I’ve been in a stable relationship for a while now so naturally the idea of being married to that person comes up. But I just can’t think of any argument in favour of it.

  1. The government is discussing equalising tax groups, so unmarried individuals are no longer disadvantaged compared to married couples.

  2. I engage in a contract with high risk. If I don’t get my legalese right, I risk forfeiting a sizeable portion of my belongings when the contract comes to an end. High risk should entail high reward but in fact I don’t see any reward.

  3. Getting married changes nothing about the relationship. Until recently, the government didn’t even recognise same sex marriages. So if a straight couple gets married, should that make their relationship more valid because the government decides to put a stamp of approval on theirs and not on a gay couple? I hope not.

I’ve tried putting myself in other roles to imagine why I would want to get married. This is what I came up with:

  1. I like labelling things and I like the sound of the label “married”
  2. I want a big party called “marriage ceremony” that other people also understand as “marriage ceremony” (as opposed to just any party)
  3. I like the way married couples are portrayed in films and books (Ignoring the fact that in real life, a lot of marriages are unhappy, dysfunctional and draining until they end up in divorce).
  • kindnesskills@literature.cafe
    6·
    17 hours ago

    If one of the partners are taking on more of the household work or childrearing, and working less hours or at a less wellpaid position to be able to do so, both partners are benefiting. But if the relationship ends, the partner who sacrificed their salary for their family have less income, fewer promotions, worse opportunities to move around in the job market, and drastically lower pension funds.

    This is one aspect where marriage can even things out. It means the spouse who benefited from having support at home to be able to further their own career, will compensate the spouse who lost opportunities for the sake of the relationship. The career opportunities and pension fund for the higher earner will benefit them after the relationship ends, so the repayment to the partner who gave them those opportunities should also continue after the relationship ends.

    There are other ways to do this without marriage, like the higher earning partner placing part of their income into a pension fund for the lower earning partner, but this wont compensate for loss of opportunities that comes with taking most child/family care days or taking long parental leave or working fewer hours per week.

    Theres also the fact that usually the purchasing within a couple is split evenly but unfairly. Perhaps one pays for the car or furnishings and the other pays for vacations and food. When splitting up, the one who bought the car still gas it, but the one who paid for the food has no belongings left. Marriage means that it doesnt matter who paid for what, you both put value into the relationship and both will leave the relationship on somewhat equal footing.

    Marriage is a promise that one partner will not be worse off in the end, for supporting the other partners ambition. That what you work towards together will benefit you both together. This of course doesn’t apply to every couple or every situation.