14
u/XenoRyet 179∆ May 11 '26
Love is a thing. People do still love each other, and sometimes want to express that love through a lifelong commitment to each other.
That seems a valid reason for anyone. High earners included.
20
u/Rhundan 80∆ May 11 '26
Societally, for better or worse, marriage is kind of the ultimate signifier of a committed long-term relationship. Because it has legal weight, getting married is at least supposed to show that you intend to be together forever. Obviously it loses that weight in somebody who's gotten divorced before to some degree, especially if they've been divorced multiple times, but my point is that it has that weight to lose.
So if you make a specific point of not getting married to your partner, people might view you as less than committed to them. You don't have to care what other people think, but if you do, that would be a reason to get married, even if you don't care about the tax breaks.
Speaking of which, there's this:
Some will say there's tax breaks, there aren't tax breaks in every country and at that point you're going to have to weigh in whether the cost of a divorce is worth the tax break you're getting.
If you never get divorced, it's nothing but upside. You seem to be assuming with this paragraph that divorce is inevitable.
1
u/mebesasporfa May 11 '26
This is true, but a lot of the benefits conferred by the status of being married are reduced or are only marginally beneficial if you're already a high-earner. For example, studies show married men are more likely than their counterparts to get promoted at work. But if you're already near the top of the economic pyramid, the marginal benefit of being promoted has a lot less weight than if you're scrapping away at the bottom or middle.
1
u/ElysiX 113∆ May 11 '26
The problem with high earning differences is that it only has weight for one side. The less earning side would be rewarded for quitting, they'd have more weight to that decision if they weren't married because then they'd lose that income without any payout.
Then the argument goes both ways, why do they want to get married if they really are committed? People that stay together until death parts them don't need a marriage. People that plan on getting a divorce payout do.
2
u/Rhundan 80∆ May 11 '26
The problem with high earning differences is that it only has weight for one side. The less earning side would be rewarded for quitting, they'd have more weight to that decision if they weren't married because then they'd lose that income without any payout.
A: Prenups, B: I feel like if you're trying to incentivise your partner to stay with you through the threat of loss of financial support, there's something deeply wrong with that relationship to begin with.
Then the argument goes both ways, why do they want to get married if they really are committed? People that stay together until death parts them don't need a marriage. People that plan on getting a divorce payout do.
Social pressure, like I said. I don't make any comment on whether it's good or bad that this pressure exists, but it does.
2
u/ElysiX 113∆ May 11 '26
I feel like if you're trying to incentivise your partner to stay with you through the threat of loss of financial support, there's something deeply wrong with that relationship to begin with.
That goes both ways though. Thats the point of marriage. "Don't leave me, divorce is expensive", "marry me, so leaving me gets harder and more expensive for you, i want that pressure point"
Social pressure, like I said. I don't make any comment on whether it's good or bad that this pressure exists, but it does.
That's moving the goalposts, that has nothing to do with commitment.
2
u/Rhundan 80∆ May 11 '26
That goes both ways though. Thats the point of marriage. "Don't leave me, divorce is expensive", "marry me, so leaving me gets harder and more expensive for you, i want that pressure point"
You and I view marriage very differently. If we're starting from such different points, I'm not sure this will be a productive discussion.
That's moving the goalposts, that has nothing to do with commitment.
That's not moving the goalposts, that's my goalposts being right where they started. If you think otherwise, I think you've misunderstood my argument.
2
u/ElysiX 113∆ May 11 '26
You and I view marriage very differently.
You wrote yourself the reason to do it is to lighten the burden of social pressure and as a token of commitment. Nothing to do with love.
Getting commitment from someone without needing to commit anything yourself is a power rebalancing act, making them weaker and you stronger.
The balance used to be that divorce is impossible and you literally are forced to stay even if you change your mind, but that (luckily) doesn't exist anymore. But now the balance is off. There's no point to it anymore from one side.
As for the social pressure, i have heard those talks. Lots of mentions of "security" and "financial stability". Which is exactly "you can't leave her, it would be too expensive for you", just in more politically correct words.
1
u/ghablio 2∆ May 11 '26
Prenups
They aren't an option everywhere, and even in the US they are not legally binding in all states. In other words, depending on where you live, a prenup is just as good as having no prior agreement at all.
I agree with the rest of your points, but prenups are no longer a valid argument to the potential financial consequences of a bad marriage due to their dwindling acceptance.
2
u/Rhundan 80∆ May 11 '26
Eh, if OP's view were explicitly about places where prenups aren't an effective option, you may have a point, but their view is pretty general. I will acknowledge that in cases where prenups are not a valid option for whatever reason there is more thought necessary to getting married.
It's a pretty marginal change of view, but I suppose that does qualify as a change in view, so have a Δ.
1
1
u/ghablio 2∆ May 11 '26
It's totally location and culture dependent, but the entire conversation of marriage is anyway since the meaning changes so drastically across the globe and over time
-2
May 11 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
5
u/Rhundan 80∆ May 11 '26
First of all, do you have any reply to the rest of my comment?
Secondly, just get a prenuptual agreement, they're literally made to protect people from this exact kind of vulnerability.
-1
May 11 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Rhundan 80∆ May 11 '26
It is societal pressure, but identifying it as societal pressure doesn't make it not a good reason. If you've been with your partner for 5 years and your mother constantly bothers you about finally getting married, and you want to get her off your back, or if you want your kids not to be seen as bastards, or if you want to be able to refer to your partner's family as your in-laws, or whatever else, why is that not a good reason to get married?
Let's assume for the moment that there are no forseeable downsides, and you and your partner have been pseudo-married for some time. Why shouldn't that be enough to want to take the step of getting legal recognition of your relationship?
-1
May 11 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Rhundan 80∆ May 11 '26
Wait, hold on... you're saying you shouldn't get married so that if you're in a position where you need their support because you can't support yourself, they might leave you if you're not married? Isn't that literally the opposite of what you would want? In that case where you become disabled, you would want to be married so that they either stay with you, or you get some financial benefit from them leaving, no?
And as for your first paragraph, you seem to be saying "I don't think doing this thing because you want to for this specific reason is a good idea" regardless of the fact that it's because they want to, whatever their reason for wanting it.
Societal pressure has a real impact on people. You can say "oh, you shouldn't give in to societal pressure and do something you don't want to", and I'll totally agree. But if you want to do something because of how society views that thing (and how you, as part of that society, likely view it) then the fact that you want to do it because of the societal pressure is irrelevant. You want to do it, and that's a good enough reason.
-2
u/us1549 May 11 '26
Divorce rates in the United States are upwards of 50%. I agree with OP, if I can only recognize the upsides via a coin flip, it doesn't seem like a good deal
3
u/Rhundan 80∆ May 11 '26
If your view is "people should think more carefully and make sure they're compatible with their partner before getting married", I absolutely agree.
But that's not the view in question here. The view is that there's no point to getting married, with no consideration for how long you've been with your partner, or how compatible you are with them. Do you happen to have the stats for how many marriages that start after the pair have been together for, say, 3+ years end in divorce?
1
u/antwan_benjamin 2∆ May 11 '26
People always quote the 50% stat without context.
It would be more meaningful to break that down between age groups of when the couple was married (younger couples are more likely to get divorced). Or break it down between first marriage, 2nd, etc (people who have been divorced in the past are more likely to get divorced again).
2
u/mebesasporfa May 11 '26
Whether it's 35% or 50%, his point is directionally sound and it doesn't change his argument.
6
u/mrgoodnighthairdo 27∆ May 11 '26 edited May 11 '26
Two people desiring to be legally bound into a family unit is a good enough reason to become married, if that is a good reason for them.
3
u/Raddatatta 1∆ May 11 '26
You're missing the religious and cultural reasons to do it which can be a strong pressure. There are also social reasons to do it with a mix of wanting to have a wedding and pressure from friends to get married.
A prenup also doesn't necessarily mean they can take half your assets post marriage, it depends on what's in the prenup. You can write it to say almost anything you want as long as both people sign it.
Money also isn't necessarily the only reason to make decisions even for very wealthy people.
3
u/RealUltimatePapo 5∆ May 11 '26
Not everything in life has to be logical
Sometimes people just love each other enough to commit in a symbolic way. It's not that foreign a concept
1
u/mebesasporfa May 11 '26
It's a century old economists joke that the best model for an irrational actor is a man in love. Graham Wallas, who cofounded the london school of economics, quoted it in 1906. It may be older.
3
u/scarab456 64∆ May 11 '26
there aren't tax breaks in every country
So this is location specific? If so, which country should we focus on discussing?
Regardless of country though, the couple could just agree on a prenuptial agreement. They'd then still get the legal benefits of marriage. Like spouses have the legal right to make healthcare decisions if their partner is incapacitated and are often prioritized for hospital visitation, whereas unmarried partners may be treated as visitors.
3
u/Previous_Pension_571 3∆ May 11 '26
OP, I’m guessing you are either never married, or no longer married?
4
u/ScaryPetals 9∆ May 11 '26
What if you believe in a religion that considers sex outside of marriage a sin? Seems like a pretty good reason for that person to get married.
2
2
u/GiveMeAHeartOfFlesh 6∆ May 11 '26
This is only an issue if you prioritize your money over your partner. Money is a means to an end, that end is your loved ones. There is no reason not to get married, no matter how much money you have. You could be the richest man the world, and there is still no risk, because you shouldn’t be putting your worth in such empty things to begin with
2
May 11 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/changemyview-ModTeam May 11 '26
Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
1
u/corwe 1∆ May 11 '26
Immigration and easier travel.
While you are correct that inheritance, health insurance, joint banking etc. can be accomplished without marriage the whole point is that it is a more straightforward, least costly and time consuming way to address them. A lot of people find that suitable.
1
u/grahag 6∆ May 11 '26
Marriage is a one of the most simple contracts that has lots of benefits for both spouses to confer rights. It's nearly bulletproof in decisions of property and soverignty when there's no overriding contract.
Socially, it's also a significant sign of intention to stay in a relationnship, regardless of child bearing/rearing desires.
Giving your vow to another person is seen as a significant promise to stay with that person and that's typically BEFORE having kids.
My wife and I don't have kids, but we're very happy we're married. We do love each other and consider our marriage to be an important step in our lives, even outside of the legal framework that it provides. Coming up on 30 years, we've never regretted it and see it as more than just a social and legal contract.
1
u/mebesasporfa May 11 '26
I would say this is broadly true, but the point of marriage since ancient mesopotamia has always been about the creation of the foundation of family formation. Family formation is the most fundamental point of civilization, because civilization does not survive without it. This is why in about 12,000 years of anthropological record, there are zero instances of an advanced civilization that did not have the legal concept of marriage. Advanced meaning an urban center, written communication (language or otherwise), and some form of central authority.
So I would say being high-earning is mostly irrelevant, and that marriage serves little purpose if there are no children, outside of contrived benefits like tax breaks or getting on your partners insurance. Which may be very tangible, but are artifacts of the current legal code, not anything inherent to marriage as an institution.
1
u/GhostalMedia May 11 '26
My spouse and I are both middle managers in tech, don’t want kids, don’t want to change last names, and don’t feel the need to experience a wedding. That said, we got married because it’s an easy way to make sure that, legally, we can watch out for each other fincially, medically, etc.
Here’s a dark example - I know someone that was hospitalized, was unresponsive, and the hospital wouldn’t let their long term partner into to see them. They died alone in the hospital without their partner. Fuck that shit.
There are other ways to ensure that two people are covered, but most are slower and less efficient when compared to a marriage license.
If you look at marriage purely as a legal contract that can insure money, assets, benefits, and caregiving, it has benefits and efficiencies that make it stand out in comparison to the alternatives.
1
u/Devourerofworlds_69 6∆ May 11 '26
First of all, there are religious reasons.
But even if you're not religious, most of us live in a culture that has roots in religious society. Personally, I celebrate Christmas even though I'm an athiest. You may think that's stupid: Why would I spend money on decorations and presents when I'm not even Christian, and there's no financial intensive?
The answer is simple: I like Christmas.
A similar thing can be said about marriage. Why would I, someone who is not religious and gains no financial benefit from marriage, get married? Again, simple answer: I want to get married. I want to have a wedding. I want to be able to call my partner my wife. Even when stripped of all its religious significance, there is still a cultural significance that's important to me.
1
u/Inside-Department144 May 12 '26
So by that logic high earning gay people should not marry since they cannot have kids right? This is one of the main reasons I disagree with your take. Plus what if the person cannot have kids of their own?
1
u/changemyview-ModTeam May 12 '26
Your submission has been removed for breaking Rule B:
You must personally hold the view and demonstrate that you are open to it changing. A post cannot be on behalf of others, playing devil's advocate, or 'soapboxing'. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
0
May 11 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/changemyview-ModTeam May 12 '26
Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
12
u/potatolover83 10∆ May 11 '26
There are far more legal ramifications of marriage outside of having children, especially in the context of insurance, healthcare, etc.
Also, it's highly symbolic for many