Should unmarried couples receive the same benefits as married couples?

Question

I heard recently of a new law that may entitle unmarried couples to receive the same rights as married couples do (i.e sahre of house, earnings etc. What a joke - if they want these rights then they should get married then? Surely some men dont get married in the first place cuz they dont want some woman taking all their well earned wealth. They obviously dont love them enough in the first place.

Answer 1

My personal opinion? No they should not. If these people think that they should be awarded the same benefits, then do it right and get married.

Answer 2

I think it's fair enough, weddings cost a fortune nowadays and plenty of couples live together out of wedlock. I think you are being very stereotypical when you say that some woman will take all the mans hard earned wealth. There's no reason why the woman wouldn't have contribited just as much, women work too now you know. I think it is a very sad world we live in if people are living with people they don't trust and men are not marrying because they are scared. You need to learn to open your heart or it will be a very sad life you lead.

Answer 3

well ordinarily I would say no but there are extenuating circumstances sometimes where couples don't want to get married. My husband's brother has been with the same woman for like 10 years or something, and they have bought a house together. They can't (or don't want to) get married because she draws a check each month from her deceased husband. As a stipulation of his will, if she ever got married again she would lose this money. Although they both work, I know this extra money helps them out and is helping to send her to college. I'm sure there are lots of other cases like this too. To say they don't love each other as much as a married couple is unfair. These two people love each other very much, and are married in every sense of the word. The only thing they lack is a piece of paper saying they have the same last name.

Answer 4

You are making a mountain out of a molehill. Basically, if supposed "unmarried" couples are given the same rights as married couples, then they ARE married. They are just not using that terminology. The law, in a way, already exists in most places. If a couple lives together long enough, then they are a common law couple, and the each have rights. It is merely a means of protecting them from themselves, and more importantly, protecting any children that may be involved. The law would essentially make it so that men who "don't want some woman taking all their well-earned wealth" would not be able to take advantage of women and their children, which is very common. If you are supposedly committed to a person, marriage or not, then you both deserve to be protected by the law. To argue otherwise is a matter of semantics, at best, and is irresponsible at worst.

Answer 5

I am living with my fiance and as we are not married yet, then yes, I think we should get the same rights. We live together and both work hard but he earns a few hundred more than me but we put into the house the same energy so why the hell should he walk away with more, just because he earns a bit more than me!? If he was to cheat on me, then would it seem fair that he got more than me when he did wrong!? NO! If I put the same energy into that house as he does then it should be split. I don't see why a piece of paper should make any bloody difference.

Answer 6

I think you have answered your own question. But to give my opinion, no they should not, if you want the benefits of a married couple then get married. It seems to me, as a divorced man with 2 kids, that we have made splitting up into a fiscal benefit for a number of women and a business fine artform. Should this be translated to the "common law (by the way there is no such thing, the term "common Law wife" was invented by the popular press) situation as we know it, women will lose out as many men will actually refuse to allow them to move in. I have gone through a terrible divorce hat cost me over £300k, and, yes I am re marrying, but for years I would not entertain even letting a woman stay overnight. I think this law will be a terrible law for society as a whole, to put it bluntly, women have priced themselves out of the marriage market and only the children and family values will suffer.

For Ratfart__________ this is not about who get what, if the house is in both your names you will split it 50/50 but if he bought the house before he met you then you should have taken out a joint mortgage, shared the risk as well as the benefits. And lets not foget that :-

A) more women actually cheat on their partners than men.

B) It works both ways,if a man moves in with a women, why should he be entitled to half her house.

C) Again, I state if you want the benefits of being married then get married.

If your engaged then what stopping you, is engagement not the precursor of actually getting married.

So many people are only willing to go half way with thier commitment to each other, why do you think that is?

Do you honestly think this new law will make more people get permenantly engaged or less?

Think about it before you jump on the money bandwagon, if the divorce laws were not so harsh I recon you fiance might well have been your husband by now......

Answer 7

Quite often now-a-days the woman is making just as much if not more than the man. So the wealth isn't only the man's. I think that if there is a separation, all assets should be divided equally....even if one of the spouses is staying home to look after the children....they are still a "partner" in the relationship. As long as they "do their share" around the house, etc. When it comes to say a farm....what would the wife do with the land? It wouldn't be fair to pull that out from underneath the husband....who in most cases.....is going to continue to farm....not the wife! If your view is shared with a lot of men, then we are going back in time to a where men were the superior in the relationship and come on ....its 2007, things aren't that way any more!
Wealth, what wealth, that's what my initial thought was. I wish someone would share the wealth with us!!! lol

Answer 8

money matters ,no people should not get the same rights as married folks .that is the problem with gay mar rage .they cant marry but they live together and shear everything together they should be able to marry so as to have tho same benefits as straights or we must give all non married people living in committed relationship the same rights as married folks

Answer 9

I'm sitting here wondering, what benefits married couples have? Its always cost me more when I'm married...other than sharing household expenses there are no benefits. Taxes have always cost me more, Insurance more, etc. I'd rather have a roommate or a live in lover to share the household cost and keep my income in the lower tax brackets.

Answer 10

If you live with the person for 5 year or more why shouldn't you? You are willing to have all the benefits but, not have to pay for the kids later if it doesn't work out?
You make woman sound like we are money hungry. Not all woman are. I have been divorced I walked away with what I came in with. Nothing more nothing less. But, that is me I am sure I am not the only one who has done that. And if you are so afraid of some woman coming into your life and taking all your money either get a prenuptial or don't live with or marry them....

Answer 11

I would not agree this. Marriage is a comittment, and it is the way you agree that you want those things shared. Not married, that means you don't want it (or just dont want it yet). I also think when a man really loves a woman will marry her (sooner or later)