Is marriage really on the decline because of men's cheap access to sex ?
That would imply that people get married for sex which I don't think is true as there is so much more to married life!
I just think it has become more socially acceptable to live together outside marriage.
As I was going to St Ives
I met a man with seven wives
Said he, 'I think it's much more fun
Than getting stuck with only one.'

Roald Dahl
It's much more socially acceptable to live together outside marriage. I'm kind of old fashioned in that I still believe if you're going to have kids then you should be married, but when kids aren't an option, everyone should feel free to live how they want to.

I personally have no intention of ever marrying but I lived with my ex for 25 years.

Not being married made keep kicking him out so much easier :lol:
Sara2101 wrote: It's much more socially acceptable to live together outside marriage.


In this 21st century, almost everyone lives over t'brush.

Marriage as we think of it, though now an out dated tradition, is a recent invention.

In biblical ages, there was no marriage ceremony. Men and women would live together and were considered married.

It wasn't until the mediaeval era than marriage became a political tool, allowing nobiiity to gain land, posesssions and finance.

Legally, lay-partners are now treated the same as married couples.
These stats were in the UK 5 years ago
The average age for marriage is 26.5 for women and 28.5 for men — an all time high. However, people are not shunning marriage completely. Over a three-year period of the study, 40 percent of cohabiting couples got married, 32 percent stayed together and 27 percent broke up.
There's no such thing as common law in the UK so no lay partners don't have the same rights as married people. When dividing assets as unmarried couples you have to prove what each contributed and agree how things are split. A married couple it's all split.
Sara2101 wrote: There's no such thing as common law in the UK so no lay partners don't have the same rights as married people. When dividing assets as unmarried couples you have to prove what each contributed and agree how things are split. A married couple it's all split.


Almost correct, Sara. Co-habiting partners are treated the same as married couples dependent on their financial trust developed by shared rents or gifts, for example.

If one partner owns a house, the other partner may have a claim to have an interest in it on the basis that a trust has arisen, even if the relationship later breaks down. A trust may arise where a partner makes certain financial contributions.

In both situations, married or co-habiting, a court of law will judge the percentage of responsibility and liabilities of the two depending on the trust they have developed, where the trust is a financial agreement, say, joint bank accounts and contributions to their living arrangements.

In that respect, legally there is no difference between the two.
If you're married you don't have to prove that you have contributed, there is the entitlement on the basis that you have a "legitimate expectation"...
Sara2101 wrote: If you're married you don't have to prove that you have contributed, there is the entitlement on the basis that you have a "legitimate expectation"...


That only happens if the separation is amicable and both parties agree on arrangements, otherwise a court of law adjudicates. In exactly the same way as were the participants co habiting.
Yes but the one who hasn't contributed anything cos the idle git didn't do a stick of work is still entitled to a share. It's called "legitimate expectation of ongoing support". If you're not married there is no right to a share of what you haven't contributed to. Unless there are dependents involved. I sought immense amounts of legal advice on this subject when I was splitting up with my unmarried ex who hadn't contributed anything to the household income in 25yrs and his family were trying to take half of everything including my home.
Sara2101 wrote: Yes but the one who hasn't contributed anything cos the idle git didn't do a stick of work is still entitled to a share. It's called "legitimate expectation of ongoing support". If you're not married there is no right to a share of what you haven't contributed to. Unless there are dependents involved. I sought immense amounts of legal advice on this subject when I was splitting up with my unmarried ex who hadn't contributed anything to the household income in 25yrs and his family were trying to take half of everything including my home.


Precisly my point. Since he contributed nothing as a co habitor, he and his family, in th eyes of the law, are entitled to nil. It's the same with marriage should one partner protest against the trust. I'm satisfied we're finally agreed on the matter. :D
Its different when a couple divorce than if they lived together as their rights are more determined :-

In the UK the starting point for dividing the assets in divorce are 50/50. However the financial settlement will usually be different in each case as it depends on the parties circumstances and their needs when it comes to deciding what they should each receive from the matrimonial assets.

If a cohabiting couple splits up, they do not have the same legal rights to property as a married couple. In general, unmarried couples can't claim ownership of each other's property in the event of a breakup. Gifts made during the relationship remain the property of the recipient.
Thank you Graham; my point exactly
Yes its very unfair. A lady I used to work with a few years ago lived with the same man for many years and supported him most of that time as his work was intermittent but when they spilt up, as the house was in his name, she got nothing unless she could prove financial contributions to the upkeep of the property! When you trust someone, you do not record such things as you expect fairness will prevail. Sadly, without having married or become civil partners, the relationship is not recognized by law. :(