IMHO, I don't think that a piece of paper should be relevant in this day and age.
If two people want to be together, then they will be together.
And if they don't any more, then, don't be together any more.
The piece of paper brings out the worst in people, way too much legality involved with it.

The legal clarity is helpful in medical emergencies, unexpected death, etc. I think if people paid a lot more attention to prenups, divorces could be less stressful.

Marriage is for young people who will have kids. Not much use to older people. I think it is possible to be totally committed without the formality of marriage.

In theory, yes. But I just got out of a 32 year marriage with five grown kids. I'd like to get aquainted with being single, enjoy myself, and reestablish a strong me before I am able to recommit to make a strong "us".

But if the right person comes along, I wouldn't rule it out if we both want it.

Once was enough for me..

If you want to put on a costume, to put on a show and to get some applauses, become an actor!

I used to believe in it, but I now wonder if it's even worth to get married. All your doing is signing some piece of paper, so the government views it a legal binding agreement. Besides. People are to quick to get married, all for what? Society itself, expects people to get married. If people wish to get married, they should live together for several years, prior to getting married.

For the most part, I will say this. Two people can live together just fine without ever being married.

Years ago, I had this one mgr say marriage licenses should be like a fishing license. Renewable every year.

I've always thought that the Ancient Egyptian method of 'marriage' (for want of a more suitable term) was one of the best.
A couple would mutually consent to spending 3 days ( the days being measured then from sunset to sunset) in the same house and Voila they are considered as being 'married.'
Should they decide to split up at any later time, then she would merely bundle up the belongings of the man, hand them to him through the door, retaining EVERYTHING that was hers, and they were then considered as being separate people again.No fuss, no lawyers, no division of property, etc.

Unless minor children are involved, why?

There's a 50% chance I'd consider getting married again. It has been a long time since I've worn a size 6.5 wedding ring! It would feel strange and unique at the same time. I don't know? The future is full of possibilities.

i never DID believe in marriage. so why, you ask, am i engaged to be married? well, it's mostly because my guy and i are old and poor and have medical issues and one of us could die at any second. being married would interfere with our skimpy benefits but guarantee the survivor some minimal security that our current relationship would not. as it stands now, we've been engaged since 2004, and we have a plan that if one of us is dying, we get married immediately. in the meantime, we have for some time now been cohabiting, and sometimes folks think we're married. our relationship is not defined by someone else's marriage, or a standard view of what marriage should be. it is what we make of it.

g

Before I say another word, let me clarify that I love my wife and am commited to her. I made her a promise many years ago, she means a lot to me despite our many differences, and I'm a man of my word. That being said, I think it's absolutely ridiculous that marriage is still a thing. It's a tool of an archaic patriarchy designed to keep women "in their place," as it were. The Bible, on which modern marriage is based, makes it clear from the beginning that a woman's purpose is to serve a man. Still today as part of the ceremony, the father is asked "Who gives this woman im marriage?" As if he owns her, and as of the end of the ceremony she will be owned by her husband. Ownership of humans is obviously wrong, and even more so when the right is exclusive to one gender. I believe the government doesn't have in personal relationships and that marriage should be strictly religious.

Getting married is like getting a dog license. You are subjecting yourself to more government bull shit and control. On top of that, any logical thinking entity would avoid it simply on the grounds that humans are far to unreliable, and promises are pretty much worthless in the face of time.

Sure, why not? My parents are still together (41 years). There are a lot of people who have stayed married. There's also a lot of people who get divorce. Marriage can be tricky and complicated. For some people, marriage isn't for them, and that's ok.

I don't expect to remarry, I just want a long term shack up. There are financial penalties if I remarry, so I'd rather not go there.

It's an unnecessary, antiquated, social construct.
It serves no useful purpose other than generating revenue for the government,
and divorce attorneys.

I have a legal background and have worked in public policy. Marriage is necessary to give and receive legal status. When you do with that is your own business. Some couples focus too much on the financial aspects of marriage. Me, I focus on the intangible rights. If I'm not human being enough to take care of my partner when he's critically ill—and really, the only way to do this is to have legal status—then what good am I? If my partner cannot receive medical care because I refuse to marry him, I'm a total jerk. And possibly a bit of a sociopath. On one last note: I have worked too long and too hard all of my life so that I can have something to give to the man I love, should I take the dirt nap first. I don't want all of that to revert to the state, or my employer.

Now, I don't believe that people who plan to have children together should marry. It's just a bad idea all around from a legal and financial perspective. Maybe have the kids first and wait ten years or so. But for people who don't have to plan children, marriage is pretty essential to establish each other as closest next-of-kin, in the eyes of the law.

I understand the legal reasons for doing so, but I don't like the traditional reasons for it. I would do it (again) if my partner cared for it, otherwise I'm fine without involving the state.

I think it's possible, but not for everyone -- me included. Both have to be committed and willing to put in the work -- and not rabbit when things get tough -- because they will.

It is archaic and dumb. My late ex and I realized this when we got back together; we said no to remarrying and stayed together longer than we did when we were married. Go figure.

After a divorce I still believe in the power of love. What is marriage anyway? For me is a legal contract between the partner, children, a lawyer, a judge and plus the whole church if the partners belong to the religious club.

Marriage is possible but I do not have to have it. I once lived with a woman as if we were married and it ended when she died. You do not have to have a license.

No - I refuse to allow the sexist family law court system fuck me over again. I can love and commit to a person without a bias legal system involved.

I personally think the government should be out of the marriage game entirely. Marriage licenses is just a form of revenue, and used in the past for social control - aka interracial marriages, same sex marriages, etc. What f-ing business is it of theirs who you decide to team up with in life? It would end divorce court bullshit, it would end gay marriage issues (since it would only be a religious ceremony), and it would simplify the tax code (why does being married matter any to how much an individual person pays in taxes).

I have no problem with marriage. At least if it doesn't work out, the law will decide who gets what, instead of coming home and FINDING ALL OF YOUR SHIT IS GONE! It took me two weeks to find my stuff. Living with someone or marriage, either one is fine with me.

Fuck knows. My one and only attempt went tits up. But that's down to the dynamic not the institution. But still not sure it's necessary, if two people are committed (that's in love not the asylum) isn't it just a piece of paper?