Adult children and their partners visiting parents …

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

The legal piece of paper that married couples have is documentation of a legal commitment that unmarried people have not made. The deed to your house is on a piece of legal paper. The title to your car is on a piece of legal paper. Your will is on a piece of legal paper. Paper legal statements are very important parts of our lives, and not to be underestimated. It's a very different experience in life to not own a house, not own a car, not inherit anything via a will, than it is to have those pieces of paper. Likewise, just living together is completely different from being married.

An unmarried person can choose to walk out on a dependent partner and have no financial obligation to the spouse at all. (Yes, I've heard of common law but it isn't a viable protection in most places without something having been put into writing.) Child support can be required, but that's it. Unmarried cohabitation is a legally uncommitted situation, and is not in the same category as marriage at all.

Common law in my state is recognized legally (and applies to things like taxes, assets, debts, child support, custody of children, etc) and if you want to split you actually have to go through the formal process of divorce. Guess my state didn't get the memo of a piece of paper dictating a legal commitment.

Obviously I am talking about two people who present themselves as married (a requirement in my state) but more speaking to your piece of paper definition of what a marriage is.

 

[Cheburashka]

Common law in my state is recognized legally (and applies to things like taxes, assets, debts, child support, custody of children, etc) and if you want to split you actually have to go through the formal process of divorce. Guess my state didn't get the memo of a piece of paper dictating a legal commitment.

Obviously I am talking about two people who present themselves as married (a requirement in my state) but more speaking to your piece of paper definition of what a marriage is.

"Presenting yourselves as married" typically requires something in writing, or else you're going to have to call witnesses to testify in court during the breakup to try to prove a common law marriage. If you've just been living together, people aren't going to be able to say under oath that you've been presenting yourselves as married, unless you've both gone around saying "husband" and "wife", which most unmarried couples do not do. People testifying, "yeah, they've lived together for 20 years & have 3 kids together" is not evidence of the couple presenting themselves as married. They have to specifically have publicly said they are married.

So yeah, for the vast majority of cohabitating couples in Texas (I'm assuming this is your state, as it's also mine & I know the law here), common law isn't going to give them the benefits of marriage, because most cohabitating couples don't publicly declare marriage. This is because one or both of them don't want or aren't ready for the legal and financial commitment of marriage.

 

[Cheburashka]

Duplicate

 

[lilmc]

It’s not 1850. I really don’t care who sleeps where, but if you leave wet towels on the ground, I’m going to care.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

"Presenting yourselves as married" typically requires something in writing, or else you're going to have to call witnesses to testify in court during the breakup to try to prove a common law marriage. If you've just been living together, people aren't going to be able to say under oath that you've been presenting yourselves as married, unless you've both gone around saying "husband" and "wife", which most unmarried couples do not do. People testifying, "yeah, they've lived together for 20 years & have 3 kids together" is not evidence of the couple presenting themselves as married. They have to specifically have publicly said they are married.

So yeah, for the vast majority of cohabitating couples in Texas (I'm assuming this is your state, as it's also mine & I know the law here), common law isn't going to give them the benefits of marriage, because most cohabitating couples don't publicly declare marriage. This is because one or both of them don't want or aren't ready for the legal and financial commitment of marriage.

No I'm not in TX and no you don't have to have something in writing in my state. Not going to lie a strange thought that people who define themselves as in a common law marriage (and qualify for it) aren't ready for the legal and financial commitment of marriage, in my state if you meet the qualifications for a marriage of common law then that's what you are..

• First, both parties must have the capacity to marry, meaning that there's no legal impediment, or bar, to the marriage. This essentially means that the spouses can't be closely related, can't be married to someone else, must be old enough to marry, and must have the mental and physical ability to marry.
• Second, the parties have a "present agreement" to marry. A present agreement to marriage doesn't have to take any particular form and no writing is required. What's necessary is that two people intend to be spouses. A present agreement to marry can be inferred either from the behavior of the two people involved or the way in which they mutually recognize each other as spouses.
• Third, the parties "hold each other out" to their family, friends, and the community as a married couple. This means that the couple does and says things that puts others on notice that they believe they're spouses. If the couple has a general reputation as being spouses in a marital relationship, that's enough to satisfy this requirement.

There are a variety of behaviors that partners can exhibit that show they are "holding themselves out" to others as a married couple. For example:

• They can characterize each other as "husband," "wife," or "spouse" when talking to other people.
• They can sign documents reflecting that they're married.
• They can file joint tax returns.

There's no minimum time that couples have to live together ("cohabitation") before they have a valid common law marriage.

The thing that I'm not sure you see is that you're characterizing unmarried couples and not recognizing common law. I'm not professing to say all couples are in a common law marriage who haven't gone to get a marriage license but the way you talk about it is that you don't consider a marriage at all because of that. You keep saying unmarried couples but talking about qualifications for common law. If the state allows for it, they meet the qualifications of it stop referring to those people as unmarried..because they are in fact married, common law albeit.

I know this is a weird tangent for this thread lol

 

[goofyernmost]

I think we are at an impasse.

I don't see it is as black and white as you do, and that is ok. By what I have read you see all of it as a manipulative maneuver to control feelings and I don't. That's cool. No hard feelings but I will never agree with your stance.

Moving on...

First of all, I'm not trying to convince you, I am merely trying to present a thought that you might not have had about the reactions to your actions. You are indeed free to do whatever you want in your own home, but for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Getting your own way, doesn't always mean you won. It means only for that one occasion you got what you wanted. Your guests might not mind ever and might be of the same mind set as you, but then you wouldn't be having this discussion at all. I'm talking about when you are presented with the objection to your desires and how you handle that. Then you get to the situation where long range problems can exist between you and your own children. What we have is a differing of opinion, but it is your life and as long as you are prepared to accept the possible negative long range responses then there is no discussion. Moving on is correct.

 

[fly girl]

First of all, I'm not trying to convince you, I am merely trying to present a thought that you might not have had about the reactions to your actions. You are indeed free to do whatever you want in your own home, but for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Getting your own way, doesn't always mean you won. It means only for that one occasion you got what you wanted. Your guests might not mind ever and might be of the same mind set as you, but then you wouldn't be having this discussion at all. I'm talking about when you are presented with the objection to your desires and how you handle that. Then you get to the situation where long range problems can exist between you and your own children. What we have is a differing of opinion, but it is your life and as long as you are prepared to accept the possible negative long range responses then there is no discussion. Moving on is correct.

Yes, we have a difference of opinion. I agree with you 100% on that. That is what makes the world go around. Life would be horrible without it. However, I never said you were trying to convince me, I just don't agree. It is what it is.

The real reason I responded is to the comments I bolded: I have not a clue where that is coming from. We are definitely on different wavelengths. My child is only 13 years old. What I have been discussing on here is what I went through before I married my husband.

 

[Welsh_Dragon]

I have adult children. Daughter 27, son 23. When they have friends to stay, I ensure that guest rooms are prepared and show the friend to a guest room. If they wish to share a bed, I turn a blind eye. I also seem to develop a loud cough, heavy footsteps and deliberately find all the creaking floorboards. Daughter chooses not to room share at my home (she has her own home, so why would she?), son does but discreetly.
When my son was 16 he dated a young girl of the same age. (The age of consent here is 16.) I have to admit that I was quite shocked when her parents invited/allowed them to share a room together. At that age, in my home, I had an open door rule. I considered that I had some responsibility to my ‘child’, the other ‘child’ and the child’s parents to ensure that there was no rumpu-pumpy.

 

[tzolkin]

The legal piece of paper that married couples have is documentation of a legal commitment that unmarried people have not made. The deed to one's house is on a piece of legal paper. The title to one's car is on a piece of legal paper. One's will is on a piece of legal paper. Paper legal statements are very important parts of our lives, and not to be underestimated. It's a much less secure experience in life to not own a home, not own a car, not inherit anything via a will, than it is to have those pieces of paper. Likewise, just living together long term is a much less secure situation than being legally married.

I think you are misinterpreting the intent behind my post. I absolutely agree that legal documents are important. I am one of the crazy few people who actually reads every single line of every document including all the fine print. I would personally never be in a long term relationship with joint property without being legally married because I need the security/stability.

The part of my post you quoted was specifically about same sex couples when legal marriage was not an option. I was curious how people would handle a situation where a couple has had a marriage ceremony with vows, has been together for decades, and has children but were not able to legally be married. (Sure, it's not the same thing as being legally married, but I would treat them the same as any legally married couple as far as sleeping arrangements, plus 1 invitations, etc.)

The other reason I mentioned a "legal piece of paper" is because I was curious about the religious aspect. I think most people who would not allow unmarried couples to sleep in the same room do so for religious reasons. I can completely understand and accept that, but (at least to me) there is a difference between a religious marriage and a legal one. So I was asking what other's views are on the topic. When it comes to letting a couple share a room in their home, do they view all legal marriages the same (even if they wouldn't agree with them from a religious perspective)? Is being legally married the only criteria for sharing a room? Personally, I find it odd that a religious person would recognize two teenagers who married on a whim in Vegas last week as valid to sleep in the same room, but would not allow a couple who had a Christian wedding ceremony a decade ago but never submitted the paperwork to the state for tax purposes.

 

[goofyernmost]

Yes, we have a difference of opinion. I agree with you 100% on that. That is what makes the world go around. Life would be horrible without it. However, I never said you were trying to convince me, I just don't agree. It is what it is.

The real reason I responded is to the comments I bolded: I have not a clue where that is coming from. We are definitely on different wavelengths. My child is only 13 years old. What I have been discussing on here is what I went through before I married my husband.

The word "you" in any of my posts almost always is the general you not the specific you. In other words if it doesn't apply to you personally then it is the general usage one. The reason I even joined it is because I have seen and experienced the results of relationships that became terrible because of parental insistence that their opinion is the only one that is correct. Than carried parenting beyond raising a child and plummeted head first into continuing to control the actions of them after they became adults. There is a thin line to be walked there. I understand that people have a right to not want to be conscious of the more private actions of their grown children, but by being steadfastly insistent that they follow the house rules, no matter how much that opinion upsets their family is a sure recipe for disaster.

I have seen it with my wife. I have seen her anger and upset directed at her father for his actions and continued attitude. He lost her. She went from a very caring daughter to someone with an actual hatred of him. Years with absolutely no contact and by the time there was it was to late. I've seen it with my sons in law, in both cases their parents were rude and authoritarian in their beliefs and because of that I am the one they come to when there is a problem. It can ruin a family and for what? An imagined mandate of the "sanctity" of the home? I never found it worth losing my family to establish my moral authority. There are, of course, exceptions for any given thing and some do not really tell their real feelings, but it will always place a wedge, however small, in the closeness that one would desire.

 

[Heigh-Ho]

Definitely a miscommunication. I am horrible at writing ... clearly.

Oh please don't worry about that! I'm not the best at getting my thoughts out at times myself

 

[Heigh-Ho]

The part of my post you quoted was specifically about same sex couples when legal marriage was not an option.

It's really only been a few short years since this was legal in all 50 U.S. states. If they are from the U.S., they are probably also talking about instances and attitudes towards sleeping arrangements prior to 2015. And anyone talking about sleeping arrangements prior to the point of same-sex being recognized in their country.

 

[goofyernmost]

Let me go on record now that in spite of me being of advanced age (73 in less then two weeks), any talk I had about couples was not influenced by gender. It was meant for every human encounter possible. Believe me life is way to short to get all cramped up about gender differences and sleeping locations. Time for this country to wake up and recognize people as people with no basic differences and granted a free will to live their lives the way they see fit. We will be a lot happier when we all stop trying to control others. If you believe in a god, than let god take care of the situations that he/she may or may not be upset about. Don't put words in his/her mouth or take it upon ourselves to decide to condemn others.

 

[Summer2018]

Let me go on record now that in spite of me being of advanced age (73 in less then two weeks), any talk I had about couples was not influenced by gender. It was meant for every human encounter possible. Believe me life is way to short to get all cramped up about gender differences and sleeping locations. Time for this country to wake up and recognize people as people with no basic differences and granted a free will to live their lives the way they see fit. We will be a lot happier when we all stop trying to control others. If you believe in a god, than let god take care of the situations that he/she may or may not be upset about. Don't put words in his/her mouth or take it upon ourselves to decide to condemn others.

Wisdom.

 

[Mrs. Ciz]

I have adult children. Daughter 27, son 23. When they have friends to stay, I ensure that guest rooms are prepared and show the friend to a guest room. If they wish to share a bed, I turn a blind eye. I also seem to develop a loud cough, heavy footsteps and deliberately find all the creaking floorboards. Daughter chooses not to room share at my home (she has her own home, so why would she?), son does but discreetly.
When my son was 16 he dated a young girl of the same age. (The age of consent here is 16.) I have to admit that I was quite shocked when her parents invited/allowed them to share a room together. At that age, in my home, I had an open door rule. I considered that I had some responsibility to my ‘child’, the other ‘child’ and the child’s parents to ensure that there was no rumpu-pumpy.

This is the exact same way DH and I handle things at our house with our 22 and 24 year old adult kids. Both kids have graduated from university and have good careers. The oldest lives with friends in another city. The youngest lives at home for now. When they were younger, we had the “door must stay open” policy if they had friends of the opposite sex in their rooms (which was actually very rare). About a year ago, we relaxed that rule. They are old enough to make their own decisions now.