# "free union" - a trial and error method for a life?



## Seana

Quote:
Originally Posted by *Little_Me*
_The strange tendendency is that nowadays women get married about 28-30, but there is a real increase in pregnancy among teenagers. Hmm, very strange order..._

I used Little_Me sentence to open this thread because I see this problem as one of alarming sociological symptome last time.

Nowadays marriages of teenages are less problem then the marriages in general. Thirty old people consider to be still too young to get married. Even quite well educated young peolple having good full time job are very often distanced from this happiest moment.  They still live with mom and dad and their never-ending childhood is lasted for ever.
But some couples are living together without marrying in " free union" (sorry I don't know English term for it). Being free to leave at any time, after a few years they often do it. As a result of it they are hurt, disappointed and finnaly they very often stay workaholics.
Time goes on... and it could be that the girls make a career as a lonely little embittered singles.
My questions are:
Do you think that young people should put their best time in life to the test?
What do you think about " free unions"?


----------



## danielfranco

Common-law marriages are the same as other marriages, as far as it deals with the inside structure of their daily life... It's a union of two people who have decided to share their regular lives in the same household every moment of the day.
What's the difference, then, with regular marriages?
Tradition, and some tax classification.
That's about it.
A regular marriage is nothing but tradition and a social contract. We tend to think of those unions as more stable because they have so many customs tied up to them that it is difficult to just "dissolve" the union. But for all intents and purposes, the people living inside a marriage cannot possibly behave all that different than the people living inside a "common-law marriage".
I think a marriage is nothing but the institutionalization and bureaucratization of a common-law union.
Pray, don't tell my wife I said so.


----------



## Seana

danielfranco said:
			
		

> (...) I think a marriage is nothing but the institutionalization and bureaucratization of a common-law union.
> Pray, don't tell my wife I said so.


Danielfranco, you know very well that your wife is right.
I see you don't believe the standpoint I have given above.
I met many hurt and unhappy people after those free unions incidents. 
They are over thirty years old they work and work, go to the clubs and pubs and ...
Sorry for my rough translation - I know wise Chinese sentence "It is too much late then you even assume."


----------



## cyanista

Seana said:
			
		

> I met many hurt and unhappy people after those free unions incidents.
> They are over thirty years old they work and work, go to the clubs and pubs and ...
> Sorry for my rough translation - I know wise Chinese sentence "It is too much late then you even assume."


Seana, I don't bellieve you haven't met hurt and unhappy people whose marriage was a failure. Have a look at the divorce statistics. There are many things that are important for a succcessful relationship but an official certificate is probably the least important of them.


----------



## Brioche

danielfranco said:
			
		

> Common-law marriages are the same as other marriages, as far as it deals with the inside structure of their daily life... It's a union of two people who have decided to share their regular lives in the same household every moment of the day.
> What's the difference, then, with regular marriages?
> Tradition, and some tax classification.
> That's about it.
> A regular marriage is nothing but tradition and a social contract. We tend to think of those unions as more stable because they have so many customs tied up to them that it is difficult to just "dissolve" the union. But for all intents and purposes, the people living inside a marriage cannot possibly behave all that different than the people living inside a "common-law marriage".
> I think a marriage is nothing but the institutionalization and bureaucratization of a common-law union.
> Pray, don't tell my wife I said so.


 
Technically, you are misusing the term Common Law Marriage.
Under the Common Law, if two people "held themselves out as married" then they were married - for all purposes of the law.
The marriage lasted until the death of one partner [until divorce was invented]. It was just as hard to get out of as marriage in church.

Currently, people often talk about common law marriages, and really mean co-habitation, with no real intention of staying together for life.
As Glen Campbell sang in one of his songs "It's knowing I'm not shackled by forgotten words and bonds, and some ink-stains that have dried upon some line"

According to statistics, couples who do make the commitment of legal marriage are more likely to stay together than those who drift into bed or house sharing arrangements.

I don't believe in "free unions", or co-habitation. 
If I'm worth having sex with, I'm worth treating properly. 
If you want to move in with me, I want the full package deal. 
If you won't give me half your stuff, and if I don't trust you enough to give you half my stuff, then let's just have a friendly screw, and let's not pretend that it's anything more.


----------



## maxiogee

Brioche said:
			
		

> Technically, you are misusing the term Common Law Marriage.
> Under the Common Law, if two people "held themselves out as married" then they were married - for all purposes of the law.
> The marriage lasted until the death of one partner [until divorce was invented]. It was just as hard to get out of as marriage in church.



I was of the impression that there is no such thing as a common law spouse!
The law only recognises a valid marriage. Other relationships are not valid for inheritance or other benefits accruing to a spouse, such as pensions, social welfare benefits etc.


----------



## Seana

Hello,

When I wrote "free union" I have meant co-habitation. 
It means living together in a sexual relationship without marriage. 


But sorry I see Brioche explained it yet.


----------



## maxiogee

Seana said:
			
		

> Hello,
> 
> When I wrote "free union" I have meant co-habitation.
> It means living together in a sexual relationship without marriage.
> 
> 
> But sorry I see Brioche explained it yet already.



Just a few grammatical changes, Seana.


----------



## Brioche

maxiogee said:
			
		

> I was of the impression that there is no such thing as a common law spouse!
> The law only recognises a valid marriage. Other relationships are not valid for inheritance or other benefits accruing to a spouse, such as pensions, social welfare benefits etc.


 
It depends on where you are.

16 US states have some form of recognition of Common Law marriage.

State law in Australia treats, for inheritance purposes, a couple in a "marriage-like" relationship the same as a legally married couple, if the relationship has lasted for 5 for more years, or if there is a child of the relationship.
Ex-nuptial [illegitimate] children are treated the same as nuptial children for inheritance purposes.

Social Security Law and Tax Law in Australia treat a legally married couple, or a couple in a marriage-like relationship, in exactly the same way.


----------



## Etcetera

cyanista said:
			
		

> There are many things that are important for a succcessful relationship but an official certificate is probably the least important of them.


I agree wholeheartedly!
In general, I think that one's attitude towards such things depends on their own experience. 
There was time when I dreamt of getting married. I imagined beautiful pictures of myself in white dress, with a glass of champagne, standing with my new husband on the Split of Vasilyevsky Island (that's a traditional part of the wedding ceremony in St. Petersburg). But as I have grown up, I gradually became more pragmatic. An official certificate is good, but not so important. 
But I am sure that two people should think carefully before coming and living together. However "free" their union is planned to be, there are fewer differences between co-habitation and official marriage than it seems at first sight.


----------



## Seana

Thanks Maxi - I know it, yet only for question and negative - but I learnt English only three years ( as a child). It is not too long, is it? In school and study I learnt 'francais'.


----------



## ireney

Personally, I can't see how or why an 'official' marriage would make things better. I mean it either
a) would make no difference since getting a divorce is not ALL that difficult really
or
b) if it did for some people, it could end up with two people who are not happy together spending their life in joined misery.

What I mean is that going over the obstacles of living together with another person and not taking the first bus out of town because they obstacles are (or seem to be) insurmountable, has nothing to do with how 'official' the union is. It has to do with the mind-set and how much a person REALLY wants to live with another one or how big an ego one has if you prefer


----------



## Etcetera

But what if the couple has a child, Ireney?
Most woman in Russia want their man to marry them, because official certificate gives them certain rights. E.g., in case of divorce, they can make the man to pay money for the child's education.


----------



## ireney

etcetera I was replying to the original post

Anyway, I don't know how the legal system of Russia, or any other country's than mine really, works but here, if the father has acknowledged the child as his own, the man has the obligation to take care of the child even without a marriage


----------



## Etcetera

ireney said:
			
		

> Anyway, I don't know how the legal system of Russia, or any other country's than mine really, works but here, if the father has acknowledged the child as his own, the man has the obligation to take care of the child even without a marriage


That's what makes the difference. If so, then there's obviously almost no difference between 'free union' and official marriage.
What about other countries?


----------



## Chaska Ñawi

In Canada, once you have cohabited for one year, your relationship is recognized as a common-law marriage by Revenue Canada.  

I know more successful common-law marriages than formally "churched" ones.  Usually (here) the refusal to get married stems from a deep belief that the government has no right to interfere in the decision of two people to cohabit.  The commitment is no less strong - my aunt and uncle have been living common-law since 1968, to give just one example.

Personally, I believe that actions speak louder than words.  It's how we live up to our beliefs about commitment, not what we promise on one ceremonial occasion, that determines the success of the marriage.


----------



## Etcetera

Chaska Ñawi said:
			
		

> Personally, I believe that actions speak louder than words. It's how we live up to our beliefs about commitment, not what we promise on one ceremonial occasion, that determines the success of the marriage.


Exactly. If two people love and care of each other, what are any official certificates for?


----------



## natasha2000

> But some couples are living together without marrying in " free union" (sorry I don't know English term for it). Being free to leave at any time, after a few years they often do it.


Personally, I think that marriage certificate is only a piece of paper, and notihing more, if we want to look into the "how-much-do-you-love-me" matter. If somebody loves you, he will stay at your side, with or wihout this piece of paper. If his love vanishes, he will vanish too, with or without that piece of paper. As Chaska said, speak less, do more. And besides, how on Earth can you promise you will love someone forever? How do you know that you are not luying? you can guarantee that you will still love this or that person after 20 years? The only thing that is fair enoguh to promise is to give a best try and to cherish and take care of your relationship. But for sure you cannot possibly know what will happen in 20 years or more. So, to start with, the part "until death takes us apart" I personally find very hypocritical. So, As far as the love issue is concerned, I consider "free unions" as you call them, Seana, more sincere than marriages.


> As a result of it they are hurt, disappointed and finnaly they very often stay workaholics.


How many divorces are there nowadays in the world? Being married prevented them from separating? NO. As a matter fo fact, I know a great number of couples who were living in a "wild marriage", as it is called in Serbia for many years, and then decided to marry, and after they had married, they separated in a very short period. It would have been better they had never married at all. They would have still been together now. For sure.



> Even quite well educated young peolple having good full time job are very often distanced from this happiest moment.


1.What does education has to do with love?
2. How can you be so sure that THIS moment is the happiest one in life of each and every one of us? I'm ok with the statment, "this is the happies moment in MY life" but talking generally is too much supposition and too little truth. there are people who simply are not made for living in a couple, and family thing. This does not make them less worthy, nor less happy, just different from your point of view of "the outmost peak of happines in a person's" life.



> Nowadays marriages of teenages are less problem then the marriages in general.


 
Why doyou think like this? For me, it is certainly very bad thing to see a 15 year old girl pregnant and married. Or an 18 year old boy, married. I think youngs should be informed better about birth control. Condom usage is indispensable at this new era of AIDS in the first place, and then to prevent pregnancy. And education. If we want to prevent young girls from getting pregnant we should educate them about self esteem above all. Many of them have sex with their boyfirends not because they want or feel ready to do it, but as a token of love towards their boyfriends, which is, you must admit, very stupid and childish behavior, but it happens. I was asked once by s 16-year old girl about this, and when I asked her :How do you feel about it? Forget him for a moment, and tell me do you want to do it?" She said me without hesitating, NO. But I want to do because of him.

Etcetera, I can understand the posture of women in your country, if the law is not good enough to protect them, then they must protect themselves. I think it is the same in Serbia, I am not sure. But it is not the same in the whole world. In Spain, "free unions" have the same rights as marriages, in any walk of life. To get the mortgage, to have the custody of children, inheritage, etc.. Everything. The only thing they must do is to register as "free union". If they separate, it is much quicker, les painful and les costy, for sure, because until recently, a marriage could not be finished so easy, even though both sides want and agree on this. First you should separate and if you go through court, thenit costs you at least 1000 euros and you are still not divorced. Then you couldn't apply for divorce in less than 2 years after separation. And when you apply to divorce, if there are no material goods nor children, it can cost you some 1000 more, and if there are material goods and children, custody etc... If you are not wealthy, don't dream about divorcing!. With a new socialist gouvernment, the separation step is now removed, and the whole process is simplified.

Therefore, due to this, there are many couples in Spain who live in this "free union", with their children in their house they bought together, and I don't see them less happier than married ones. I only wish that some day in my Serbia the thing were like this.

No law can make you to love someone more. Heart is a wild animal which does not obey no law in this world but its own.

Cheers.


----------



## Seana

You all talk only about love. Unfortunately there's no guarantee on the love for ever. 
And I am sure you all know very well how feeling of 'mad' love likely Romeo & Juliette is temporary. And next time what is next - "mature" love much more boring one. Those are just a parental care, attentiveness, protectiveness, finances problems, jealousy, love during incurable illness, our old age etc. Our adult life last at least fifty years and don't you think it is never put us in the way of temptation? Many times. They are normal marital problems. Many times is heart that young couple shold put their love to the test - and I think it is a trap because they just put not their love but enchantment and desire to the test- and those feelings unfortunately are temporary because they are given us by a nature only for a procreation but couple in free union rarely anticipate procreation because their relationship is put only to a test. Being free to leave at any time it is much much more easy to really done it. Afterward the girs are around 30 and little bit old so then finding the new partner isn't so easy for them. Marriage and married life is guarantee on emotional stabilization, security and certitude of a 'family nest'. In my opinion most marriage advantages would be of benefit mainly to the women.


----------



## maxiogee

Seana said:
			
		

> Marriage and married life is guarantee on emotional stabilization, security and certitude of a 'family nest'. In my opinion most marriage advantages would be of benefit mainly to the women.



Seana, You appear to have a very idealised view of marriage. I don't know the figures for Poland, but in much of the rest of Europe there is a high divorce rate, so while for most people there may be a certain stability offered by marriage, for many there is none. Then, the lack of a career - given up to be the stay-at-home partner or parent - can redound on one of the couple. 

And for many others the marriage advantages you speak of may not be seen as advantages to be sought - dependence on, subservience to, duty to, another person - all coming at a time in their life when they have finally achieved independence from their parents, independence of income and duty to none but themselves.


----------



## moura

Is is good that society (and laws) is gradually looking look at the "free-union" couples in the same way as the "marriage" ones. 

That should give the people a free choice to do what they think is best for them, rather than doing what is best for their parents, neighbours, religion and employers.

As to the future of the relationship, now one who is marrying or joining his couple in a free-union may assure that it will last forever. It depends on many things, but the least important of them are (or should be) some paper they signed.

Many free-unions last forever, many marriages don't. And the opposite is also true.


----------



## moura

"without any obligation to each other because in 'free union' they aren't bound to stand by each other in sickness and in health for richer or poorer."

Dear Seana,

But yes they are! The couple of the "free union" is so  commited to stand with each other for good and for bad, as the married one. It is all a question of being honest and sincere when they make such a commitement. And they are not obliged to that by the law or the church, or whatever  else, but only by their consciousness. That apllies equally to unions and civil/religious marriages. 
You see, for me, the union is the same in any case. The "wrapping paper", with no ofense to marriage cerimonies/parties, it's the only thing that changes.


----------



## natasha2000

> without any obligation to each other because in 'free union' they aren't bound to stand by each other in sickness and in health for richer or poorer.


 
What is that bounds a marrid couple what doesn't bout a fre union couple? A paper?
I would really prefer that someone loves me, charishes me and takes care of me because he wants to, not because he is obligated to by some stupid piece of paper.

And as Moura said, consciousness creates much stronger ties than any paper, my dear.


----------



## Etcetera

natasha2000 said:
			
		

> I would really prefer that someone loves me, charishes me and takes care of me because he wants to, not because he is obligated to by some stupid piece of paper.


Same here. I am perfectly sure that any obligation is up to no good. It seems that it is in human nature to oppose all attempts to make them feel obligated to do something!


----------



## linguist786

Seana said:
			
		

> But some couples are living together without marrying in " free union" (sorry I don't know English term for it).


The term is "concubinage"

Just thought I'd mention that.


----------



## Seana

Hello all,

I am not quite sure but it seams that we are misunderstood each other.
I see only Brioche catch my point.

I don't say that couples without piece of paper couldn't live happy for ever with their children. This is really their choice. But this is concubinage or common law marriage. But it is not a phenomenon of nowadays time - it is history old like the world.

I see little difference between *concubinage *and *'free union'*. In the first case common-law partners create family and could live many years like a marrige, the second one it is the union of two person who co-habitant only for the test. They don't create the family ties and many times they don't even pretend to be a family they live as two independece persons who aren't convinced about their choice.
So, they live for a few years without an intention to be together for the rest of their life. Don't you really see any difference?
This kind of relations exists very often amongst well educated, ambitious, bit selfcentred young people. 

And time between their 20-30 goes away... 

It is just why I asked you at the beginig: 

_Do you think that young people should put their best time in life to the test?
_
So, would you have a look I found  the same term for it in the net

" *free union*: cohabitation *without marriage*; a phrase which at the time was regarded as part of emancipationist jargon".

_ 
_


----------



## natasha2000

linguist786 said:
			
		

> The term is "concubinage"
> 
> Just thought I'd mention that.


 
I think not. Concubinage is a very ugly word, and it sounds to me as a-man-who-pays and a-woman-who-sells-her-love, where a woman is called something like concubine, and this really offends, Linguist.

Free  union or call it whatever you want, is when two people live as if they were married with a little difference - they did not made it official through legal channels, and they did not say these false words of promising eternal love, etc. More open, more sincere and more fair relationship, to both parties.


----------



## danielfranco

I see, I think, what this thread was supposed to be about. Sorry me so slow.
At the risk of being wrong again (by acclamation), I think that marriage or free-unions, or any other -unions for that matter, that are started only as a romantic proposition (without any further thoughts about the future and whatnot) are mostly (but not always) only fit for young people. The older you are when you wish to enter into such a union, the more likely you are to look out for number one first: yourself and your interests...

Because, really, why live with someone if you do much better on your own?

And just in case y'all wondered, I am married and I believe in the institution of marriage. It works for me. I just don't think it is the *only *way to form a family. It's not a thing for everybody. We all do what we can.


----------



## Seana

Seana said:
			
		

> (..) two person who co-habitant only for the test. They don't create the family ties and many times they don't even pretend to be a family they live as two independece persons who aren't convinced about their choice.
> So, they live for a few years without an intention to be together for the rest of their life. Don't you really see any difference?
> This kind of relations exists very often amongst well educated, ambitious, bit selfcentred young people.
> (...)


 
Natasha, you probably didn't see my sentence above. 
In my opinion the crux of the matter doesn't lie in the piece of paper but in the assumption of this relationship.


----------



## Etcetera

Now I see.
Still, I am sure that two people have to think carefully before even going to live together for some time just to 'test' their relationships.


----------



## natasha2000

Seana said:
			
		

> Natasha, you probably didn't write  see my sentence above.
> In my opinion the crux of the matter doesn't lie in the piece of paper but in the assumption of this relationship.


 
Firstly, I was not answering to you, but to Linguist. 

Secondly, I don't know what kind of "free unions" you are acustomed to see, but those I see here in Spain differ from a marriage only in this piece of paper. Nothing more, nothing less.

On the other hand, I am a little bit annoyed by your presumption and judgement of a people who do not marry and make families according to the rules of tradition and church. You don't have to like it, but you are in no right to judge it or even less condamn it. As Daniel said, everyone does what they can.
A person who decided not to marry - why this person would be less worthy than the other one, who is married? Or a woman living in a "sinful union", from the one who lives in "paper blessed" union?

I think I don't like the direction this thread is taking and I think I am going to leave it.

Good day to all, and goodbye.
Natasha


----------



## Etcetera

Let me ask a question. 
What about church marriages, by the way? Are we considering them as official marriages or not?
I'd like to make this clear. In Russia, church marriages aren't considered equal to 'official', but I've heard that in other countries they are.


----------



## danielfranco

Over here they won't bless your marriage in a church unless you show them your marriage license from the justice of the peace, so it's a one-two-punch deal. It's all or nothing.


----------



## Seana

Seana said:
			
		

> Hello all,
> 
> I don't say that couples without piece of paper couldn't live happy for ever with their children. This is really their choice. But this is concubinage or common law marriage. But it is not a phenomenon of nowadays time - it is history old like the world.


 
Natasha, Look I just exactly wrote it. 
*I didn't even have any intention to jugde someone decision.* I repeat I wanted to estimate a specific behaviour of young people who live together only for a test and waste their best time wnen they could find proper partner for rest of their life. 

I am very sorry but you might misunderstand my sentence.


----------



## Etcetera

Aha. But I assume church marriage is optional then?


----------



## natasha2000

Seana said:
			
		

> Natasha, Look I just exactly wrote it.
> *I didn't even have any intention to jugde someone decision.* I repeat I wanted to estimate a specific behaviour of young people who live together only for a test *and waste their best time *wnen they could find proper partner for rest of their life.
> 
> I am very sorry but you might misunderstand my sentence.


 
Seana,

THIS part is rather judgement than mere opinion. Why do you think they waste their time? Why do you think they waste their BEST time? Don't you think that it is rather personal thing? And what about the couples that are not so young? Where did they loose their BEST time?

Everyone should think, as Etcetera says, before getting into deeper relationship with someone, yes. But if they will marry or "just waste their time living together",. I think this is rather personal and everyone does what they think is the best for them.

By the way, the second part of the sentence... "when they could find a porper partner for the rest of their life".... What? Then you should go from a person to a person, and if that person shows a little bit of doubt or carefulness befote doing important steps in his life, you just leave him because he doesn't want the same thing as you eant in the very same moment? Imagine how many men you should leave then. And it is rather imposible to find a "proper"partner in this way. People live together in order to be sure that this is the right person for them. What if you marry and never lived with that person, and it comes out that this person is horrible to live with? Would you continue in this marriage? wouldn't it be better if you had checked it earlier? I don't know about other countries, but I do understand people from Spain who refuse to get married, because they save themselves A LOT of trouble and A LOT of money. Commitment can exist even though it is not officialy signed anywhere. And yes, it is better to try to see how it goes, and then to decide to give one step more. More wise, I think. Anyway, everyone is responsible for their own acts, so our lives are just as we build them. Those who like to marry, let them marry. There is nothing bad about it. And those who don't, well... 
You know how I would finish this sentence.


----------



## natasha2000

Etcetera said:
			
		

> Let me ask a question.
> What about church marriages, by the way? Are we considering them as official marriages or not?
> I'd like to make this clear. In Russia, church marriages aren't considered equal to 'official', but I've heard that in other countries they are.


 
I think that in every Christian country in the world nowadays church is ok, but it means nothing in front of the law. So, in Serbia and in Spain too, all people who marry, they marry in a civil marriage, but not all that marry in a civil marriage marry by church. Church is in both countries I am talking about more like a expression of a tradition, and a personal desire of those who marry, than an obligation. As you said, once you dreamt of marrying in a white dress like those maidens from fairy tails, well, if a girl wants this, then she can have it. I never heard that a church asks for a certificate of civil marriage in order to marry. At least not in Serbia and Spain.


----------



## Etcetera

As I've said already, here church marriages aren't considered equal to the civil ones. But I'm rather sure that church doesn't ask for a certificate of civil marriage.
To say the truth, I'd prefer a church marriage. But only in case I'd be perfectly confident about my future husband's feelings towards me and his awareness of the significance of a wedding ceremony in church.


----------



## danielfranco

Here, and in my native Mexico, when you go and apply to have a priest/pastor/deacon/elder/great mugwomp/whatever to marry you in his church, one of the things you must do (besides attending special classes, in some instances) is to submit your marriage license after the wedding. So you have to be married in a civil court. The tradition in Mexico City was that you and your fiancee would have a small family ceremony at home, where you'd sign your marriage license and have it duly notarized and witnessed, and then proceed directly to the wedding ceremony at church. Others would sign the license one day and wed in church another day (which I found odd... why marry and then wait several days to start your life as a couple together? But that's their thing...)
As far as the government (and especially the tax collector) is concerned, you can wed in a church or not after you process your license. They just don't care, it doesn't add anything to the legal status of your marriage.
But that's over here...


----------



## cuchuflete

I echo Natasha's thoughts in post #32 36.



In addition,

this---





> waste their best time wnen they could find proper partner for rest of their life.


 presumes that one's best time is attached to chronology and that only an official and/or church union allows a partner to be "Proper".

I simply disagree with both of those assumptions.  I am very far past being a teenager.  The best day of my life is today.  Should I choose to share it with a special person, who makes an equal committment to share her best day with me, our sincerity would be enhanced by neither church nor state.  If our mutual devotion is true and deep, we will remain joined.
The wrapping paper will be no incentive to that.  I have no great distaste for such wrapping paper, nor do I confuse it with caring and love.

In my country, the essential difference between a marriage and a common-law relationship is appallingly simple: if the relationship becomes broken, in a typical marital scenario two or more lawyers make money, and the separation is painful, protracted, and acrimonious due to the adversarial legal surroundings.  

Given all of that background noise, would I marry? Yes, though the piece of paper is meaningless to me, I would, if it would please a much loved partner.  You might think this hypocrisy.  Here is the explanation.  First and foremost comes the personal decision and committment. Next, there is an optional declaration before a petty state burrrocrat or the counterpart in a religious organization.  That, for me, is comparable to stating to a stranger that someone is my partner.  I wouldn't go out of my way to do it, but I see no ideological or other grounds to avoid it.  Benign indifference might best describe it.


----------



## maxiogee

Seana said:
			
		

> Dear Maxi, you probably don't belive what you just have written here.


Please don't presume to announce to the world what I do or do not believe. I think that is my business.




			
				Seana said:
			
		

> What is all our independence and career without family and cosest beloved man/woman needed for?


For many people, independence and career, along with personal interests *is* enough - not everyone wants, or needs other people as much as you seem to think!




			
				Seana said:
			
		

> Would you look at main causes of divorces in your country


Those figure, Seana, are not for *my* country (my country is Ireland - look at my "location' on the top left of this post.) but that is not important here at the moment. 
After that table you listed, you ask…


			
				Seana said:
			
		

> But where can we find on this list such usual and common *boredom* - the main cause of breaking 'free union' relationships.


What source can you name for that statement? You can find a site which states the reasons given for divorce of married couples, to be fair and valid you need to "compare like with like" - have you any proof to support your statement that "boredom" is the main cause - or even a cause of breakdown of what you term "free unions"? One cannot debate  by making unfounded assertions!




			
				Seana said:
			
		

> And I still claim- marriage benefits women not men.
> So I am curious why just the girls give up the marriage.


It must be, that for whatever reasons, marriage is not an attractive option to them.
If it made sense, these sensible people would be making the choice.
Does marriage look attractive to them?
Are they looking at their mothers and seeing unhappy women?


----------



## Seana

I see I am still misundertstood. I would like to show relationship totally different from cocubinage (and let't forgot about this piece of paper, religion, church, government neighbours and whatever) new thing of last time co- habitant- the relationship put in to the test. 
I see it as socjological symptome of last years. 
Many graduates rent a flat with her boy/girlfriend. They live as unisex couple without obligations, rarely they plan children. In the strat of this union they both even didn't try to pretend to be a family. 
Many times it is the relation between two selfcentered indepedent persons without deep ties - just two workaholics in the one flat. And it is why I wrote "to waste a time" because the assumption of this relationship isn't proper for set a family and to be together for rest in their life. Most of them are very ambitious hard work, come home very late. Finally after 2-3 maybe 4 years they leave each other. The product of it is - hurt people.
Don't you consider that it is important thing for society. 
Today I found in the net many articles and books about 'free unions' (don't mixt with a common law marriage) so it seams this problem exists in whole world and really seen as not too much positive phenomenon .


----------



## moura

And it is why I wrote "to waste a time" because the assumption of this relationship isn't proper for set a family and to be together for rest in their life. 

Seana

I think that yr speciall concern is about people who choose to live a life together in an independent way, like once happened with Jean Paul Sartre and Simone de Beauvoir. I think these ones didn't and all the others don't waste their time - they are doing what they think is best for them, living the life the best they can.

And for many people when they are young the idea of a family, children, a stable home and employment doesn't appear the best way to travel in life for some time being.  

As to your concern, there is an unforgettable book I read many, many years ago: "The razor's edge", by Somerset Maugham. If sometime you read it you'll see why I remembered it now.


----------



## Etcetera

moura said:
			
		

> And for many people when they are young the idea of a family, children, a stable home and employment doesn't appear the best way to travel in life for some time being.


I do agree with that, Moura!
For many people it is so, indeed. I myself can't imagine myself getting married and/or having children in the next 7 or 8 years. I'm just unable to take responsibility for other people for the present.
But... A friend of mine gave birth to her son when she was about 18. She's always been very self-confident, and she proved to be capable of taking care of a child. I really admire her. But I wouldn't like to take her place, even for a minute.


----------



## natasha2000

Etcetera said:
			
		

> I do agree with that, Moura!
> For many people it is so, indeed. I myself can't imagine myself getting married and/or having children in the next 7 or 8 years. I'm just unable to take responsibility for other people for the present.
> But... A friend of mine gave birth to her son when she was about 18. She's always been very self-confident, and she proved to be capable of taking care of a child. I really admire her. But I wouldn't like to take her place, even for a minute.


 
Most of teenagers or very young women who are due to circumstances forced to be mothers at very young age, like your friend, grow up very quickly, and they are usually good mothers and responsible persons. If they hadn't had been put in this situation, they would probably think like you do - like a young, independent person who has a lot of things to do and learn before they decide (if they decide!) to settle down and make a family.


----------



## Etcetera

You're right, Natasha. I can't but agree with you.


----------

