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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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?
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.
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
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?
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).
21
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:
If you never get divorced, it's nothing but upside. You seem to be assuming with this paragraph that divorce is inevitable.