There is a huge difference-legally.
1.you get his name(is voluntarily now, you can keep yours.)
2.If your spouse dies you will be entitled to widow pension by social security(currently at age 62 unless disabled)
3.Your children will be legal--they get his name and he is automatically considered their father.
4.You will be entitled to his 401K if he dies.
5.If he happens to be in the military and he would die, you would get widow pension from the military right away(don't have to wait until you are 62)and you get to keep his health insurance(for dependents).
If you just shack together you will
Not get any benefits unless the particular state you live in provides them by law.
2006-07-15 13:19:32
·
answer #1
·
answered by MARIANNE G 4
·
1⤊
0⤋
I hate to say this because I'm a female but not much. It is alot harder to leave someone if your married. She wants your reassurance in front of everyone that you will never leave her. Then there is the fact that she might want to have children. Insurance benefits? Don't rush. Once you get in it's hard to get out. Make sure that you really want to commit to someone for your whole life no matter what. It is a very serious commitment and if you have any doubts listen to them. I didn't, I was told by friends that everyone has doubts before they get married but I found out the hard way that's not true, I'm getting a divorce now.
Listen to your gut if you feel like your not ready for marriage then don't. You may feel down the road that your ready and with this person but don't push if your gut says no.
2006-07-15 13:17:08
·
answer #2
·
answered by nm 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
A serious relationship without the commitment of marriage is just that "without commitment". There is no promise to love, honor, and cherish until death do us part in a serious relationship. Its more like yeah I'll be here until you make me angry. I was in a serious relationship living together for 2 years, then we married will be 3 year and it is different than when we just lived together. I don't know how to explain it but it is. I hope someday you can experience the wonder of it. This is my second marriage and I got it right this time.
2006-07-15 13:21:24
·
answer #3
·
answered by Badkitty 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
One of the most common questions spouses ask when confronting a marriage crisis is this: How can I save my marriage if my partner doesn't want to help find a solution? How do I succeed I am trying to save my marriage on my own? Learn here https://tr.im/qhBkV
It is a typical enough story: one partner leaves, the other stays. One remains 'in love', the other is uncertain. Whatever it is that has caused a couple to be apart, the one person who remains bears the prospect, fear, doubt, desire, hope of saving his or her marriage' alone.
2016-02-10 16:45:43
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Yes what you said is true. Maybe what im about to say is the same. Marriage means having a more serious relationship means you will always be together and to have a family. Even if you are not married you can still have a family but it just doesnt seem right to other people.
2006-07-15 13:06:16
·
answer #5
·
answered by princess sorrow 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
While I understand your question, I have to take a different viewpoint. The purpose in getting married is to show your commitment to the other person and form a lasting bond to raise a family. It is a "forever" type of commitment. Being a long-term couple may mean the same thing to you, but it doesn't look the same to people outside of your relationship. It looks like you don't care enough about the other person to commit your life to living with them always.
2006-07-15 13:09:06
·
answer #6
·
answered by physandchemteach 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
hi darling, you're genuinely excellent. choose extra ladies on the prompt would come ahead and say something. the rationalization it is occurring is because, contained in the olden days, ladies were married of once they were given their first era. maximum ladies excellent this second prefer to larger their preparation, get a occupation, locate a rewarding pastime, formerly settling down. father and mom cutting-side or Desi do not view it that way. For them you would possibly want to be married formerly you turn 22 yrs previous. the more youthful you're, the added little ones you are able to produce formerly your organic and organic clock stops ticking. so some distance as getting proposals from Older guy, properly in the journey that they are from usa of america, or Canada, or any eu usa, are properly popular and characteristic various funds, it is alright to be older, a minimum of the female is youthful. adult males do no longer have a difficulty generating little ones no count number how previous they could be. ladies initiate having issues at the same time as they bypass the 25-35 yrs selection. adult males of that age crew also choose youthful brides. i desire that variety of solutions your question.
2016-11-06 10:31:27
·
answer #7
·
answered by tahir 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
I've never understood the argument that "marriage is just a piece of paper". If it's that trivial, then why not get that piece of paper?
It's the guy (or maybe the girl) saying, "I'll love you forever, or until someone better catches my eye, whichever comes first."
It's the girl (or the guy) saying, "You're really not good enough for me to make a total commitment to, but at least I'll get laid regularly without the hassles of dating."
It's the guy (or girl) saying, "My money, my assets, and my stock portfolio mean more to me than marrying you and then having you leave with any part of my money, my assets, or my stock portfolio. I'll take a bullet for you, baby, but there's no way I'll give you any of my hard-earned dough."
It's the girl (or guy) enjoying the benefits of 'playing house' without sacrificing any of their personal 'freedoms' (why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?).
It's the "loophole" that allows the guy (or girl) to walk away if things get tough; if the girl gets breast cancer; or if the guy goes into a coma. It's the easy way out....and, of course, we live in the world's most proliferous disposable society, so why isn't it acceptable to discard old lovers once we've tired of them
It's a way to be "accepted" in a sex-slathered society. "Living together" sounds much more arrogate than "sleeping around".
Statistics show that couples who did not co-habitate prior to marriage generally enjoy better marriages that last longer and tend to be more mutually trustworthy. Couples who lived together prior to marriage more often divorce more quickly.
I know one couple who have lived together without the benefit of marriage for more than 27 years. It obviously works for them.
I also know another couple who have lived together for seven years, and the seams of their relationship are beginning to split.
Now for the kicker: My first marriage, at age 19, lasted two years and cost me $96,000.00 (which, at my young age, was an enormous amount of money). My second marriage, ten years later, lasted two years and cost me $280,000.)) plus everything I owned (extenuating circumstances, which included a young wife in a psychiatric ward due to conditions she experienced in childhood, and which she never revealed to anyone). My third marriage lasted six days in Las Vegas, for most of which I wasn't even sober.
I have been separated from my current wife of 28-1/2 years since July 13, 2002. Her chronic alcoholism (we met in a bar) has ruined her life. Once a beautiful, witty, wonderful woman, she is now reduced to a 58-year-old drunk who takes no pride in her property, her work, or herself. She can't hold a job, has few friends (and those who are her friends aren't aware of her severe drinking problem), and has little self-esteem left. She fell down the stairs (drunk) and shattered her leg; she was arrested for drunk driving; and the booze has alienated her from her two sons, her sister, and her brother and their families. When I left I walked away from a $170,000 home, over $40,000 in cash, nice household furnishings and myriad other material assets.
While I'll never love her again - and we'll never "be friends" as so many people believe is possible - at least we can still be civil to each other. With every ounce of my being, I pray that she'll get off the booze and live twenty years or more of a productive, happy live surrounded by people that love and honor her. What I surrended as part of our separation was only material goods, which can always be replaced or forgotten about. Damn near destitute now, I find myself more content with my life than I've been for more than fifteen years. Sure, I'm not especially happy.
But, maybe that will come in its own time. Meanwhile, I have no regrets about being married - and committed - to one woman for almost thirty years. It would never had been the same had we chosen just to live together.
While many of you will say I'm an idiot, and question my sanity for giving up everything I own, I would give it all up again just to see this once-wonderful woman get her life together.
That, I believe, is the difference between marriage and just being a "couple". -RKO-
2006-07-15 14:01:42
·
answer #8
·
answered by -RKO- 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
I agree w/u it's nothing it's just a piece of paper that makes it legal that's all and if u guys been 2gether 4 awhile alot of states look @ common law marriage after 4yrs which is basically being married legally except u don't have no papers.
2006-07-15 13:08:04
·
answer #9
·
answered by shortyb5 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
whether your married or not you can still leave someone high and dry so i dont understand how people are saying its a bigger commitment. marriage guarentees nothing but a divorce if you marry the wrong person
dont get married til your in your mid 30's
2006-07-15 13:26:45
·
answer #10
·
answered by carmen c 2
·
0⤊
0⤋