriage to me is a something you do when you really love someone and you want to be with them for the rest of your life.

I can see myself with my OH till the day i die and i value our marriage very very much.

Edited July 12, 2007 by kiri_tc

[cycas]

My parents are married, so that's not the reason I chose not to marry this time around. I still don't understand how marriage offers any more stability than a long term relationship. I *do* get religious beliefs about marriage, I just don't get non-religious views of it being more "stable" than the commitment Baz and I have with no need for a certificate. Just doesn't make sense. Edited to add: Got to admit I don't get the inference that it has something to do with how I was raised either, unless it's about me not having being raised under a religion. I don't have any lower moral standards than anyone else here, I don't think (lol).

 

Kathy, you are applying statements to yourself personally, and I don't think that this applies on that level. There are individuals who buck every 'rule', it's all down to personal choice.

 

A general statement 'relationships involving marriage tend to be more stable' does not mean that anyone is saying that individuals cannot have a perfectly stable relationship outside it. It's talking about national trends and tendencies.

 

This is the point I was trying to make before. It's not that having a special procedure and certificate makes a relationship more permanent. It's that people who want to enter long-term committed relationships and bring up children as a family long-term, are more likely to ALSO be the kind of people who want to proclaim their relationship publicly through a ceremony and official recognition.

 

Not all of them, of course, but on the whole, if you pick group 1: 100 people who want a long-term relationship and are prepared to work on it, and group 2, 100 people who don't like commitment, then you will *probably* get more people in the first group that like the idea of marriage. There will be people in Group 1 that don't fancy getting married as such, even though they do want a long-term committed relationship, and people in group 2 that like the idea of a honking great wedding with a huge white dress and a giant cake, even if they aren't going to stick with it afterwards, but both are likely to be among the minority within their groups.

 

What this proposal seems to be saying is that they think you can pay people to move from group2 to group1, and I am quite in agreement with you that this is just silly. It's not the piece of paper that makes the difference, it's the people. If you have the right sort of people, chances are that many of them will want the piece of paper, but if the people aren't committed, then adding paper won't help.