Marriage verses Living together for Seniors.

Going up Catholic I was taught it was a sin to live together before marriage...it took a while for me to undo that mentality. Today so many live together without marriage I start to wonder..what are the advantages of being married?
I was for 50 years then my partner died.I can not think of any reason I would remarry...
 

Serenity4321 said:
Going up Catholic I was taught it was a sin to live together before marriage...it took a while for me to undo that mentality. Today so many live together without marriage I start to wonder..what are the advantages of being married?
I was for 50 years then my partner died.I can not think of any reason I would remarry...
Click to expand...
Same here. My religion taught me it is a sin to live together before marriage. I know of several couples living together, but they don't have the same benefits as married couples (taxes, etc.).
 
Pinky said:
I would do away with the name changing for women when they marry. It's also a headache once divorced, to go through all that again.
Our married daughter wisely kept her maiden surname.
Click to expand...
My daughter kept her maiden name but only to use in her profession I believe, (maybe scanned slightly better or something like that, and no need to confuse everyone so far as any of her published papers).

I wouldn't do away with the tradition concerning name changes, though I can see how there may be issues for some folks, changing then changing again, or back and forth.
 
palides2021 said:
Same here. My religion taught me it is a sin to live together before marriage. I know of several couples living together, but they don't have the same benefits as married couples (taxes, etc.).
Click to expand...
I heard a radio debate where an avowed aethist, (if not Satanist), was set up to argue against an articulate avowed Christian, and subjects like the one you mentioned arose.

The striking thing for me is the difficulty the avowed atheist has with anyone believing other than he does, and the troubles throughout history he's decided apply to condemn religion "without question"!

Another source of information or religious argument I've come across recently is to be found in a book by Libby Purvis, called " Holy Smoke", covering her early years being educated in a large number of girls convent schools, (as her fathers job took them to live in countries around the globe).

She states her upbringing left her with mainly very positive memories of schooldays, and thereafter she rejected all religion, (as her lapsed Presbyterian father had done), only to return to it to a degree. However, the point is a much more nuanced view was put forward, though she admits how much the girls had crushes on boys etc., regardless of whether they were supposed to feel guilty or not. :)
 
Last edited:
palides2021 said:
Same here. My religion taught me it is a sin to live together before marriage. I know of several couples living together, but they don't have the same benefits as married couples (taxes, etc.).
Click to expand...
Have you changed your mind as to the 'sinfulness' ..I have. šŸ˜ƒ And for the taxes..I thought marriage taxes were higher than filing single..maybe I am wrong..And for the medical decisions, I understand forms can be filed to give medical decision-making to anyone?
So lol I can't see the advantages in marriage anymore..but I probably am not the best to offer an opinion since I was with my late husband for 50 years...I don't think I would have just lived together.
 
Pinky said:
I would do away with the name changing for women when they marry. It's also a headache once divorced,
to go through all that again.

Our married daughter wisely kept her maiden surname.
Click to expand...
As far as I know, a woman doesn't need to change her name on marriage. I use to work with a guy who had fallen out with his family so, when he got married, he used his wife's surname so, when they had a child together, the child had the wife's surname too.
 
There are economic and legal reasons for marriage. Whether one agrees with it or not - and I don't, BTW - it is simple fact.

Not being married makes it more difficult to pass on assets to a partner. You can do it, but you had better make a valid legal document (or several, in the case of our state) that conforms to your state laws, or it's useless. Your partner, regardless of how long you've lived together, will have no legal status or rights compared to the most remote of your family members.

We knew a self-employed guy, a vet and skilled handyman, who had divorced but was on very good terms with his ex-wife. They were best friends; he even brought her over to meet us. She was a delightful woman.

One day he was in an auto accident. Severely injured, spent time in convalescent facility, then was advised he needed to be in asst. living or hire someone as caretaker as he was no longer judged competent to handle his affairs. He wanted his ex-wife to be his healthcare agent and they had drawn up the documents, including a will. We had asked them about it once and they assured us they had done all the paperwork necessary.

BUT THEY NEVER SIGNED THEM.

They thought such documents needed notarized signatures, and they just had never gotten around to doing it.

If they had only mentioned that fact to us, we could have told them that our state changed that law over a decade ago! All that was needed was signatures of any two people. My spouse and I were right there and could have signed to make his documents legally binding.

As a result, his ex-wife could only watch as his sister, with whom he had never been close to in a case of mutual dislike, came in from out of state, put him in a vet nursing home, sold off everything he owned (including his house), took all the money and went back to her home.

His ex-wife believes he could have managed just fine with a day worker along with her own help (his affairs were fairly simple). But she had no legal standing at all. Zip. Nada. None.

As for those of you who believe in common-law marriages, please do check your state laws. Our state changed its law about that decades ago, and it is no longer true. No marriage license, NO RIGHTS.

And no, I don't believe I was living in sin for the first seven years of my relationship with my spouse. Counting those seven years we've been together for 48 very happy years!
 
Lethe200 said:
There are economic and legal reasons for marriage. Whether one agrees with it or not - and I don't, BTW - it is simple fact.

Not being married makes it more difficult to pass on assets to a partner. You can do it, but you had better make a valid legal document (or several, in the case of our state) that conforms to your state laws, or it's useless. Your partner, regardless of how long you've lived together, will have no legal status or rights compared to the most remote of your family members.

We knew a self-employed guy, a vet and skilled handyman, who had divorced but was on very good terms with his ex-wife. They were best friends; he even brought her over to meet us. She was a delightful woman.

One day he was in an auto accident. Severely injured, spent time in convalescent facility, then was advised he needed to be in asst. living or hire someone as caretaker as he was no longer judged competent to handle his affairs. He wanted his ex-wife to be his healthcare agent and they had drawn up the documents, including a will. We had asked them about it once and they assured us they had done all the paperwork necessary.

BUT THEY NEVER SIGNED THEM.

They thought such documents needed notarized signatures, and they just had never gotten around to doing it.

If they had only mentioned that fact to us, we could have told them that our state changed that law over a decade ago! All that was needed was signatures of any two people. My spouse and I were right there and could have signed to make his documents legally binding.

As a result, his ex-wife could only watch as his sister, with whom he had never been close to in a case of mutual dislike, came in from out of state, put him in a vet nursing home, sold off everything he owned (including his house), took all the money and went back to her home.

His ex-wife believes he could have managed just fine with a day worker along with her own help (his affairs were fairly simple). But she had no legal standing at all. Zip. Nada. None.

As for those of you who believe in common-law marriages, please do check your state laws. Our state changed its law about that decades ago, and it is no longer true. No marriage license, NO RIGHTS.

And no, I don't believe I was living in sin for the first seven years of my relationship with my spouse. Counting those seven years we've been together for 48 very happy years!
Click to expand...
I experienced something very similar with my (American) fiance when he was dying and after he died. No marriage licence, no rights. It was a nightmare.

Meanwhile, in Canada they have this thing where if you live together for a few years, it's almost the same as being married. I guess it's supposed to protect someone, but it also means someone has responsibilities they didn't sign up for. I think it's wrong. If the couple wanted to be married, they'd get married.
 
Trish said:
As far as I know, a woman doesn't need to change her name on marriage. I use to work with a guy who had fallen out with his family so, when he got married, he used his wife's surname so, when they had a child together, the child had the wife's surname too.
Click to expand...
I like the idea of not changing the name and actually like hyphenating with both last names..but that can get too cumbersome depending on how long the names are..
 
Real estate corps would probably find numbers of customers in this current era if they offered shared living housing that provided secure bedroom, workspace, isolation from shared kitchen, living room, bathroom, laundry room, parking etc. That way people could gradually learn to live with prospective mates. Also would be a way for semi shared living of say relatives or friends that don't yet trust others or their friends.

https://california.staterecords.org/commonlawmarriage
 
I met a woman today that I thought was about in her late 50ā€™s. She dropped her age during the conversation that she was 75. She told me she was getting a divorce from her husband of 40 years. I like dating women in their late 50ā€™s to no older than 65. I have to admit she had me fooled. I would have sworn she was in her mid to later 50ā€™s.
 
katlupe said:
I prefer neither. Having been married three times it took my whole life to discover I do not like marriage or living with anyone.
Click to expand...
Good discovery for you katlupe. Many people are frightened to live alone. They fear lonliness will be overwhelming. There is also so much "social noise/pressure" to be in a relationship. Homes, cars, and lawns all require maintenance. So does a marriage. Sometimes the maintenance isn't worth it. Living alone can be wonderful.....no compromises, going on new adventures, learning new things. Allowing yourself to be yourself. There are three of us in my home....me. myself, & I. We all get along.
 
jimintoronto said:
Here in Canada if 2 people live together for longer that a year, they MAY call themselves a Common law couple under law . That has legal consequences, especially around income taxes and shared property. JimB.
Click to expand...
Here in the US, the duration of cohabitation varies from state to state. For a very brief time in Calif, you could claim common law the day you moved in as long as you brought your toiletries with you. Needless to say, courts were deluged with lawsuits and various domestic-related filings. I think it's currently 9 months of continuous cohabitation, and 2 separate toothbrush.

I married young, divorced young, and lived with a few ladies over the decades since. I married recently; it'll be 2 years in April; and, for the first time in my life, I bought a house. I put a huge chunk of money on it, so we can pay what's owed in under 2 years. I did this because my kids said go for it, they don't need what I had nor what I have left. I'm very much in love with my wife, and I want her to have a house and whatever's left in my accounts and whatnot when I die, which will most likely be many years before she does.

We could have lived together, but even in Calif, marriage will make it a lot easier, faster, and cheaper for Michelle to take full ownership of everything I want her to have.
 
I may have said this earlier on the thread, or on another recent thread, but here in the UK it is the increasing numbers living together rather than marrying in the last twenty five years that strikes me.

Up by about 150% in that time, and as others have commented above the legal position of those unmarried after they split is very different, meaning they have little or no rights in most of the UK.

(btw twenty five years ago new laws on divorce, and contact with any children came in, so "cause and effect" maybe?)
 
Well the Social Security Administration is contributing to seniors "living in sin". LOL Widows will lose their husbands' benefits if they remarry but not if they cohabitate. Although I realize "shacking", as we used to call it, is very much a no no for Muslims (and maybe still with Christians as well) I think at our age we should be able to choose for ourselves what works best. Like @oldaunt I am not interested in doing either since I no longer want or need to be in a relationship.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top