Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to The Lounge |
| Jump to newest |  |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
Mr went first here | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Neither. Legal marriage should be abolished." Why? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Neither. Legal marriage should be abolished. Why?" Is it because illegal marriage is so much more fun? Like, you can marry a pair of trainers. Or twelve o'clock. Just to make 11:59 and 12:01 green with envy. Must be that..... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Neither. Legal marriage should be abolished. Why?" Because “love” shouldn’t come into legal contracts and people shouldn’t be afforded civil advantages based on it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Neither. Legal marriage should be abolished. Why? Because “love” shouldn’t come into legal contracts and people shouldn’t be afforded civil advantages based on it." What she said. Never been married and never will be | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Neither. Legal marriage should be abolished. Why? Because “love” shouldn’t come into legal contracts and people shouldn’t be afforded civil advantages based on it." Nah. It's the trainers at 12 o'clock. Yours was just a silly idea  . | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I was watching a fun scene in a movie where at the same time both asked the question and after both argued with eachother going back and forth saying "I should ask, not you". That makes me wonder wonder who proposed first if you are married and what is your view in general of who should propose first? I think that anyone can do it and that it doesnt matter if it is the guy or the women who do it first too "When I proposed got down on one knee and all that it would not have mattered who did it Unfortunately wife passed away many years ago | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Neither. Legal marriage should be abolished.  no. "People could still have some kind of romantic ceremony. They could have a handfasting or a wedding or whatever their religion or lifestyle dictates. But there should be no legal contract with the state based on "love" and people should not get civil advantages (tax breaks and similar) based on "love." | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I find it a ridicuous tradi5ion. It should be made as all decisions should be by frank discussion. Money children monogamy etc should all be thoroughly discussed. This also should happen before living together. " | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Neither. Legal marriage should be abolished. no.
People could still have some kind of romantic ceremony. They could have a handfasting or a wedding or whatever their religion or lifestyle dictates.
But there should be no legal contract with the state based on "love" and people should not get civil advantages (tax breaks and similar) based on "love.""How else could I piss off her parents without a certificate of marriage? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" ... But there should be no legal contract with the state based on "love" and people should not get civil advantages (tax breaks and similar) based on "love."" Such civil advantages are based on marriage, not necessarily love. I'm sure there are plenty of loveless marriages which are, or stay, in existence for financial reasons. Similarly there are plenty of couples living together in various states of romantic involvement who are doing so to make ends meet more easily. Without a doubt couples, married or otherwise, are generally a more lucrative market for those who benefit from the capitalist system. People somewhere will be making money out of the 29th of February. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" ... But there should be no legal contract with the state based on "love" and people should not get civil advantages (tax breaks and similar) based on "love." Such civil advantages are based on marriage, not necessarily love. I'm sure there are plenty of loveless marriages which are, or stay, in existence for financial reasons. Similarly there are plenty of couples living together in various states of romantic involvement who are doing so to make ends meet more easily. " But why do I have to be a 'couple' to benefit from a tax break? Why can't I share my best friend's tax-free allowance, for example? Why do I have to pay loads of money to get a contract drawn up if I want to be a legal guardian for her kids, when I could get married for less than a hundred quid to her for the same benefits? Why should she have to pay inheritance tax on my estate just because we're not married? Why should married people get out of paying inheritance tax? What about people in triad relationships? Three of my friends had a very difficult decision to make regarding who marries who, and who gets contracts. I think in the end it cost them about four thousand pounds to get contracts drawn up to match all of the legal advantages (particularly regarding children) than you get with legal marriage. These legal constructs should be available to anyone, not just a couple in a two-person relationship. The only reason for them to exist, and continue to exist, is because the government wants to maintain the (patriarchal) status quo of monogamy and 2.4 kids. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I proposed. In the most awkward way. I got nervous.  "My brother got his toddler at the time to bring the engagement ring over for the proposal. Unfortunately his toddler shat in his nâppy so it killed the vibe a little | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" ... But there should be no legal contract with the state based on "love" and people should not get civil advantages (tax breaks and similar) based on "love." Such civil advantages are based on marriage, not necessarily love. I'm sure there are plenty of loveless marriages which are, or stay, in existence for financial reasons. Similarly there are plenty of couples living together in various states of romantic involvement who are doing so to make ends meet more easily. But why do I have to be a 'couple' to benefit from a tax break? Why can't I share my best friend's tax-free allowance, for example? Why do I have to pay loads of money to get a contract drawn up if I want to be a legal guardian for her kids, when I could get married for less than a hundred quid to her for the same benefits? Why should she have to pay inheritance tax on my estate just because we're not married? Why should married people get out of paying inheritance tax? What about people in triad relationships? Three of my friends had a very difficult decision to make regarding who marries who, and who gets contracts. I think in the end it cost them about four thousand pounds to get contracts drawn up to match all of the legal advantages (particularly regarding children) than you get with legal marriage. These legal constructs should be available to anyone, not just a couple in a two-person relationship. The only reason for them to exist, and continue to exist, is because the government wants to maintain the (patriarchal) status quo of monogamy and 2.4 kids. " Hear hear. A couple of friends have or are planning civil partnerships as the easiest way to get all the legal protections without getting married. Personally at the moment, with H and I both having been married before, mostly grown up children, own our own houses, I’d be more likely to just do the romantic gesture bit as I don’t think the legal entanglements would necessarily be beneficial to our kids. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Doesn’t matter at all, whatever suits the dynamic of the relationship.
Mr went first here "Yes, you are right there, it depends on the dynamic of the relationship too | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Neither. Legal marriage should be abolished. Why? Because “love” shouldn’t come into legal contracts and people shouldn’t be afforded civil advantages based on it." I like you way of thinking me and my partner will never marry we have been together almost 35 years in our eyes we are better than married x | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
