Marriage without children?....And divorce - Page 7

iambusto · #61 08-27-2007, 05:05 PM

btw, those who say why would anyone want to get married when your spouse could take so much money from you....there is the need for a prenup.

its NOT costly. I had my prenup drawn for 750$ flat fee, and her own attorney reviewed it for 200$ (takes just an hour to review it). BTw, since i dont make much and have very few assets and financial situation is very simple. for someone with a more complicated financial situation it could cost 1500-2000 tops. worth every penny if you ask me.

RoundGuy · #62 08-27-2007, 05:10 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I could stay with her without marrying her but i am marrying her because I love her and respect her wishes/desire to be married.

[/ QUOTE ]
So you're getting married solely because she wants to, but you don't really care either way?

And if you don't love her two years from now? You go through the hassle of a divorce. If you live together with no kids and no marriage, no hassle.

But hey, whatever trips your trigger.

Blarg · #63 08-27-2007, 05:13 PM

"Deep" depends on the level of the people in the first place. I think you can probably have a real love without being enormously deep, though. I say this because I wonder if you are overreaching too far in the quest for certainty on the one hand, while contradicting that by saying puppy love is good enough on the other.

Your method of evaluating love sounds almost like testing a car. I don't think you can ever know if love is abiding, and think that it is not really love's nature to abide; making it abide is our work, not nature's.

Your five year figure seems an entirely personal and arbitrary one. What's more, marrying someone you dated for four years and STILL had not felt you developed what you considered more than puppy love with looks like you didn't quite believe that when you married either. It seems fair to take it further -- not loving someone enough to marry them (by both your and my standards) but marrying them anyway seems to be begging for trouble. Especially since you are talking about marrying explicitly for children.

I don't understand why someone would undertake something as serious and potentially volatile as marriage, and even more, childbirth, on the basis of puppy love.

Maybe we're defining that term differently, too. But it seems that we both are separating it cleanly from something that strikes us as deeper. It just looks like you don't mind not having something deeper and don't think it can be obtained.

iambusto · #64 08-27-2007, 05:38 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I could stay with her without marrying her but i am marrying her because I love her and respect her wishes/desire to be married.

[/ QUOTE ]
So you're getting married solely because she wants to, but you don't really care either way?

And if you don't love her two years from now? You go through the hassle of a divorce. If you live together with no kids and no marriage, no hassle.

But hey, whatever trips your trigger.

[/ QUOTE ]

Roundguy if you read my post you will see that i stated i already have the prenup. Meaning there wont be much hassle anyway. Whatever we have in our joint accounts will get divvyed up in half, whatever we designated as separate property doesnt get touched and we go our ways. thats the insurance policy.

RoundGuy · #65 08-27-2007, 05:41 PM

You're not reading my posts clearly. How many times have I commented on the deep love I have for my wife? Many. But the love I felt for my wife on the day we were married doesn't even belong on the same measuring scale as the love I have for her now. That took 23 years to develop.

Perhaps I'm using the term "puppy-love" too loosely, but I believe you are using the term "deep love" too loosely as well. We were in love when we were married, but there is no way it can be compared to our love today.

My whole point, is that I would not have married my wife, when I did, if we had decided not to have children. Why would I? Does that mean we would not be together today? No. I find it highly unlikely, because of our differences, but it is still possible.

Would we be married today, if we were still together today, if we didn't have kids? Why would we be? Seems like we did pretty well without marriage, right? And we would still be deeply in love.

Marriage without children serves no logical, rational purpose. And I have seen no evidence to the contrary....yet.

RoundGuy · #66 08-27-2007, 05:46 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Roundguy if you read my post you will see that i stated i already have the prenup. ... thats the insurance policy.

[/ QUOTE ]
So you're getting married solely because she wants to, but you don't really care either way? And, you've got an "insurance policy"....just in case, right?

This makes no sense to me at all.

Nez477 · #67 08-27-2007, 06:33 PM

This thread is like it's coming from a different culture or something to me

I got married because I wanted to spend the rest of my life with the girl

Why is the sanctity that is marriage looked upon with such mediocrity?

I'll give odds on my marriage making it: 100%.

Or maybe 99% or whatever

But I married this woman because I wanted to care for her the rest of my life

THAT'S WHAT MARRIAGE IS

It's not about kids, it's not about finances, it's not about insurance

It's about love, amazing love and the bond that two people can have by COMMITTING themselves to one another no matter what the circumstaces may be

If you go into marriage, or analyze marriage with the basis that "Well, you never knwo, this may work out" you've already failed on what the staple of marriage is

I went into marriage with the 100% knowledge that I would commit my life to this woman, and in a way, being so committed allows me to be free in life because I don't have to analyze whether or not I want to stay in a marriage, and my life is full due to it

There's my .02 cents

Blarg · #68 08-27-2007, 07:15 PM

I think it's as offbeat to criticize optimism as it is to criticize realism. You can have both. Balancing them seems like a good idea.

MikeyPatriot · #69 08-27-2007, 07:16 PM

slim,

I assume that article is comparing kids of divorce to all kids with parents who are not divorced? It should be comparing kids in a divorced family with kids who's family may have had a divorce, but decided against it "for the children."

RoundGuy · #70 08-27-2007, 08:35 PM

Nez,

Your response is an excellent emotional response to the idea of marriage. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with that perspective. I agree with you from the emotional perspective.

However, I'm looking at it (for the sake of this argument) from a completely rational and logical perspective. What is the logical, rational argument for marriage without children?