Good Morning Boxing Day Birds!
ChatterBank1 min ago
Why Not Just Get Married?
https:/
When they knew that he was ill, surely they would have known the consequences of not being married so why not just pop down to the registry office and get married? How long would have taken, twenty minutes, half an hour? What is it about these people who refuse point blank to get married no matter what, what are they trying to prove? I do not understand the mentality, so against marriage but yet will be together for years and have children. Can someone please explain?
When they knew that he was ill, surely they would have known the consequences of not being married so why not just pop down to the registry office and get married? How long would have taken, twenty minutes, half an hour? What is it about these people who refuse point blank to get married no matter what, what are they trying to prove? I do not understand the mentality, so against marriage but yet will be together for years and have children. Can someone please explain?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by dave50. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
As it happens, this particular couple chose not to marry because the man had promised his (presumably also now-dead) first wife that he would never remarry.
As reasons for not marrying someone go, it's not one I'd ever support myself, but he can hardly be criticised for wanting to stick to a promise and for choosing to keep his word.
As reasons for not marrying someone go, it's not one I'd ever support myself, but he can hardly be criticised for wanting to stick to a promise and for choosing to keep his word.
"I would have thought third marriages were a pretty strong nail in the coffin of marriage myself"
What do you mean, jno?
If, as is suggested, the benefit must be paid to all couples to ensure the welfare of children of unmarried couples are not disadvantaged, the simplest way to deal with the alleged discrimination against unmarried couples would be to simply dispense with the benefit entirely. But of course this would be couples with dependent children (whether married or not) would have to make their own arrangements to cope with tragedy - such as buying life insurance.
What do you mean, jno?
If, as is suggested, the benefit must be paid to all couples to ensure the welfare of children of unmarried couples are not disadvantaged, the simplest way to deal with the alleged discrimination against unmarried couples would be to simply dispense with the benefit entirely. But of course this would be couples with dependent children (whether married or not) would have to make their own arrangements to cope with tragedy - such as buying life insurance.
As has been stressed, no, they couldn't -- Bereavement Allowance remains only available to married couples.
Further, I think even now the statement is that only the current partner would be able to make the claim: the state still doesn't recognise polygamous relationships, so by definition only one person can be somebody else's "partner".
Further, I think even now the statement is that only the current partner would be able to make the claim: the state still doesn't recognise polygamous relationships, so by definition only one person can be somebody else's "partner".
I think it's fine for anyone to say don't pay people who aren't married as long as they don't mind taxing those people less so they don't have to pay the enhancements and benefits of people who ARE married, otherwise it's a discriminatory tactic. Clearly if you are a committed couple residing together with children then you ought to be entitled to the same benefits as those who are married.
I'm sorry to keep on at this but those have been together years and have a family but still say they don't want to get married is why? What are the reasons behind it? Are they nervous of the fact that their commitment would then be in writing? It strikes me that whatever they say they are not quite as 100% committed as they like to make out.
Marriage is many faceted and I used not to see the point in it at all. On one hand you can view it as simply conforming to a society's expectations in which case you might not want to do that however committed you are. On another you might view it as your moment to let your partner know how much you love them and that you have chosen them above all others on the planet to be your mate, and marriage would be a public affirmation of that, your chance to publicly state that to the world.
Either way I think marrying simply to keep your benefits safe is bloody cynical and not the bedrock of anything.
Either way I think marrying simply to keep your benefits safe is bloody cynical and not the bedrock of anything.
I'm not sure how committed I am to the idea of marrying -- depends on finding the right person, and on their wanting the same thing, I suppose -- but I don't have a problem with the idea of encouraging marriage. The key difference in this case is that there are children involved who are also adversely affected by denying the financial benefit. As
Latest Posts
How it Works14 mins ago
Road rules17 mins ago
Am I Right To Be Feeling This Way?
Family Life22 mins ago
Editor's Blog50 mins ago
ChatterBank61 mins ago
