co-habiting couples
- Thread starter panther
- Start date
Personally I feel that individuals should stand on their own 2 feet.
In my last long-term relationship, he moved in with me - I owned the house, already had all furniture & appliances etc., & earned more money than him, so under these new recommendations when I kicked him out he could claim financial support from me? Over my dead body!
In my last long-term relationship, he moved in with me - I owned the house, already had all furniture & appliances etc., & earned more money than him, so under these new recommendations when I kicked him out he could claim financial support from me? Over my dead body!
It's a bit of a farce in this country that marriage is seen as the best thing a family can have, with the state giving married couples benefits over non-married couples.
It doesn't make any sense at all apart from living up to dated traditions.
Couples should be able to have legal standing even if they do not wish to get married.
It doesn't make any sense at all apart from living up to dated traditions.
Couples should be able to have legal standing even if they do not wish to get married.
If cohabiting couples were to have the same rights as married couples it would need all kinds of legislation to enable it to work, such as how long they were together, whether or not they shared one or two homes etc. At the moment people have a choice if they want the rights which each type of relationship offers, and I think that is good.
I wasn't aware that the state has any benefits specific to married people. The married tax allowance was the only one I knew of and thats long gone.
I wasn't aware that the state has any benefits specific to married people. The married tax allowance was the only one I knew of and thats long gone.
I didn't mean financial benefits in that way, I meant the law grants the benefit of legal standing to married couples when they break up, but cohabiting couples aren't recognised as official so don't get the same legal rights as married couples.
For me, people should choose whether to marry or not because of their views on the concept of marriage - not how much legal power they will have if the relationship ends - and so both options should have equal rights.
Garinda is right in saying that big legislative changes would have to be made but I think it would be beneficial to a more secular society, with an increasing amount of people wishing to have legally recognised relationships without the religious tags of marriage.
Depnds if one of the couple has done sod all for years and the other half has been supporting 'em.
good point, its a minefield, that can be the case in quite a few separations,to me there should only be any legal way if there are children between the couple involved.
Good luck to you both and to your kids, I hope you stay together and provide a stable family for your youngsters. It sadly doesn't work that way when a marriage/relationship breaks up, I wouldn't be happy providing for an ex-partner who had done nowt whilst I had been working full time and now came asking for a share of my earnings !
Marriage is a fine old institution but not one I will be entering again !
well im not married, and have been with my partner for for 12 years, we have 2 kids, and doing fine thankyou, i know people who have married and its all ended in divorce, so i think whats the point, its only a peice of paper, and very hard to get out off if the relationship breaks down!.
it should only apply to people with kids, thats all, just to carry on supporting them,, its the kids who need it!,, at the moment if my partner suddenly dies, i would not get widows pension, or anything else,...i think it should change for all, we should still get it if married or not, but only if you have been co-habiting for years and have children
it should only apply to people with kids, thats all, just to carry on supporting them,, its the kids who need it!,, at the moment if my partner suddenly dies, i would not get widows pension, or anything else,...i think it should change for all, we should still get it if married or not, but only if you have been co-habiting for years and have children
I have been with Daddiboo for over 11 years now we both work and we have done everything together we have 2 children and 1 more on the way we have bought a house together and cars and all the furniture in the house and everything else that life brings on the way the only thing we havent done is get married I agree with what else has been said throughout the thread that Marriage means different things to different people. I dont see why people who are not married but have lived the same way as married people for longer than some people are actually married for should not be treated the same way with the same benifits as married folks.
And then theres the small matter of Divorce which seems to happen all to offen these days messy costly divorce who needs that eh!
And then theres the small matter of Divorce which seems to happen all to offen these days messy costly divorce who needs that eh!
Divorces vary like marriages vary.
My 1st divorce after 10 years of marriage was amicable and cost £15 because no solicitors were involved. The maintenance of 1 child was agreed and legalised in the courts (without solicitors)
My second divorce after 8 years was a horrendous battle which cost me a hell of a lot emotionally and financially.
My 3rd was a cohabitation relationship which lasted 17 years.
I recommend cohabitation for childless couples. There are safeguards which you can put in place, such as joint ownership of property, and making a will in each others favour. I would not like the existing laws on that changed.
If you have children in the relationship it is better to safeguard them by marriage. You will be able to continue to live in the matrimonial home until the youngest is 16 - essential to provide them with some small element of security during the (maybe) turbulent divorce.
PS experience has taught me that nothing is forever - or, you are very lucky if it is
My 1st divorce after 10 years of marriage was amicable and cost £15 because no solicitors were involved. The maintenance of 1 child was agreed and legalised in the courts (without solicitors)
My second divorce after 8 years was a horrendous battle which cost me a hell of a lot emotionally and financially.
My 3rd was a cohabitation relationship which lasted 17 years.
I recommend cohabitation for childless couples. There are safeguards which you can put in place, such as joint ownership of property, and making a will in each others favour. I would not like the existing laws on that changed.
If you have children in the relationship it is better to safeguard them by marriage. You will be able to continue to live in the matrimonial home until the youngest is 16 - essential to provide them with some small element of security during the (maybe) turbulent divorce.
PS experience has taught me that nothing is forever - or, you are very lucky if it is
Last edited:
Why should anyone who doesn't enter into a legal contract have any legal rights to another's property?
What's so terrible about marriage? I've heard so many people say they can't afford a wedding - blah-blah-blah - or do it when their children are school age etc., as if marriage was purely about "The Big Day". It isn't. It's the ultimate commitment and, even if you're not the romantic type, it's saying to the world at large and the Law of the Land, "I'll stay with this person". It can be a big, expensive fuss or 15 minutes at the Registry Office - they're both as binding. Sure, it can go wrong but so can cohabitation and maybe that makes walking out just a little bit easier - and a little harder on the one who's dumped.
Cohabit if that's what you want but don't expect a free ride if you won't buy a ticket.
What's so terrible about marriage? I've heard so many people say they can't afford a wedding - blah-blah-blah - or do it when their children are school age etc., as if marriage was purely about "The Big Day". It isn't. It's the ultimate commitment and, even if you're not the romantic type, it's saying to the world at large and the Law of the Land, "I'll stay with this person". It can be a big, expensive fuss or 15 minutes at the Registry Office - they're both as binding. Sure, it can go wrong but so can cohabitation and maybe that makes walking out just a little bit easier - and a little harder on the one who's dumped.
Cohabit if that's what you want but don't expect a free ride if you won't buy a ticket.
