Henin Expecting

[TMF]

Originally Posted by hoodjem

I had always suspected that TMF lived in a dream-world

I live in the present time, not stuck in the 60s.

[sphinx780]

So, in the U.S., the divorce rate is 50%. Making it a coin flip if they stay together. Is that stable? Do you assume that couples making the same commitment but not filing the paperwork are certain to break up over 50% of the time? Would your viewpoint change on couples that exchange rings but do not proceed with an official marriage filing?

Just curious as to what part of the marriage process signifies more stable to you.

[pmerk34]

Originally Posted by sphinx780

So, in the U.S., the divorce rate is 50%. Making it a coin flip if they stay together. Is that stable? Do you assume that couples making the same commitment but not filing the paperwork are certain to break up over 50% of the time? Would your viewpoint change on couples that exchange rings but do not proceed with an official marriage filing?

Just curious as to what part of the marriage process signifies more stable to you.

50%? you still beleive that nonsense stat? It's probabaly more like 33%

[1477aces]

Well, what TMF is saying is that marriage creates certain consequences for breaking of the relationship, ie divorce filings, trials, possible payments, infedility etc, whereas an unofficial relationship means that it can break at any time and there are no consequences.

[TMF]

Originally Posted by 1477aces

Well, what TMF is saying is that marriage creates certain consequences for breaking of the relationship, ie divorce filings, trials, possible payments, infedility etc, whereas an unofficial relationship means that it can break at any time and there are no consequences.

I believe some people on this forum doesn't believe in marriage(or if it's worthwhile). I don't know, could be that everyone is raise differently, different world, have different value.

[Fearsome Forehand]

Originally Posted by Rozroz

what happened with the fireman?

He hosed her.

[NLBwell]

Originally Posted by sphinx780

So, in the U.S., the divorce rate is 50%. Making it a coin flip if they stay together. Is that stable? Do you assume that couples making the same commitment but not filing the paperwork are certain to break up over 50% of the time? Would your viewpoint change on couples that exchange rings but do not proceed with an official marriage filing?

Just curious as to what part of the marriage process signifies more stable to you.

Yes, the studies have shown that living together is far less stable and not nearly as good for children as marriages.
Of course there are many exceptions, just as there are many exceptions to children of single parents not doing as well. Overall, however, the chances of the children of couples living together of being happy and successful is significantly lower than the children of married couples.

Originally Posted by pmerk34

50%? you still beleive that nonsense stat? It's probabaly more like 33%

It is around 50% for all marriages and around 33% for first marriages. So something like 2/3 of people are successful at marriage. People who aren't successful at first marriages tend not to be so successful at second (and third, and 4th) marriages.

[pmerk34]

Originally Posted by NLBwell

Yes, the studies have shown that living together is far less stable and not nearly as good for children as marriages.
Of course there are many exceptions, just as there are many exceptions to children of single parents not doing as well. Overall, however, the chances of the children of couples living together of being happy and successful is significantly lower than the children of married couples.



It is around 50% for all marriages and around 33% for first marriages. So something like 2/3 of people are successful at marriage. People who aren't successful at first marriages tend not to be so successful at second (and third, and 4th) marriages.

Correct. I think I read the divorce rate for a third marriage or more is over 75%

[sphinx780]

Originally Posted by NLBwell

Yes, the studies have shown that living together is far less stable and not nearly as good for children as marriages.
Of course there are many exceptions, just as there are many exceptions to children of single parents not doing as well. Overall, however, the chances of the children of couples living together of being happy and successful is significantly lower than the children of married couples.



It is around 50% for all marriages and around 33% for first marriages. So something like 2/3 of people are successful at marriage. People who aren't successful at first marriages tend not to be so successful at second (and third, and 4th) marriages.

Yep, I'm aware of the studies. It's been a while since I've delved into this subject in depth. Are there recent studies that remove more of the variables in regards to using the definition of living together as being viable for commitment? Isn't that what marriage is about, making that lifelong commitment to each other? I wouldn't say that moving in with someone and in many cases having a child with someone ends up being a decision made with that same intent.

I'd be more interested in seeing studies comparing married couples to non married couples that have fully expressed their lifelong commitment towards one another.

Now, before assuming that I'm saying marriage isn't the way to go. Consider that I've been happily married for a decade, my parents for 37yrs, my grandparents at 66 and 69 respectively.

I'm more interested in seeing if married couples are more stable compared to a 'living together' couple due to the positive effects of declaring a life long vow or if it is simply the fear of negative ramifications that keep more married couples in place. I was curious how TMF defined marriage. Is it the ceremony, the vows, the legal obligation? Can one be removed and not the other? If you only study compared to non-legally obligated couples who have had their own wedding, does the comparison from married to non-married change?

[pmerk34]

Originally Posted by sphinx780

Yep, I'm aware of the studies. It's been a while since I've delved into this subject in depth. Are there recent studies that remove more of the variables in regards to using the definition of living together as being viable for commitment? Isn't that what marriage is about, making that lifelong commitment to each other? I wouldn't say that moving in with someone and in many cases having a child with someone ends up being a decision made with that same intent.

I'd be more interested in seeing studies comparing married couples to non married couples that have fully expressed their lifelong commitment towards one another.

Now, before assuming that I'm saying marriage isn't the way to go. Consider that I've been happily married for a decade, my parents for 37yrs, my grandparents at 66 and 69 respectively.

I'm more interested in seeing if married couples are more stable compared to a 'living together' couple due to the positive effects of declaring a life long vow or if it is simply the fear of negative ramifications that keep more married couples in place. I was curious how TMF defined marriage. Is it the ceremony, the vows, the legal obligation? Can one be removed and not the other? If you only study compared to non-legally obligated couples who have had their own wedding, does the comparison from married to non-married change?

Interesting. We can all give real life examples too. My co-worker is not married but has been living with her paramour for I believe 15 years or so. The other day she got off the phone and remarked "Oh "Aiden" just bought a truck. She found out just then while he was at the dealer that he was doing this. She had no idea he was even car shopping. I could not imagine buying a vehicle without discussing it with my wife first. It just struck me as bizarre and something no healthy married couple would ever do and nor would I want to do that. She has remarked that if they would have had kids they would have gotten married. At that moment it reaffirmed to me the difference between shacking up and getting married. The house is "hers" he bought "his" truck with "his" money. Plus the akwardness of labeling the paramour. She's 42 and calls him her "boyfriend".

[gavna]

Originally Posted by Fearsome Forehand

He hosed her.

No she hosed him....

[6-1 6-3 6-0]

I wonder what the baby will look like.

[Harry_Wild]

Originally Posted by TMF

She refer to Benoit as "partner", not "husband", so she's still single. Does that means she's not going to marry him, but keep the baby?

It very popular now with the politically correct society that it is okay to not to be married even if you have a kid. The partner is usually called a "boyfriend" if they are still seeing one another if not; then he is called a "father" and nothing else except "ex"

[NadalAgassi]

Marriage is the dogs today anyway. Most people get divorced, your partner looks and feels less sexy and exciting, and your love feels that way too. Henin is wise to stay in a loving and hot relationship without tieing the knot if she chooses to do so, even with a kid. Gay people are the luckiest ones and they arent even expected to get married, heck knows why so many of them are fighting to not only have the right but be commonly expected to go through that tedious nightmare.

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

Marriage is the dogs today anyway. Most people get divorced, your partner looks and feels less sexy and exciting, and your love feels that way too. Henin is wise to stay in a loving and hot relationship without tieing the knot if she chooses to do so, even with a kid. Gay people are the luckiest ones and they arent even expected to get married, heck knows why so many of them are fighting to not only have the right but be commonly expected to go through that tedious nightmare.

For equal rights. Even if you don't want to get married, same-sex couples should have exactly the same rights as opposite-sex couples.

[joe sch]

Originally Posted by TMF

Why?

When you're married, partners are more attached/closer because they make a vow to each other, and in front of the family/relatives/good friends. Also, a wedding ceremony done publicly is for the record, so if someone broke their vows, the greatest shame and reproach was brought down upon the guilty party by the entire community. Another reason for partner to break up is if they decide to, they have to go through the complicate steps and requirements to complete the process. The effort, time and money makes couple think twice, so instead of oblige for divorce, couple rather go on rehab to save their marriage.

OTOH, partner living together don't have to deal with all of these complicated issues. If one decide to leave(could be any reason), one can just back their back and say good bye. They don't owe each other anything. Thus they don't feel bad because they never made a vow publicly in front of family/relatives/friends.



I don't think you're married, because it's seem you don't have any experience.

Really depends on the location/jurisdiction ...

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common-law_marriage

[Smasher08]

Originally Posted by 6-1 6-3 6-0

I wonder what the baby will look like.

It'll probably look like a baby.