Is Living together instead of Marriage

[wvjules]

As for marriage, it'd be a horrible deal for him. I have sm debt, unfortunately, and he'd have to take that on, which is not fair (esp since I accrued it before meeting him). I doubt it'd be some great deal for me, either. I hate that finances has anything to do with getting married.. devalues it imo

Why would he have to take that on if you got married? Debt you accrued before marriage is yours alone, not "ours".


For me, I think it is better for both of us. With our combined incomes we can live in a much nicer place than we would be able to afford alone. Splitting bills from one home allows us to save and take nice vacations versus having to maintain 2 homes. We are as committed as a married couple just without the whole wedding/marriage thing.

Oh, it may be better for him since he's on my insurance at work. I have a low premium and low deductible so he comes out a winner versus what he would be able to get from his employer.

 

[rigs32]

I would say relationships are a better deal today for women than for men.

At 43 years old, I had a junk car, bicycle, kayak, clothing, debt, and $600 to start my life over again on less than 30% of my paycheck. She had a house, almost new reliable car, retirement money, the other half of my last paycheck which was $600, her full paycheck, health insurance paid by me, car insurance paid by me, temporarily 20% of my future paychecks, and 1/3 of my future paychecks to start over with.

Was she using that house, car, and income to raise your children?

 

[OhDannyBoy]

- In my limited experience, all too often a couple moves in together, and one of the pair -- usually the woman -- has the idea that this is a prelude to marriage. Yet that expectation isn't always shared. When marriage doesn't come along -- after six months, a year, whatever timeframe the marriage-oriented partner had in mind -- tensions flare.

That would likely be a doomed marriage anyways as having expectation and them not being met is an intrical part of marriage.

- Statistics tell us that most people who move in together without marriage don't end up "happily ever after" -- they're more likely to go their separate ways, which makes sense because everyone goes through hard times occasionally, and without legal ties it's easier to walk away from one another.

I'm curious as to how one would even take statistics on such a thing.

Personal anecdotal evidence tells me the opposite. My mother, father, 2 uncles, an aunt and a few different friends of mine are all one time married now divorced folks living with their SO. My father has been with his for almost 20 years now. All of them married before living with their first husband / wife.

- Statistics tell us that people who lived together before marriage are more likely -- if they marry -- to divorce.

People who never marry never get divorced.

- People like to say it's to find out if they're compatible /to practice being married, but that makes no sense. You can't "practice" taking on a lifetime commitment to one another. "Trying it out" is the exact opposite of making a commitment to one another and agreeing to do your best for one another no matter what.

I disagree. IMO, you don't really know someone until you live with them. We all want to think love and marriage is a Disney epic tale of love at first sight, but divorce statistics would tell you otherwise.
I'm not saying it doesn't happen because it surely does. But realistically, once you get past that honeymoon phase of a relationship, that's when you really find out who the other person is. For me, without sharing my living space and life with that person, how could I possibly know who they really are?

- Living together and mixing finances can turn into a sticky mess; better to have a non-romantic roommate before marriage.

This I agree with. My wife and I lived together for 3 years before I proposed, but we separated out finances and split things more or less how room mates would. In fact, 13 years later, we still to some extent do this.

- If children are involved, it's horribly confusing for them if /when things go badly.

How does marriage nullify this?

- If families aren't in agreement (and don't you know a whole lot of families who think the spouse isn't good enough for their baby girl or golden boy?), sickness, death or inheritance can be very tricky since the two partners have no legal ties to one another. Parents (or adult children) can end up being official next-of-kin, and next-of-kin has some rights that live-in-boyfriend/girlfriend doesn't.

Ok now this is absolutely true, which is why I was also such a huge advocate for gay marriage. (I'm not looking for a debate on that one)

- Coming home from your wedding and moving in together for the first time has a special excitement, a sense of forever -- I can't imagine how it would be to come home from your wedding and not have that "new" feeling.

Again, for me, that's a cute Disney movie but not reality. I truly believe in the idea of marriage being forever. So for me, that is a HUGE decision. Just like I wouldn't make any other huge decision without taking my time and making sure that I'm sure, I'm not just going to commit my life to someone before I am absolutely sure. I mean why rush right?

 

[katie01]

I actually can't for medical reasons, but you are right and I am grateful for the two children that I have. I'm going to take your advice on the self-care so I can get back on the market with some confidence. It's nice to see that people don't agree with my original thought that women were easily used up.

My great-grandpa was widowed in his 70s. He remarried around age 76, to a woman who was around 70, who had never been married! They had 20 happy years together before he passed away at age 96. It's never too late!

 

[NYCgrrl]

I would say relationships are a better deal today for women than for men.

At 43 years old, I had a junk car, bicycle, kayak, clothing, debt, and $600 to start my life over again on less than 30% of my paycheck. She had a house, almost new reliable car, retirement money, the other half of my last paycheck which was $600, her full paycheck, health insurance paid by me, car insurance paid by me, temporarily 20% of my future paychecks, and 1/3 of my future paychecks to start over with.

Was she a SAHM?

 

[mrodgers]

Was she using that house, car, and income to raise your children?

I know I am way out numbered on this forum, but WE raise our children. I also have to provide a home, transportation, food, and money to raise them when they are with me. The fathers can not do that when their income is taken away and given to the mother.

She is in a bout now with them about eating better as since my oldest got her license and a car (hand-me-down) they take off to Sheetz all the time for food. Then when they are at my home, I have to feed them frozen pizza because it's all I can afford. We just sit on the floor around the big hole in the living room in my 1976 falling down trailer.

I'm all for forcing the father to pay child support when they disappear (my brother has never met his now 15 year old daughter. A shame, she is a sweetheart as I have met her several years ago.) I on the other hand have to provide 2 homes for my kids because they are with me half the time (well, more than half the time since she works shiftwork and they are with me for dinner most of the time).

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

I know I am way out numbered on this forum, but WE raise our children. I also have to provide a home, transportation, food, and money to raise them when they are with me. The fathers can not do that when their income is taken away and given to the mother.

She is in a bout now with them about eating better as since my oldest got her license and a car (hand-me-down) they take off to Sheetz all the time for food. Then when they are at my home, I have to feed them frozen pizza because it's all I can afford. We just sit on the floor around the big hole in the living room in my 1976 falling down trailer.

I'm all for forcing the father to pay child support when they disappear (my brother has never met his now 15 year old daughter. A shame, she is a sweetheart as I have met her several years ago.) I on the other hand have to provide 2 homes for my kids because they are with me half the time (well, more than half the time since she works shiftwork and they are with me for dinner most of the time).

So your issue is with being required to pay child support?

 

[mrodgers]

So your issue is with being required to pay child support?

My issue is the bias of bankrupting the father instead of equal rights. I don't get any support when they are with me. I also have to provide a home for them while providing a home for them with their mother. I do not have the ability to provide a decent home and feed them with nutritious food. The courts make it impossible for the father. I was out of a home for 2 years and didn't see my children unless we went and sat at the mall.

I am fully for complete equal 50/50 custody and no support. I should be able to provide a home for my children with me as well.

As I said, dead-beat dads, sure. They don't care about the kids, they should be on the hook to provide for them. That is the minority though. Most fathers are trying to have a life with their children, but it's also at the expense of the children living half their lives in not so good conditions and environments because the fathers are forced to provide twice for them.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

My issue is the bias of bankrupting the father instead of equal rights. I don't get any support when they are with me. I also have to provide a home for them while providing a home for them with their mother. I do not have the ability to provide a decent home and feed them with nutritious food. The courts make it impossible for the father. I was out of a home for 2 years and didn't see my children unless we went and sat at the mall.

I am fully for complete equal 50/50 custody and no support. I should be able to provide a home for my children with me as well.

As I said, dead-beat dads, sure. They don't care about the kids, they should be on the hook to provide for them. That is the minority though. Most fathers are trying to have a life with their children, but it's also at the expense of the children living half their lives in not so good conditions and environments because the fathers are forced to provide twice for them.

I don't know about how yours is set up nor the laws of where you live but here child support was determined based on financial means at least in regards to how much. If it's also set up that way you should probably go back to the courts and advise them you are unable to provide even the basic things such as adequate housing and proper food let alone the set up child support amount. However, they may review your situation in terms of being able to provide for your children period if they are eating frozen food only because that's all you can afford and live in a residence that has a hole in it in terms of custody percentage. In the end, while likely too optimistic, the courts should be having the children's best interests in mind (should yes being the operative word).

 

[amberpi]

My issue is the bias of bankrupting the father instead of equal rights. I don't get any support when they are with me. I also have to provide a home for them while providing a home for them with their mother. I do not have the ability to provide a decent home and feed them with nutritious food. The courts make it impossible for the father. I was out of a home for 2 years and didn't see my children unless we went and sat at the mall.

I am fully for complete equal 50/50 custody and no support. I should be able to provide a home for my children with me as well.

As I said, dead-beat dads, sure. They don't care about the kids, they should be on the hook to provide for them. That is the minority though. Most fathers are trying to have a life with their children, but it's also at the expense of the children living half their lives in not so good conditions and environments because the fathers are forced to provide twice for them.

I'm interested in hearing more about this. Where I am (middle TN), the days of dad's being really screwed over en toto are quickly declining for fathers who really want to be involved...I'm not saying its not CRAZY expensive to leverage the legal system even now, and that it's not an uphill battle for equal rights, but child support is supposed to bridge the gap between the living expenses/environment of the minor children not to make one better or worse. Or, that's as I understand it; and I could most certainly be wrong. I know the laws used to be worse, but I want to hope its getting better. I see a lot of single dads out there with 40% custody and a good number with 50%. Maybe use the courts to get more access to the kids and to reconfigure your child support worksheet? Just thinking that might help...not sure if you have to pay alimony, I know nothing about that.

 

[NYCgrrl]

My issue is the bias of bankrupting the father instead of equal rights. I don't get any support when they are with me. I also have to provide a home for them while providing a home for them with their mother. I do not have the ability to provide a decent home and feed them with nutritious food. The courts make it impossible for the father. I was out of a home for 2 years and didn't see my children unless we went and sat at the mall.

I am fully for complete equal 50/50 custody and no support. I should be able to provide a home for my children with me as well.

As I said, dead-beat dads, sure. They don't care about the kids, they should be on the hook to provide for them. That is the minority though. Most fathers are trying to have a life with their children, but it's also at the expense of the children living half their lives in not so good conditions and environments because the fathers are forced to provide twice for them.

I realise that divorce can be difficult for all concerned and in different ways as you have pointed out. Every state differs in how a marriage ending goes especially when children are concerned. Perhaps, in time, your state will find a more equitable way to deal with this problem. As for equal rights I'm all for them going both ways but your specific divorce was not about inequality between the sexes per se at least as you describe it but how to cause the children the least trauma. Thus one of the parents was given the family home to continue raising the children in an environment they knew. Here, where real estate is super expensive, some parents remain in the house despite being divorced just sleeping in separate b/rs. I hope this is just a temporary speed bump in your life and things get better as time goes on.

 

[mrodgers]

I'm interested in hearing more about this. Where I am (middle TN), the days of dad's being really screwed over en toto is quickly declining for fathers who really want to be involved...I'm not saying its not CRAZY expensive to leverage the legal system even now, and that it's not an uphill battle for equal rights, but child support is supposed to bridge the gap between the living expenses/environment of the minor children not to make one better or worse. Or, that's as I understand it; and I could most certainly be wrong. I know the laws used to be worse, but I want to hope its getting better. I see a lot of single dads out there with 40% custody and a good number with 50%. Maybe use the courts to get more access to the kids and to reconfigure your child support worksheet? Just thinking that might help...not sure if you have to pay alimony, I know nothing about that.

Alimony is for rich people, LOL. The man typically pays spousal support to the woman during the divorce process. There are times that the woman pays spousal support, but you don't hear of that very often. Spousal support is to help the woman get on her feet. Not sure how the man being homeless and the woman getting the home and everything else is getting the woman back on her feet, but....

I'm in Pennsylvania. You go in for a conference with child services or whatever the organization is called. The mother is 99% of the time awarded primary custodian of the children. Custody is never set 50/50, it is always biased to 51/49 to the mother unless you can prove in court they are a raging alcoholic and drug addict (even then it's a tough battle as a coworker saw.) They know your income and the separated spouses income, look up on a chart and tell the father he will pay $X amount which is 65% of the number (which they don't show you). Luckily we had our lawyers there because that was based on after her leaving her full time job to try out 2 other full time jobs and quitting on the 2nd day for both and getting rehired at part time. She didn't let on that she was moved back to full time the week before and they didn't take any consideration that our tax status would change from married to single. My lawyer pointed that all out and it was reduced by $400/month. Had I not had my lawyer there (most don't go with a lawyer) I would have been paying $1500/month spousal support and child support combined on a $2000 monthly income.

I have known personally fathers that were left with less than $100 of their paycheck to live on. A coworker of mine lived on $400/month in his 30's and 40's.

Then when the oldest comes of age (18 or graduated, which ever is later), you would think now the support would be in half. Everyone that I know with 2 kids and divorced, the child support reduces $100, often no reduction at all. Sometimes it goes up.

 

[Cannot_Wait_4Disney]

Why would he have to take that on if you got married? Debt you accrued before marriage is yours alone, not "ours".
.

That may be legally true. But assuming all the cards were face up on the table before marriage, it isn't morally true. He takes it on because they're getting married. The Vow says for richer or poorer. It doesn't say for richer or poorer, except for that debt. If he is not ready to take on his spouse's debt, he isn't ready to marry. Marriage is when two become one in all things. And as long as it's "your debt" and until it is "our debt," and "we are going to tackle eliminating it together," two have not become one in all things. They are still two. Do they leave it legally only in her name. Yes. That is so we don't get all our avenues of credit totally ruined if a default occurs. But morally, it's our debt. And we tackle it together.

Now. If all the cards were not face up on the table before marriage and after marriage, a spouse learns of a huge debt there is something seriously wrong right off the bat and it goes beyond that debt. And the prognosis is not good for that marriage, unfortunately.

 

[wvjules]

I have debt, lots of it (student loans mostly). If DBF and I were to get married I would never expect him to assume part of that debt, nor would I assume part of his pre-existing debt. I don't think that's what "For richer or poorer" means in the marriage vows. I also doubt that the way we handle finances would change either. We split bills pretty close to evenly. I see it being the same after marriage.

 

[NYCgrrl]

Should you marry someone with bad credit who hasn't paid it off yet be sure NOT to open joint banking accounts or take out any kind of loan together because in essence your credit is now joined at the hip. Signing a well written pre-nup can take care of prior debt.

 

[DaddysPrincess]

Exactly @Cannot_Wait_4Disney @NYCgrrl @wvjules
And the fact that taxes, finances, materialistic stuff has anything to do with it, sours it for me. This includes getting gifts. Literally my grandma IL was trying to convince me to marry her GS by the simple fact of "you'll get gifts" .....

 

[MrsCobraBubbles]

Alimony is for rich people, LOL. The man typically pays spousal support to the woman during the divorce process. There are times that the woman pays spousal support, but you don't hear of that very often. Spousal support is to help the woman get on her feet. Not sure how the man being homeless and the woman getting the home and everything else is getting the woman back on her feet, but....

I'm in Pennsylvania. You go in for a conference with child services or whatever the organization is called. The mother is 99% of the time awarded primary custodian of the children. Custody is never set 50/50, it is always biased to 51/49 to the mother unless you can prove in court they are a raging alcoholic and drug addict (even then it's a tough battle as a coworker saw.) They know your income and the separated spouses income, look up on a chart and tell the father he will pay $X amount which is 65% of the number (which they don't show you). Luckily we had our lawyers there because that was based on after her leaving her full time job to try out 2 other full time jobs and quitting on the 2nd day for both and getting rehired at part time. She didn't let on that she was moved back to full time the week before and they didn't take any consideration that our tax status would change from married to single. My lawyer pointed that all out and it was reduced by $400/month. Had I not had my lawyer there (most don't go with a lawyer) I would have been paying $1500/month spousal support and child support combined on a $2000 monthly income.

I have known personally fathers that were left with less than $100 of their paycheck to live on. A coworker of mine lived on $400/month in his 30's and 40's.

Then when the oldest comes of age (18 or graduated, which ever is later), you would think now the support would be in half. Everyone that I know with 2 kids and divorced, the child support reduces $100, often no reduction at all. Sometimes it goes up.

I am in PA too and I have a very different take on how divorce is handled in our state. I took my kids and fled my abusive ex-husband, who is now also a deadbeat dad. He got the house, the retirement accounts, the cars, etc., because none of that was in my name. Though I am aware that all the marital assets were half mine, that doesn't do me much good when his name alone was on everything. It will cost me what the assets are worth in legal fees just to get my half. He hasn't seen his kids in about a year, won't help financially, (and laughed in my face about it). He works under the table so I can't go after child support even if I wanted to.

Judges in PA seem to want to go 50/50 on custody. I have a good friend who is also going through a divorce from her abusive husband. Her kids are teenagers and have testified that they are afraid of their dad and don't want to visit with him, and yet they are still being court ordered to visit with their dad. And she goes back in less than a month for another hearing where she is worried he will be awarded custody again. I am so scared that a judge will order my kids to visit with their father, or worse, order 50/50 custody, that it's worth it for us to continue struggling financially. He's made it pretty clear that if he gets to keep his money then I get to keep the kids.

Moral of my story: men are just as good as women at screwing over a spouse.

 

[DaddysPrincess]

Moral of my story: men are just as good as women at screwing over a spouse.

this is why I've only met my "father" once (when I was 19, sis was 18). My mom was straight up terrified of him, divorced him and called it good. Never went after him for child support since he basically had the upper hand in any given situation.
My sis and I sought legal action once we were old enough & met him that one time. Lawyer told us we were #10 & #11 of his children; therefore, doubtful we'd ever see a penny. On top of that, he lived in China
Now that I'm older, I'm just happy my mother removed us from the situation before he scarred us (too bad it was too late for her
Moral of the story: abusive parents can suck it! Lol

 

[ronandannette]

I know you are not asking me directly, but I will give my opinion. I think MrsPete's came off as more snide to me because I think the tone of superiority that some people like to use when speaking of religion is off putting. I define myself as a recovering Catholic for the record, meaning I now longer attend church regularly, but I was baptized and confirmed. Anyway, you do not have to be religious to take marriage vows seriously or to hold marriage out to be something special.

@MrsPete did not say one word about religion or being religious.

I agree. Although it's not a popular mindset today, it's a horrible deal for both partners:

- In my limited experience, all too often a couple moves in together, and one of the pair -- usually the woman -- has the idea that this is a prelude to marriage. Yet that expectation isn't always shared. When marriage doesn't come along -- after six months, a year, whatever timeframe the marriage-oriented partner had in mind -- tensions flare.
- Statistics tell us that most people who move in together without marriage don't end up "happily ever after" -- they're more likely to go their separate ways, which makes sense because everyone goes through hard times occasionally, and without legal ties it's easier to walk away from one another.
- Statistics tell us that people who lived together before marriage are more likely -- if they marry -- to divorce.
- People like to say it's to find out if they're compatible /to practice being married, but that makes no sense. You can't "practice" taking on a lifetime commitment to one another. "Trying it out" is the exact opposite of making a commitment to one another and agreeing to do your best for one another no matter what.
- Living together and mixing finances can turn into a sticky mess; better to have a non-romantic roommate before marriage.
- If children are involved, it's horribly confusing for them if /when things go badly.
- If families aren't in agreement (and don't you know a whole lot of families who think the spouse isn't good enough for their baby girl or golden boy?), sickness, death or inheritance can be very tricky since the two partners have no legal ties to one another. Parents (or adult children) can end up being official next-of-kin, and next-of-kin has some rights that live-in-boyfriend/girlfriend doesn't.
- Coming home from your wedding and moving in together for the first time has a special excitement, a sense of forever -- I can't imagine how it would be to come home from your wedding and not have that "new" feeling.

 

[MrsPete]

I think that’s the myth though that if you take care of yourself you’ll live longer. Excluding extreme behavior, most of it is most likely genetics & environment. I thought that was the point the pp made that I was agreeing with. I’ve known many ppl who took care of themselves by most standards & died of cancer. They all lived in Louisiana though. I think we rank 3rd highest in cancer deaths in the US. In my department alone right now there are 5 youngish ppl who have cancer.

Taking care of yourself means living a more healthy life and likely a longer life. I don't think this is really an opinion.

Admittedly, some things are out of our control; for example, the risk factors for breast cancer are being female and growing older -- none of us can avoid those things. However, eating a good diet and exercising regularly greatly reduce your chances of heart disease, stroke and diabetes. You have control over quite a few health issues.

i personally liked that dh and i had lived together and knew each other's living habits-i had a few friends who were wholly unprepared for their new spouse's lifestyle habits (what constitutes a 'clean' home, who is responsible for what chores, budgeting/lack thereof...) and it was a real adjustment for them; for some one that couldn't be achieved and divorce was pretty quick afterwards (love does NOT conquer all-esp. if one spouse believes with every fiber of their being that by virtue of marriage the other becomes the live in de facto cook, housekeeper, handyman, auto mechanic....).

Although we didn't live together before marriage, we didn't come into our marriage unprepared at all. We knew each other well, including negatives. For example, I'd been to his apartment and knew he wasn't going to do much in terms of cleaning. We were both out of college, and we'd both lived on our own -- I think that makes a world of difference.

Mandatory pre-marital counseling with our pastor was VERY useful. He brought up loads of topics to get us talking about our expectations, and he gave us lists of things to discuss. I remember we started going through the list on a long drive (to his father's house), when we talked very seriously about all sorts of things -- career aspirations, how to decide when to spend /when to splurge, disciplining children, expectations for paying for children's educations, the importance of a nice house, taking care of elderly parents -- quite a few things that we wouldn't have thought about talking about. That was tremendously helpful to us, and that list led to so many conversations.

yup-if people are smart they do a 'living together contract' to spell everything out BEFORE they start living together.

I agree that spelling things out is a great idea, but how many people do you think actually do it?

I know you are not asking me directly, but I will give my opinion. I think MrsPete's came off as more snide to me because I think the tone of superiority that some people like to use when speaking of religion is off putting. I define myself as a recovering Catholic for the record, meaning I now longer attend church regularly, but I was baptized and confirmed. Anyway, you do not have to be religious to take marriage vows seriously or to hold marriage out to be something special.

I kept religion out of my initial post and attempted to discuss ideas /concepts. I did not single out or insult any individual. I purposefully avoided emotionally-charged words that often come up with this topic; for example, "living in sin" or "shacking up". If you read in superiority or rudeness, you were projecting your own ideas onto my post; that is, you expected a religious argument and "filled in some blanks". (Okay, that was snide. Purposefully.)

My issue is the bias of bankrupting the father instead of equal rights. I don't get any support when they are with me. I also have to provide a home for them while providing a home for them with their mother. I do not have the ability to provide a decent home and feed them with nutritious food. The courts make it impossible for the father. I was out of a home for 2 years and didn't see my children unless we went and sat at the mall.

She's probably living through the same things, even if she's in the house and has the child support.

Think about it: You and your ex-wife make X amount of money; that money used to support one household, and now it supports two households (plus lawyer's fees). You and your ex-wife used to have X number of hours available between you for care of the house and children. Now that same number of hours must stretch between two households. When the same amount of resources are stretched further, everyone's lifestyle is going to suffer.