Can't live with them, or without them

[Imran Siddiqui]

Specifically, for me and my wife to promise to stay together forever no matter what was and is just speculative.

Oooook. And what makes you think you are required to promise that in a wedding ceremony? I'm sure Australia allows you to have your own vows or to just take each other as wedded in front of a county clerk.

[ricketyclik]

If you want the government benefits that result because the government wishes to promote stability in relationships (for social as well as childrearing purposes)

I challenge the notion that because a couple gets up in front of a crowd and promises to stay together that it makes them any more likely to. In fact, in the my case, I think it would actually significantly reduce that likelihood.

I don't see why you shouldn't have to be able to prove that you are married (through a license or whatnot) rather than just going up to the government, claiming marriage and getting tax benefits (or similar).

In Australia, it's just a matter of stating that it's the case. There are advantages as well as disadvantages to doing this. While you get the tax breaks, you also get reduced unemployment and retirement pensions.

[ricketyclik]

Oooook. And what makes you think you are required to promise that in a wedding ceremony? I'm sure Australia allows you to have your own vows or to just take each other as wedded in front of a county clerk.

Sure, but to me that is what the ceremony is really all about, if you look at the vast history of it up until very recently. It is very rare that anyone has it and doesn't make that promise. And if they don't, then why bother?

[Imran Siddiqui]

I challenge the notion that because a couple gets up in front of a crowd and promises to stay together that it makes them any more likely to. In fact, in the my case, I think it would actually significantly reduce that likelihood.

The assumption that they are more likely too if they've made a legal committment seems to be fairly sound, especially considering all of the considerations people make when they consider divorce, many which would not be there in absense of legal obligations.

And if they don't, then why bother?

To pledge a more committed relationship.

[ricketyclik]

The assumption that they are more likely too if they've made a legal committment seems to be fairly sound, especially considering all of the considerations people make when they consider divorce, many which would not be there in absense of legal obligations.

I don't know what the US divorce rate is, but in Oz it's bloody high. Plus, as I said, the legal obligations are greater in Oz if not married.

To pledge a more committed relationship.

Actions speak louder than words. A promise, in my experience, is worth nothing, particularly over a lifetime.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I don't know what the US divorce rate is, but in Oz it's bloody high.

Is it higher than the seperation rate for non-married co-habiting individuals?

Actions speak louder than words. A promise, in my experience, is worth nothing, particularly over a lifetime.

Words can speak just as loud. Especially as no one can really know your future intentions to anything unless you tell them (you can't act out an answer to what do you intend going forth).

[ricketyclik]

Let's just agree to disagree, OK? I'm quite happy for you to get married if you want to. I just don't feel the need.