If this isn't a good reason not to get married, nothing is. It's a checklist my buddy's wife made him. Fuck his life.
I think this board has touched on the subject of marriage many times before and in more depth. I'm more interested in those who switched sides on the debate. What made you change your mind? Did you do it because it was important to the other person, or was there some moment or experience that inspired you to want to get hitched? (I would say the same thing about people who used to be pro-marriage and then became bitter or jaded, but that's just too easy...)
Keep in mind that the 50% divorce rate includes every shotgun wedding, every abusive relationship, every immature cheating asshole/bitch, and all manner of personality defects, stupidity and ignorant behavior that may not apply to you. Divorce rates are lower in the Northeast, lower among Atheists, lower among people who didn't knock up their date at prom, etc. Yes there are well considered marriages that just don't make it, but the rate is much lower than the oft-quoted 50%. Conversely, if you are an 18 year old abusive redneck babdaddy who's fucking tammy down by the crick and lou-ann who works at the piggly-wiggly on top of your marriage, then your chances are worse than 50%.
My parents are much the same. They were married for about 15 years, had 3 kids and decided to call it quits. However, after a few rocky years during/after divorce proceedings, my parents were and remain good friends. We still spend holidays (birthdays, Thanksgiving, Christmas morning) together. My dad* has let my mom and her boyfriend stay at his home, and he is often invited to hers. We have vacationed all over the world together and as long as there are seperate hotel rooms, everything is dandy. I have a similar relationship with my baby daddy. We get along fairly well and still enjoy each other's company. FOCUS: All of the above makes me comfortable with leaping into marriage quickly. If the most popular refrain is "What's the rush?", mine would be "Why wait?" Life is short and people make mistakes, but I trust my judgement. Happiness doesn't happen on a timeline. Even if a marriage doesn't last, it could still be considered successful. *An interesting note: My father refuses to call my mother an "ex-wife". He finds it vulgar. He always introduces her as his "former wife". The man is the epitome of class.
I mean, if you don't believe in that whole "till death do us part" thing you're on stage promising each other during your wedding, then yeah, I guess you can consider a marriage ending in divorce a successful marriage.
Anyone go with non-traditional vows? Cause to be honest these traditional ones are lame: "I will now read these special vows which Homer has prepared for this occasion. "Do you, Marge, take Homer, in richness and in poorness" -- poorness is underlined -- "in impotence and in potence, in quiet solitude or blasting across the alkali flats in a jet-powered, monkey- navigated"... [consults the notecards] ... and it goes on like this. -- Rev"
All I'm saying is that divorce rates and potential to fail shouldn't be cause to wait, which is where I perceived the thread to be heading. I'm not advocating to enter into any arrangement lightly or to say "til death do us part" without meaning it. But to be hesitant out of fear is silly.
I've always imagined that my marriage will be a solid business arrangement where we agree to share our assets in order to raise a child who can function in society. But I'm a hopeless romantic, so what do I know?
I knew I should get married when I saw my wife. The very first thought, the first time I saw my wife was, I am going to marry her. I don't care how many of you are going to call bullshit, but that is just how it happened. I had just turned 21 and was on a trip with my then girlfriend when she introduced me to my wife. When I saw her, I had to get married. The time was now. I wasted no time in proposing. 4 months. Now wait, before you go apeshit and say i am going to fast, I didn't get married until just last year. It seemed like the worlds longest engagement. Something like 4 years. The first 2 years of that she lived 2,000 miles away finishing college. Some people might say I was crazy, and that is okay. Love and marriage is different for everyone. I just know that it was right for my wife and I. I know i can share the rest of my life with this amazing person. And I tell her that everyday.
My wife and I took turns reading the ingredients list from a bag of Doritos, after which we led the attendees in a chorus of "It's Raining Men". Then the pastor gave a rambling sermon during which he basically came out of the closet.* * One of these two sentences is true. Guess which one it is
There's a pretty big ol' middle ground that a lot of sane, reasonable people sit in. You know, between the people who profess to love someone after the first date, and the ones who hire a private investigator to follow their spouses around for six years. I agree wholeheartedly with the idea that you really need some time to get to know someone - and you need to live with them. But there has to be a trust element involved, too - you can't hedge against everything. Have a little faith. My girlfriend and I have been together for more than 7 years. Neither of us is interested in marriage, simply because neither of us wants a wedding and we both view the "married by the state" piece as just an odd paperwork process that doesn't mean anything. If she wanted to get married, I would - I don't have a serious objection to it. We've been living together for 6 years, bought and sold a house, she supported me while I was in school and now I'm putting her through grad school... there's no lack of commitment. Just a lack of interest in being Mr. and Mrs. or throwing an expensive party. If we wanted kids, I'd probably want to get married simply to provide the kid(s) with a "normal" household and some legal bounds around the kids and property, but we don't.
For the vast majority of people, men and women, marriage is a bad idea. I've seen some (I stress some) really good marriages that work and the people are still crazy about one another 20 years in. Most marriages don't get there. From an informal survey of about 15 of my friends, I'd say over half have been divorced at least once, 6 are still married, 2 of them happily, and the other 2 are contemplating divorce, but not getting out right now due to kids. Your odds are not good. As I've gotten older, I've realized that a lot of wisdom is understanding that the odds DO APPLY TO YOU. Sure, when you're young and 'in-love' you figure "Hey, it's love, we'll make it, we'll be the ones to beat the odds." In short, no you won't. My position used to be 'if you want kids, then get married.' I've revised that, as a couple of friends have been contemplating getting married and as I put it to them: "What's cheaper? Child Support AND Alimony? Or just Child Support?" Like I said, the odds apply to the overwhelming majority of people, no matter how unique or special you feel. So in general, don't do it, you'll probably come to regret it.
Since everyone is throwing around the "half of all marriages end in divorce" line willy-nilly, I'd like to remind you that you have to be applying statistics correctly if you want to apply statistics. First of all, that statistic is bunk. Researchers actually believe that even at its worst, it never topped 41%, and has been declining since the early 1980s. Even the most divorce-happy demographic groups have never topped 50%. Secondly, divorce data is dominated by people who marry young, poor, with little education, and repeatedly. The people who get divorced are disproportionately those who you would expect to have problems. Especially if they live in the Bible belt. For example, if you limit the sample to people who marry at age 25 or later, the rate drops to something like 20%. Similar drops occur if you limit the data to college-educated spouses. The divorce rate in Alabama is more than twice the divorce rate in Massachusetts. If you are well-educated, an adult of reasonably mature age, and have a decent source of income, you aren't looking at anything like 50%.
So, aside from the potential financial considerations in a divorce, what are your reasons for being against marriage? Heartache? What's different about breaking up after a long-term co-habitated relationship and getting divorced, aside from alimony/splitting of assets? Let me ask you this, if you lived with somebody for 10 years but never decided to get married or have kids, and then one day decided to break up and move on, do you think it would be fair to split up the wealth you had accumulated? My wife and I lived together for 3 years before getting married. We moved across the country together for my job before we were even engaged. We've since moved across the country again for another promotion, and as a result, her career has been put on the back-burner twice. Chances are, we'll move again sometime over the next 3-5 years, and it will most likely be for my job. Because of these moves, my earnings have more than tripled and hers have actually declined by about 15%. Together, we're doing far better than we were when we first met, although she has sacrificed her own career quite a bit. Let's say this trend continues for another 5 years. We'll continue to live a much better lifestyle, although it's not likely that her career will ever flourish the way mine has. Now hypothetically, let's say that we were never married...just a really nice couple that lived together and loved each other without the "contractual" obligation. At the end of 10 years we decide to break up. Do you think it would be fair for me to say, "hey, thanks for coming along for the ride, but you're not getting any of this shit, because I bought 95% of it. Sorry you made sacrifices for me...that's just how it goes."
A few short follow up questions: Alimony is a zero-sum game. Ensuring the receipt of alimony is just as important to the would-be recipient as avoiding payment is to the would-be payor. Does everyone here, even the women, envision themselves as potential payors? If so, what inferences can be drawn about out collective opinion of alimony recipients? Isn't that because those are the people who are most cautious about marriage in the first place? Isn't it bad statistics to suggest that the people in that group should worry the least about divorce? How did the conversation go? Did you beg her to move with promises to support her or did she see this as an opportunity to take the pressure off her own career and transition into a stay-at-home role? If you had a chance to get the same job where she could also max her earnings, would she have preferred that?
Yes and no. Several of the factors are stressors on a marriage. For example, marrying when poor is likely to cause stress and thus leads to divorce. So it's not pure selection bias. But also, my point is that it is silly to waggle fingers at people who have given ample consideration to their circumstances and are in good positions to many because of these aggregate level statistics. The numbers that are being used to dissuade them are too aggregated to be applicable. Not all marriages are equal when viewed in context of the likelihood of divorce. It's like talking to someone considering an Ivy League college and quoting national dropout rates at them. Well yes, but how many people drop out of Yale? Very few.
This is ridiculous and completely misses the point. His point is to be used as an example - nit-picking the details is not useful or relevant. The point is that the splitting up of belongings and earnings after a prolonged relationship of any kind is often a lot more equitable than the knee-jerk reaction of "well, I earned most of the money" would indicate. So what if she did want to be a stay-at-home mom? What is the precise financial contribution of not having to leave work to pick up the kids at daycare? Or never having to take a sick day when the kids are sick? Or being given freedom to focus on work, maybe working late, resulting in increased productivity? How do you measure that? Relationships are give-and-take, and just because the "give" part of the equation isn't always measured in dollars doesn't mean that it doesn't have financial value.
REALLY? Life is a risk? Holy shit, no one told me! Of course there's a lot of risk. But like with any risk, a prudent individual weighs the costs versus the benefits. Can love be quantified? Well, a cynic would say that is precisely what divorce courts do. My point is this, certain risks don't have a corresponding pay off for that risk. Male or female, you are risking quite a bit (beyond the financial) that things are going to work out and nothing is going to go wrong. Would I, as a friend, say to my friend, 'hey, yeah, a lot of folks get addicted to heroin, but life is a risk!!! Shoot up!!! No, I wouldn't, because the downside considerably outweighs the upside. Though marriage and heroin addiction are quite different, the concept of upside/downside still applies. What you are risking with a marriage: potential future financial security, emotional well being, potential job opportunities, and your freedom. What's the upside (if it works): you have a lifelong companion, a good family and financial security. Of course there are other upsides and downsides, I'm just naming a few. Anyway, if the odds are against you, and they are... Hey, try reading the entire article if you're going to quote it. Here, let me help you. Wow, so uh, yeah. I understand statistics perfectly well, and if we look at the divorce rate for people under the age of 5, it's 0%!!!!!! See any issue with that statistic? Anyway. And if shit doesn't work out, well, she's probably got a hole career wise to dig herself out of, in addition to the heartbreak, potential move, and feeling of failure that will accompany a potential divorce. Look, I'm not against marriage, I'm really not. When it works, it works really really great. When it doesn't (and most don't, beyond divorce, there are plenty of unhappily married people that are together not because they're happily married, but for other reasons), then both sides are risking quite a bit. I am merely pointing out (unlike a whole shitload of people who for some reason believe marriage should be the end game of pretty much relationship) that you (in this case my friends) better stop and think, because this isn't a happy meal that if you're not thrilled with you can throw away, suck up the 5 dollars poorly spent and move on with your life none the worse for wear. We're talking about your happiness and your life. Jesus Christ, people, did Captain Obvious have the day off and some of you decided to step in and help him out while he's on vacation? Of course it's a zero sum game. Unless you're the one paying the sum. If a friend asks me what's the potential bad side of something, I usually include financial considerations if there are any. Like in a potential marriage. It doesn't matter if my friend is male or female, the downside is they could end up paying for the privilege of not having their former significant other around anymore. Will they? I don't know, but the potential is certainly there. Would I counsel a friend 'but hey, if it doesn't work out, YOU might get a check every month!!!!' Yeah, that seems a bit sleazy and creepy to even this admittedly creepy and sleazy guy.
Sorry, is there anyone under 5 here? No? If you "understand statistics perfectly well," you'll understand that the demographics are extremely important to any kind of numbers like that. It's perfectly reasonable to say that the country-wide statistic that's weighted heavily toward young and/or uneducated people is not applicable to a primarily older, educated crowd.