Poll
Question:
Your spouse dies--Do you remarry?
Option 1: Yes or Maybe
votes: 12
Option 2: No
votes: 10
Option 3: Not married but like to vote
votes: 8
Inspired by a conversation with Mrs. MIM. I mentioned offhand that there's no way in hell I would get re-married if she died. She thought I didn't need to be that loyal, but those were not my reasons.
Wouldn't rule it out.
Depends. Are you the one that kills her?
Let me explain my "no" vote. Whether my wife is dead, divorced, or just took the dog and never came back, there is no way in hell I'd ever remarry. So perhaps my reasons are your reasons.
Probably do it the same way as the first time-- not worry about it until it comes up with someone.
Never again.
I love my husband very much and do not wish him gone (dead or otherwise), but he will be the last person with whom I live.
I don't believe in an afterlife, so why the hell not?
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 08, 2012, 08:01:04 PM
I don't believe in an afterlife, so why the hell not?
:huh:
Yes. I hate living alone with a blind passion.
As with getting married the first time it depends if one of us needs a visa.
Quote from: Tyr on October 08, 2012, 08:04:04 PM
As with getting married the first time it depends if one of us needs a visa.
Ok if you are too badass and post-modern and shit just come up with whatever analog the cool kids are doing these days. If you cohabitate
Quote from: Valmy on October 08, 2012, 08:03:50 PM
Yes. I hate living alone with a blind passion.
you could always emotionally cripple your kid(s) so that they never move out :contract: :P
Maybe. I don't know.
Depends on my stage in life. I predict that the older I am, the less likely I would remarry, especially if I already have many children. Most of my life would already have been built with my deceased partner. The rest of life would thus be spent supporting kids and extended family, throwing myself into work, dating when I feel like it, and enjoying solitude.
Yeah. My dad did, thus me :mellow:
So I can't see a reason not to. I think the difficult bit would actually be seeing someone after you've been widowed. If you can do that and things go well I think remarriage would be the natural step.
@Meri/Max - I enjoyed your different takes on the situation
@Sheilbh - I'm glad you're here. :)
My father was particular about staying in a marriage he despised from duty, and also was against remarrying after her death. What my father thought was decent and just is a strong moral impetus for me, so I'd abide by it.
For such an unhappy occasion, there is always: honourable seppuku :)
Hedge all bets: tell her "no, I won't remarry" before she dies, and when she does, then start dating. That way, everybody's happy.
Quote from: Valmy on October 08, 2012, 08:03:50 PM
Yes. I hate living alone with a blind passion.
What are you, a teenage girl?
And if so, show us your tits.
Quote from: Lettow77 on October 08, 2012, 09:04:53 PM
For such an unhappy occasion, there is always: honourable seppuku :)
By all means, don't wait for an unhappy occasion.
Quote from: Valmy on October 08, 2012, 08:05:26 PM
Quote from: Tyr on October 08, 2012, 08:04:04 PM
As with getting married the first time it depends if one of us needs a visa.
Ok if you are too badass and post-modern and shit just come up with whatever analog the cool kids are doing these days. If you cohabitate
Did the end of your sentence get cut off there?
Its nothing to do with trying to be cool or any of that, getting married is quite in vogue actually. Quite the opposite really, I don't want to do something just because its the cool thing to do. There's little actual point to marriage these days so meh, seems a bit of a waste of money.
Does the answer "use it to generate pity sex" fall into the ambit of the question?
Quote from: Ideologue on October 08, 2012, 09:24:21 PM
Does the answer "use it to generate pity sex" fall into the ambit of the question?
Yes, it does.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 08, 2012, 09:20:50 PM
By all means, don't wait for an unhappy occasion.
Life is fleeting and my acceptance of the transience of it gives me a sense of security- knowing that I don't have any commitments and nothing important needs me is a tremendous comfort. It is a solace to know I am not tethered here, but choose to continue kicking around because of how happy living makes me. If it didn't, I wouldn't. I don't have to worry about illnesses, or someone I love dying, or losing the means to sustain my family, or anything like that. I have no hostages to fortune! How blessed a situation!
But then, I suppose I am merely speaking to the choir- you also enjoy the detachment of being single and unemployed, don't you?
Quote from: Lettow77 on October 08, 2012, 09:44:34 PM
But then, I suppose I am merely speaking to the choir- you also enjoy the detachment of being single and unemployed, don't you?
It would be immensely more enjoyable if somebody in a Buick bounced you off their windshield.
Have I never mentioned how often I got hit by cars in memphis? I got sensationally good at it, really. Go limp and you bounce!
I told the involved parties not to worry about it every time. Its fun looking at some shady black man, and having the understanding "aint neither of us got no insurance" exchange. Then you go about your ways, no fuss. :)
I havent been hit by a car in four years or so, though..
Multiple head trauma's does explain a few things, at least.
Well I guess it's good that you eventually decided to change things up after getting hit by so many cars. :huh:
I don't think there is another woman in the world crazy enough to marry me anyway.
My granddad picked up a new 60-something girlfriend (quelle scandale! :o)...maybe 2 years tops after my beloved grandmother bit it from Alzheimer's and pancreatic cancer. It was when he was 75 or 76, after getting amazingly lucky with his lung cancer diagnosis, cutting a chunk of his lung out and managing the COPD.
The new relationship didn't seem to bother anybody, other than the usual family backbiting about her personality, mannerisms, driving habits, generic bullshit. The only funny part is the cohabitation, but even though he's super conservative Republican party man (e.g. a framed watercolor of Ronald Reagan and a framed Barry Goldwater personally signed form letter in the bathroom), none of my mother's family are religious.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on October 09, 2012, 12:20:06 AM
(e.g. a framed watercolor of Ronald Reagan and a framed Barry Goldwater personally signed form letter in the bathroom
Awesome.
Well, having a girlfriend after being widowed is easy. Heck, you can have a girlfriend while married! ;)
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 09, 2012, 12:23:09 AM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on October 09, 2012, 12:20:06 AM
(e.g. a framed watercolor of Ronald Reagan and a framed Barry Goldwater personally signed form letter in the bathroom.
Awesome.
The watercolor is painted across the front page of the November 8, 1980, Wall Street Journal. I had a pic of it somewhere. It's amazing. Not to mention all the John Wayne portraits around the house.
EDIT: I'll always remember the caption from taking so many dumps right next to it:
Reagan wins in a landslide; GOP takes Democratic strongholds in the South; Anderson was not a factor.
Quote from: Tyr on October 08, 2012, 09:22:26 PM
There's little actual point to marriage these days so meh, seems a bit of a waste of money.
Right so if you live with a woman for 20 years and she dies would you consider doing it again?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 08, 2012, 09:20:11 PM
What are you, a teenage girl?
And if so, show us your tits.
Me living alone is just bad news, I know this from experience.
Quote from: Valmy on October 09, 2012, 12:29:12 AM
Quote from: Tyr on October 08, 2012, 09:22:26 PM
There's little actual point to marriage these days so meh, seems a bit of a waste of money.
Right so if you live with a woman for 20 years and she dies would you consider doing it again?
Yes.
I guess.
Impossible for me to say really though. I don't think I'd be capable of such a relationship in the first place.
Nah, nothing to do with dying, just wouldn't get married again. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for marriage, but one's enough.
My dad's girlfriend is 30 years younger than him and despite her dropping heavy hints about cohabiting (they currently live five doors away) and marriage he's told me if he ever says he's getting married I'm to lock him up in a home and throw away the key.
Quote from: Brazen on October 09, 2012, 05:01:16 AM
Nah, nothing to do with dying, just wouldn't get married again. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for marriage, but one's enough.
My dad's girlfriend is 30 years younger than him and despite her dropping heavy hints about cohabiting (they currently live five doors away) and marriage he's told me if he ever says he's getting married I'm to lock him up in a home and throw away the key.
Does he drop heavy "NO"s to put an end to her hinting?
If I liked it the previous time around, I'd do it again.
Otherwise, I'd simply enjoy my fortress of solitude.
Quote from: Valmy on October 09, 2012, 12:30:29 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 08, 2012, 09:20:11 PM
What are you, a teenage girl?
And if so, show us your tits.
Me living alone is just bad news, I know this from experience.
Never figured you for an emotional cripple. :( My condolences.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 09, 2012, 06:04:21 AM
Never figured you for an emotional cripple. :( My condolences.
While I certainly love company it is not really related to emotions. Why does this upset you so much? I ain't going to live with you.
I am still confused what teenage girls have to do with this. :P
Teenage girls are noted for being socially active constantly, chatting for hours on the phone, that kinda thing.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 09, 2012, 07:57:55 AM
Teenage girls are noted for being socially active constantly, chatting for hours on the phone, that kinda thing.
If I was that I certainly would have no problem living alone. If I am by myself I end up playing too many video games, oversleeping, not going out much and generally my quality of life just goes to shit.
Quote from: Jaron on October 08, 2012, 08:36:53 PM
@Meri/Max - I enjoyed your different takes on the situation
I'm counting down until it's just Max and me in the house so that we no longer have to fight to keep the house clean. Should he die before me, why would I invite another person in who could potentially make more of a mess? Besides, I've spent my entire life living with others, which means a lifetime of compromise. It wouldn't bother me to live alone, I don't think.
I'll bee the creep hanging out at community college picking up 19 year olds. HEY BABY, WANNA SEE MY 401K?
Having lived alone now for three years, I can happily say it really doesn't matter. I could marry again, I could not. One thing, I am never dating crazy, that shit sucks.
Quote from: Valmy on October 09, 2012, 07:47:37 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 09, 2012, 06:04:21 AM
Never figured you for an emotional cripple. :( My condolences.
While I certainly love company it is not really related to emotions. Why does this upset you so much? I ain't going to live with you.
I am still confused what teenage girls have to do with this. :P
Doesn't upset me at all. Whatever works for you, Captain Clingy. :P
Quote from: PDH on October 09, 2012, 09:08:15 AM
Having lived alone now for three years, I can happily say it really doesn't matter. I could marry again, I could not. One thing, I am never dating crazy, that shit sucks.
:console:
Sadly, one doesn't always see crazy right away. Luckily, there are certain sub-groups one can avoid just on principle to minimize the problem. :whistle:
Quote from: merithyn on October 09, 2012, 09:16:33 AM
Sadly, one doesn't always see crazy right away. Luckily, there are certain sub-groups one can avoid just on principle to minimize the problem. :whistle:
True, but I cut out a lot of that problem by not being gay.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 09, 2012, 09:14:09 AM
Doesn't upset me at all. Whatever works for you, Captain Clingy. :P
At least I am self-aware!
I wouldn't remarry.
I'm undecided, should the worst happen, whether to become celibate or a perv :hmm:
Glanced at the forum index and for some reason thought the thread title said "Your douse spies ...." :hmm:
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 08, 2012, 07:42:40 PM
Inspired by a conversation with Mrs. MIM. I mentioned offhand that there's no way in hell I would get re-married if she died. She thought I didn't need to be that loyal, but those were not my reasons.
I dont think I would either. I dont think I would find another one like her and I have a rather inflexible high standard when it comes to such things.
I think it would vary depending on when / how it happened.
If my wife were to die in the next several years, I imagine I would seek out some female companionship of some sort, and that does tend to lead to marriage eventually.
In my elderly years though... man it'd be tough to find a space in your life for a new person after having spend decades with someone else.
I'd look for a new partner, yes. Marriage? I don't think so (okay, maybe).
Quote from: Grey Fox on October 09, 2012, 12:22:06 PM
I'd look for a new partner, yes. Marriage? I don't think so (okay, maybe).
In order to remarry you need to get married a first time. :contract:
Depends on whether I meet the right person again. I won't be in any hurry to remarry and indeed I may not, but I won't rule it out.
Ironically, a sizeable majority of Languishite posting in this thread will be out lived by their wives/femaile partners. :(
Somewhere on the secret languish partners forum, is a thread entitled "Who am I likely to link up with, once MiM/Mono/sedentary.games.nerd dies" :P
Quote from: Barrister on October 09, 2012, 12:07:09 PM
In my elderly years though... man it'd be tough to find a space in your life for a new person after having spend decades with someone else.
You'd be surprised. My 80-year old grandfather remarried within 1 year of his second wife's death (after 20+ years of marriage), and I think had only been widowed for a couple of years after the first wife's death before remarrying. Some people (Valmy, apparently) just can't be alone.
Quote from: Barrister on October 09, 2012, 12:26:02 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on October 09, 2012, 12:22:06 PM
I'd look for a new partner, yes. Marriage? I don't think so (okay, maybe).
In order to remarry you need to get married a first time. :contract:
It's just an archaic word for an archaid state.
You're on Tyr's side. Think about that. Carefully.
Quote from: HVC on October 09, 2012, 01:37:33 PM
You're on Tyr's side. Think about that. Carefully.
Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
Quote from: HVC on October 09, 2012, 01:37:33 PM
You're on Tyr's side. Think about that. Carefully.
Tyr's on the side that he's still too emo to be in a steady relationship. I'm saying that the state has no business into regulating our relantionships. Telecoms & Banks, yes. Marriage, no.
Quote from: merithyn on October 09, 2012, 08:52:46 AM
Should he die before me, why would I invite another person in who could potentially make more of a mess?
Because you love that person and want to be around them? :unsure:
Quote from: garbon on October 09, 2012, 02:08:53 PM
Quote from: merithyn on October 09, 2012, 08:52:46 AM
Should he die before me, why would I invite another person in who could potentially make more of a mess?
Because you love that person and want to be around them? :unsure:
I just can't imagine that being a good enough reason. :hmm:
Quote from: mongers on October 09, 2012, 01:17:40 PM
Ironically, a sizeable majority of Languishite posting in this thread will be out lived by their wives/femaile partners. :(
I certainly hope so. I have expressly forbidden my wife dying before me.
Quote from: Grey Fox on October 09, 2012, 01:56:32 PM
Quote from: HVC on October 09, 2012, 01:37:33 PM
You're on Tyr's side. Think about that. Carefully.
Tyr's on the side that he's still too emo to be in a steady relationship. I'm saying that the state has no business into regulating our relantionships. Telecoms & Banks, yes. Marriage, no.
Marriage is convenient, from my point of view, because it lets the state know that we regard a relationship as serious.....there are rights to property, widows/widowers pensions, houses and so on. There are also responsibilities, toward the children mainly.
You are in a serious relationship with a child. I'm not sure how it works in Canada, but people in the UK have had an unpleasant surprise when their partner has died, since they are not next of kin. It is one of the reasons why the right for gays to get married is so important; in the past a person's blood family could cut in and simply ignore the "other half".
Perhaps some of the Canadian legal folk can chip in on this, the rules may be different from the UK. But, in the UK, the straightforward and easy way to protect your partner's rights to property etc is to get married.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 09, 2012, 02:21:54 PM
Quote from: mongers on October 09, 2012, 01:17:40 PM
Ironically, a sizeable majority of Languishite posting in this thread will be out lived by their wives/femaile partners. :(
I certainly hope so. I have expressly forbidden my wife dying before me.
Same here, bloody selfish of us really, but then that is the way blokes are :P
Quote from: merithyn on October 09, 2012, 02:18:13 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 09, 2012, 02:08:53 PM
Quote from: merithyn on October 09, 2012, 08:52:46 AM
Should he die before me, why would I invite another person in who could potentially make more of a mess?
Because you love that person and want to be around them? :unsure:
I just can't imagine that being a good enough reason. :hmm:
So you'd be like I love you and want to spend time with you - but you can't come into my house / let alone live together?
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on October 09, 2012, 02:27:04 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on October 09, 2012, 01:56:32 PM
Quote from: HVC on October 09, 2012, 01:37:33 PM
You're on Tyr's side. Think about that. Carefully.
Tyr's on the side that he's still too emo to be in a steady relationship. I'm saying that the state has no business into regulating our relantionships. Telecoms & Banks, yes. Marriage, no.
Marriage is convenient, from my point of view, because it lets the state know that we regard a relationship as serious.....there are rights to property, widows/widowers pensions, houses and so on. There are also responsibilities, toward the children mainly.
You are in a serious relationship with a child. I'm not sure how it works in Canada, but people in the UK have had an unpleasant surprise when their partner has died, since they are not next of kin. It is one of the reasons why the right for gays to get married is so important; in the past a person's blood family could cut in and simply ignore the "other half".
Perhaps some of the Canadian legal folk can chip in on this, the rules may be different from the UK. But, in the UK, the straightforward and easy way to protect your partner's rights to property etc is to get married.
You are entirely correct. Being married is a simple means of ensuring a number of legal consequences happen. Your spouse and children inherit your property (otherwise your spouse might get nothing). The husband is presumed to be the father of children (not at all automatic otherwise). It also forms a guarantee to each other party of a certain level of commitment to the relationship, and that the relationship can not be terminated without certain rights falling to both parties.
Now all of that can be done without being "married" but it is actually much more complicated.
Quote from: garbon on October 09, 2012, 02:53:10 PM
So you'd be like I love you and want to spend time with you - but you can't come into my house / let alone live together?
They could come in. Just not stay. :)
Quote from: garbon on October 09, 2012, 02:53:10 PM
So you'd be like I love you and want to spend time with you - but you can't come into my house / let alone live together?
Worked for me for years.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 09, 2012, 03:25:50 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 09, 2012, 02:53:10 PM
So you'd be like I love you and want to spend time with you - but you can't come into my house / let alone live together?
Worked for me for years.
Sure Seedster but that's because you and I aren't the marrying/cohabiting kind.
Quote from: garbon on October 09, 2012, 03:28:21 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 09, 2012, 03:25:50 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 09, 2012, 02:53:10 PM
So you'd be like I love you and want to spend time with you - but you can't come into my house / let alone live together?
Worked for me for years.
Sure Seedster but that's because you and I aren't the marrying/cohabiting kind.
Then why are you judging me?? :mad:
Like Meri is going to significantly outlive a guy 10 years younger than she is anyway.
Quote from: Valmy on October 09, 2012, 03:39:33 PM
Like Meri is going to significantly outlive a guy 10 years younger than she is anyway.
Not with my family history. Max will be fancy-free and living the high-life off my life insurance policy before he's 60, most likely.
Quote from: merithyn on October 09, 2012, 03:38:19 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 09, 2012, 03:28:21 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 09, 2012, 03:25:50 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 09, 2012, 02:53:10 PM
So you'd be like I love you and want to spend time with you - but you can't come into my house / let alone live together?
Worked for me for years.
Sure Seedster but that's because you and I aren't the marrying/cohabiting kind.
Then why are you judging me?? :mad:
Because you clearly are the marrying kind. :contract:
Quote
You are in a serious relationship with a child. I'm not sure how it works in Canada, but people in the UK have had an unpleasant surprise when their partner has died, since they are not next of kin. It is one of the reasons why the right for gays to get married is so important; in the past a person's blood family could cut in and simply ignore the "other half".
Perhaps some of the Canadian legal folk can chip in on this, the rules may be different from the UK. But, in the UK, the straightforward and easy way to protect your partner's rights to property etc is to get married.
I thought common law marriage laws meant you were treated as if you were married?
If it isn't that way it should be.
No, there is no legal recognition of so-called common law marriages in England and Wales.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common-law_marriage
People are being caught out by this all the time.
But think about it. How is the government supposed to know you are married if you do not register it? Are you married if you spend the night with a woman? How about a week, or a month? I certainly do not want the government guessing my intentions. Marriages are important legal contracts, they are written down and registered; why would we want to play silly guessing games.......except lawyers of course, they get fat fees out of any confusion :P
QuoteBut think about it. How is the government supposed to know you are married if you do not register it? Are you married if you spend the night with a woman? How about a week, or a month?
In Sweden sambo/same abode status comes after living together for two years IIRC and it gives a tonne of rights/responsibilities/general marriagey stuff.
Quote from: Tyr on October 10, 2012, 04:39:05 AM
QuoteBut think about it. How is the government supposed to know you are married if you do not register it? Are you married if you spend the night with a woman? How about a week, or a month?
In Sweden sambo/same abode status comes after living together for two years IIRC and it gives a tonne of rights/responsibilities/general marriagey stuff.
I shared a house with another bloke for a couple of years back in the day, does that mean we would have accidentally set up a gay marriage under Swedish law?
Alternatively, I also shared a flat with some women for a couple of years and had sex with one of them once, how would the Swedish system deal with that?
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on October 10, 2012, 04:54:56 AM
Quote from: Tyr on October 10, 2012, 04:39:05 AM
QuoteBut think about it. How is the government supposed to know you are married if you do not register it? Are you married if you spend the night with a woman? How about a week, or a month?
In Sweden sambo/same abode status comes after living together for two years IIRC and it gives a tonne of rights/responsibilities/general marriagey stuff.
I shared a house with another bloke for a couple of years back in the day, does that mean we would have accidentally set up a gay marriage under Swedish law?
Alternatively, I also shared a flat with some women for a couple of years and had sex with one of them once, how would the Swedish system deal with that?
Send all of them or you to a sexual rehabilitation camp ? :P
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on October 10, 2012, 04:54:56 AM
Quote from: Tyr on October 10, 2012, 04:39:05 AM
QuoteBut think about it. How is the government supposed to know you are married if you do not register it? Are you married if you spend the night with a woman? How about a week, or a month?
In Sweden sambo/same abode status comes after living together for two years IIRC and it gives a tonne of rights/responsibilities/general marriagey stuff.
I shared a house with another bloke for a couple of years back in the day, does that mean we would have accidentally set up a gay marriage under Swedish law?
Alternatively, I also shared a flat with some women for a couple of years and had sex with one of them once, how would the Swedish system deal with that?
Well it appears in the US where common law marriages still happen - a piece of it is intent / acting like they are married.
Quote from: garbon on October 10, 2012, 08:15:39 AM
Well it appears in the US where common law marriages still happen - a piece of it is intent / acting like they are married.
And it requires seven years of living as husband and wife before it can be legally acknowledged. In Iowa, now, it's living as husband and husband or wife and wife for seven years. (I love that Iowa includes same-gender marriages in their common law policies now. :D)
Quote from: mongers on October 10, 2012, 08:10:18 AM
Send all of them or you to a sexual rehabilitation camp ? :P
Oh, that's your answer to
everything.
:P
Quote from: Tyr on October 10, 2012, 04:25:29 AM
I thought common law marriage laws meant you were treated as if you were married?
If it isn't that way it should be.
No Common Law Marriage laws mean you are married. I guess I do not get the distinction between being married and being treated as if you are married under the law. If you are treated as if you are married then....hey that means you are married. If you break it off you have to file for divorce and all that good stuff.
How do the authorities decide what is "living as husband and wife" :hmm: ?
Also, can you be effectively forced into being considered as having a common-law marriage against your will?
So did MiM kill his wife yet?
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on October 10, 2012, 10:05:06 AM
How do the authorities decide what is "living as husband and wife" :hmm: ?
Also, can you be effectively forced into being considered as having a common-law marriage against your will?
You have to do something to trigger it. Like file jointly for taxes or have a kid together while living together. The State has to notice you are doing Husband and Wifely stuff. At least that is how it works here.
And yes you can. You really gain nothing by not actually getting a marriage license in Texas unless you are really sneaky.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on October 10, 2012, 10:05:06 AM
How do the authorities decide what is "living as husband and wife" :hmm: ?
Fight a lot and no longer have sex.
Quote from: PDH on October 10, 2012, 10:13:02 AM
Fight a lot and no longer have sex.
Hey! Some of us get along wonderfully and no longer have sex.
Quote from: Valmy on October 10, 2012, 10:15:49 AM
Quote from: PDH on October 10, 2012, 10:13:02 AM
Fight a lot and no longer have sex.
Hey! Some of us get along wonderfully and no longer have sex.
And some of us get along wonderfully and still have sex! :showoff:
Quote from: Valmy on October 10, 2012, 10:09:34 AM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on October 10, 2012, 10:05:06 AM
How do the authorities decide what is "living as husband and wife" :hmm: ?
Also, can you be effectively forced into being considered as having a common-law marriage against your will?
You have to do something to trigger it. Like file jointly for taxes or have a kid together while living together. The State has to notice you are doing Husband and Wifely stuff. At least that is how it works here.
In Maryland, I believe all it takes is established cohabitation for a period of time. So it sorta triggers itself.
Quote from: Valmy on October 10, 2012, 10:15:49 AM
Quote from: PDH on October 10, 2012, 10:13:02 AM
Fight a lot and no longer have sex.
Hey! Some of us get along wonderfully and no longer have sex.
You need to fight more so you can have makeup sex.
I wonder what happens if one runs two households in Texas; say, one in Dallas during the week and another in rural Texas for the weekends.............would one end up committing common-law bigamy :hmm: ?
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on October 10, 2012, 10:55:05 AM
I wonder what happens if one runs two households in Texas; say, one in Dallas during the week and another in rural Texas for the weekends.............would one end up committing common-law bigamy :hmm: ?
With different women? The State would probably go with whatever one was first.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 10, 2012, 10:06:25 AM
So did MiM kill his wife yet?
No, I decided I like having her around. :P
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on October 10, 2012, 10:05:06 AM
Also, can you be effectively forced into being considered as having a common-law marriage against your will?
Yes, it really has nothing to do with your will, it has to do with creating a legal responsibility if you treated her like a wife for 2 years or more - at least in this jurisdiction. If there is a dispute about the status it is resolved by the court. But basically if you have been living together and having sex during those two years you are probably a common law couple - at least in this jurisdiction.
How long do you have to be apart to break the chain?
Say if I'm approaching the two years but don't want to be married, for how long do I have to go away to reset the count?
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on October 10, 2012, 04:54:56 AM
I shared a house with another bloke for a couple of years back in the day, does that mean we would have accidentally set up a gay marriage under Swedish law?
Alternatively, I also shared a flat with some women for a couple of years and had sex with one of them once, how would the Swedish system deal with that?
No idea.
Though that's not so common in Sweden. Flat sharing is quite a horrible British thing, most countries seem to have plentiful one person flats <_<
Quote from: Tyr on October 11, 2012, 06:36:51 AM
No idea.
Though that's not so common in Sweden. Flat sharing is quite a horrible British thing, most countries seem to have plentiful one person flats <_<
Nope. The US has that in abundance, too. Not because there aren't enough one-person apartments, but because nobody can afford to live on their own.
Quote from: merithyn on October 11, 2012, 08:23:53 AM
Quote from: Tyr on October 11, 2012, 06:36:51 AM
No idea.
Though that's not so common in Sweden. Flat sharing is quite a horrible British thing, most countries seem to have plentiful one person flats <_<
Nope. The US has that in abundance, too. Not because there aren't enough one-person apartments, but because nobody can afford to live on their own.
Nobody is a bit broad. :contract:
Quote from: garbon on October 11, 2012, 08:43:04 AM
Quote from: merithyn on October 11, 2012, 08:23:53 AM
Nope. The US has that in abundance, too. Not because there aren't enough one-person apartments, but because nobody can afford to live on their own.
Nobody is a bit broad. :contract:
:rolleyes:
You knew what I meant.
Quote from: merithyn on October 11, 2012, 09:25:48 AM
Quote from: garbon on October 11, 2012, 08:43:04 AM
Quote from: merithyn on October 11, 2012, 08:23:53 AM
Nope. The US has that in abundance, too. Not because there aren't enough one-person apartments, but because nobody can afford to live on their own.
Nobody is a bit broad. :contract:
:rolleyes:
You knew what I meant.
The 2011 New York City Housing and Vacancy Survey had that 34% of renters lived in apts by themselves. If you add in married couples to that (as presumably they live together because they want to and not solely for economic reasons), you've 65% of renters in NYC not fitting what you said.
Quote from: garbon on October 11, 2012, 09:35:14 AM
The 2011 New York City Housing and Vacancy Survey had that 34% of renters lived in apts by themselves. If you add in married couples to that (as presumably they live together because they want to and not solely for economic reasons), you've 65% of renters in NYC not fitting what you said.
Oh for god's sake, garbon. :rolleyes: It's like dealing with my fucking teenagers.
That's still 35% of people who live with a roommate, most likely for financial reasons. That's a lot, and I bet it's pretty much on par with the UK; London in particular. Which was, I think you know, the point of the post.
So, it's a lot, okay? Maybe not "nobody" but pretty much everyone knew that, didn't they? Of course, it required the snarky-barely-post-teen-literalist to make a big deal about it.
Quote from: merithyn on October 11, 2012, 09:46:10 AM
Quote from: garbon on October 11, 2012, 09:35:14 AM
The 2011 New York City Housing and Vacancy Survey had that 34% of renters lived in apts by themselves. If you add in married couples to that (as presumably they live together because they want to and not solely for economic reasons), you've 65% of renters in NYC not fitting what you said.
Oh for god's sake, garbon. :rolleyes: It's like dealing with my fucking teenagers.
That's still 35% of people who live with a roommate, most likely for financial reasons. That's a lot, and I bet it's pretty much on par with the UK; London in particular. Which was, I think you know, the point of the post.
So, it's a lot, okay? Maybe not "nobody" but pretty much everyone knew that, didn't they? Of course, it required the snarky-barely-post-teen-literalist to make a big deal about it.
Actually as I pointed out the numbers are actually slanted to people not living with a roommate - in essentially our most expensive US city. (if 35% living with a roommate is a big number - isn't 35% not living with anyone but themselves?)
I think that's worth 'nitpicking' as you call it as your take seemed to suggest that pretty much everyone was too poor to live alone - and that's simply not true. I know that the convenient narrative right now is that everyone is poor and suffering but we shouldn't use that to cloud the realities on the ground or call it nitpicking when one points out something contrary to said narrative.
Quote from: garbon on October 11, 2012, 10:16:03 AM
Actually as I pointed out the numbers are actually slanted to people not living with a roommate - in essentially our most expensive US city. (if 35% living with a roommate is a big number - isn't 35% not living with anyone but themselves?)
I think that's worth 'nitpicking' as you call it as your take seemed to suggest that pretty much everyone was too poor to live alone - and that's simply not true. I know that the convenient narrative right now is that everyone is poor and suffering but we shouldn't use that to cloud the realities on the ground or call it nitpicking when one points out something contrary to said narrative.
*pat* *pat* *pat*
Yes, dear. You're right.
Taking NYC as a whole is a bit misleading. Outer boroughs, while still very expensive by American standards, are a hell of a lot more affordable than a box under the overpass in Manhattan.
Quote from: merithyn on October 11, 2012, 10:18:22 AM
Quote from: garbon on October 11, 2012, 10:16:03 AM
Actually as I pointed out the numbers are actually slanted to people not living with a roommate - in essentially our most expensive US city. (if 35% living with a roommate is a big number - isn't 35% not living with anyone but themselves?)
I think that's worth 'nitpicking' as you call it as your take seemed to suggest that pretty much everyone was too poor to live alone - and that's simply not true. I know that the convenient narrative right now is that everyone is poor and suffering but we shouldn't use that to cloud the realities on the ground or call it nitpicking when one points out something contrary to said narrative.
*pat* *pat* *pat*
Yes, dear. You're right.
What? I'm supposed to just sit by while you spout off your doom and gloom narrative? Tyr is a rather impressionable sort and you're misleading him.
Well, I can't even afford a trailer in Alabama, so gotta side with Meri even though I know she's wildly exaggerating.
Quote from: DGuller on October 11, 2012, 10:18:40 AM
Taking NYC as a whole is a bit misleading. Outer boroughs, while still very expensive by American standards, are a hell of a lot more affordable than a box under the overpass in Manhattan.
Unfortunately, tables I found didn't cut everything by borough.
Quote from: merithyn on October 11, 2012, 09:46:10 AM
Quote from: garbon on October 11, 2012, 09:35:14 AM
The 2011 New York City Housing and Vacancy Survey had that 34% of renters lived in apts by themselves. If you add in married couples to that (as presumably they live together because they want to and not solely for economic reasons), you've 65% of renters in NYC not fitting what you said.
Oh for god's sake, garbon. :rolleyes: It's like dealing with my fucking teenagers.
Shouldnt be too surprising given his age and stage.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 11, 2012, 10:23:48 AM
Well, I can't even afford a trailer in Alabama, so gotta side with Meri even though I know she's wildly exaggerating.
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-05-02/living-alone/54585114/1
QuoteMore singles living alone and loving it, despite the economy
Census data released this week says 31 million households in 2010 consisted of just one person, 4 million more than 2000. According to the new data, singles make up 27% of U.S. households; in several large cities, including New York, San Francisco, Atlanta and Washington, D.C., it's more than 40%.
For the first time ever, Census found, less than half of all U.S. homes — 48% — were husband-wife households.
In 1950, 22% of Americans were single, and 9% of U.S. households were occupied by people who lived alone, says New York University sociology professor Eric Klinenberg, author of new book, Going Solo: The Extraordinary Rise and Surprising Appeal of Living Alone.
And in places like Manhattan and San Francisco, more than 40% of all households consisted of just one person, according to the new numbers.
The swelling percentage of single-living people is changing the way cities grow, homes are built and businesses operate. The trend line has been noticed by developers and economic observers in many corners of the country.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 11, 2012, 10:23:48 AM
Well, I can't even afford a trailer in Alabama, so gotta side with Meri even though I know she's wildly exaggerating.
Yes, well, when one "wildly exaggerates" to the point that it can't possibly be true (as in "nobody"), I think it's pretty clear that it was said to make a point (in this case about the shitty economy), not to make accurate guesses at numbers. I just forgot that I was in the land of the Autistic Teenager when I made the comment here. :rolleyes:
Quote from: merithyn on October 11, 2012, 10:33:38 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 11, 2012, 10:23:48 AM
Well, I can't even afford a trailer in Alabama, so gotta side with Meri even though I know she's wildly exaggerating.
Yes, well, when one "wildly exaggerates" to the point that it can't possibly be true (as in "nobody"), I think it's pretty clear that it was said to make a point (in this case about the shitty economy), not to make accurate guesses at numbers. I just forgot that I was in the land of the Autistic Teenager when I made the comment here. :rolleyes:
And it was your point that I take issue with. :contract:
Quote from: garbon on October 11, 2012, 10:35:52 AM
And it was your point that I take issue with. :contract:
:huh:
You don't think that the economy sucks?
Quote from: merithyn on October 11, 2012, 10:38:10 AM
Quote from: garbon on October 11, 2012, 10:35:52 AM
And it was your point that I take issue with. :contract:
:huh:
You don't think that the economy sucks?
I'm pretty sure the economy blows right now. And of course, since you can't suck and blow at the same time...
Quote from: merithyn on October 11, 2012, 10:38:10 AM
Quote from: garbon on October 11, 2012, 10:35:52 AM
And it was your point that I take issue with. :contract:
:huh:
You don't think that the economy sucks?
I do but I'm not sure that I want to blithely accept that that it sucking means that we can use it as a catch-all to describe phenomena.
For point of reference, I just grabbed the same stats from NYC rental survey in 2002. 67% singles + married, 36% singles alone.
I know all of my stats work is shaky (and we're not taken into account of lot of things) but what I'm trying to show is that I don't think we can just say economy sucks so there are tons of people living together because they can't afford to otherwise. I don't see support for that when I look around.
Quote from: merithyn on October 10, 2012, 09:50:28 AM
Quote from: garbon on October 10, 2012, 08:15:39 AM
Well it appears in the US where common law marriages still happen - a piece of it is intent / acting like they are married.
And it requires seven years of living as husband and wife before it can be legally acknowledged. In Iowa, now, it's living as husband and husband or wife and wife for seven years. (I love that Iowa includes same-gender marriages in their common law policies now. :D)
Isn't that a bit annoying though? What if they want to live together but don't want to get married? Can they "split up" and have one of them live in a hotel for a week sometime in year 6 and reset the clock?
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 08, 2012, 07:42:40 PM
Inspired by a conversation with Mrs. MIM. I mentioned offhand that there's no way in hell I would get re-married if she died. She thought I didn't need to be that loyal, but those were not my reasons.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYM7cxxm2i0 ?