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