Not the best term for folks who are content in their relationship, but yes. Once your relationship has made it past the climb phase, economically speaking, you have a lot of altitude to deal with issues once you're at cruise altitude. "Growing apart" and financial reasons are the top causes of divorce [1] (infidelity and addiction are still substantial but minority causes). Divorce is one of the most financially devastating events that can occur in your life (besides unexpected medical expenses), so there are incentives once you're married and financially successful to remain married [2].

Commitment and "sticking it out" is a topic onto itself. Love is sacrifice and marriage is a (hopefully rewarding) job (personal opinion, YMMV, this paragraph comes from several years of counseling and ~15 years of marriage). You want a cofounder who is going to work on the relationship and and stick it out with you, not one who is going to bounce whenever life gets hard. Marriage is just enough friction to not leave on a whim, but not so much friction you can't dissolve the partnership when necessary.

[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4012696/ (Reasons for Divorce and Recollections of Premarital Intervention: Implications for Improving Relationship Education)

[2] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-07-19/divorce-d... (Divorce Destroys Finances of Americans Over 50, Studies Show)

> Divorce is one of the most financially devastating events that can occur in your life (besides unexpected medical expenses)

I agree with your overall comment. It should be pointed out that, other than lawyer costs, divorce tends to be zero sum. So if it is financially devastating for one party, it tends to be a financial windfall for the other. Divorces can be equitable, or they can be lopsided, but don’t net destroy much value unless the parties are spiteful and deliberately destroy their own value.

> It should be pointed out that, other than lawyer costs, divorce tends to be zero sum.

What? No. After a divorce, total costs across both parties go up because resources can no longer be shared: one party needs new housing, possibly a new car, possibly needs to get their own health insurance rather than being on the other's plan, etc. Not to mention both parties have to buy anew whatever goods (cookware, television, etc.) the other person got.

Even completely amicable divorce destroys a tremendous amount of wealth.

Which actually extends to multi-generation families (and roommate situations), and sometimes explains how they survive at all.

Cramming 4 working adults into a two bedroom house is a big efficiency increase. So the first thing a newly single person should be doing is looking for a roommate to share a tv and washing machine and 1/2 the cost of housing.

That said, I can't think of a single case where anyone I knew in their 30-50's who got divorced did anything but go out and buy their own personal house to live in by themselves.

> but don’t net destroy much value unless the parties are spiteful and deliberately destroy their own value.

I see this more often than one would expect. Most recently (older, but not senior, couple married for decades), one party did not agree with the other (amicable party offered 50/50, other party was spiteful), and ~$200k in value was destroyed through legal fees...to arrive at a 50/50 split.

Divorces can be amicable, but the frequency of this happening is not insignificant. Without a prenuptial agreement, you're rolling the dice. Do you feel lucky?

This is absolutely not true for middle class people. Having to divide up households is extremely expensive and even when no money changes hands it can destroy peoples' standard of living. I watched this happen in my own extended family in just the last few years.

> You want a cofounder who is going to work on the relationship and and stick it out with you, not one who is going to bounce whenever life gets hard.

AMEN! I could not agree with this statement more. If people had a firm grasp of this concept, the divorce rate will be even lower or maybe some might even decide not to marry in the first place cos they are too self-centered for that level of sacrifice.

The need to "stick it out" is strongly influenced by parenthood.

Without children, marriage is ephemeral.

The need to formalise a relationship with a marriage ceremony is traditionally linked to religion.

Without religion, children or a stable income, why would a person need or want to get married?

Signalling commitment. My wife and I got married in our mid 30s. If you're a strait guy with a good career, keeping yourself fit, reasonably good looking, no kids, and without religious/cultural reasons to get married, the main advantage of marriage is to reduce relationship anxiety in your partner. A lot of single guys in my position in their mid-late 30s, some of them friends of mine, tend to date women in their mid 20s. Women in their mid 30s know there's a big risk of losing reasonably successful and fit partners to younger women, and their anxiety puts strain on the relationship. Entering into a bond of mutually assured financial and social destruction with my partner made her feel much more secure and thereby greatly reduces stress in the relationship.

When I was in my late 20s, I also had good chemistry with a female friend who was 32 or 33. She hinted pretty strongly on several occasions that she thought we'd make a good couple. Unfortunately, she had a poor relationship with her father which is a no-go for me due to past bad experiences. I remember she confided in me that she felt like she needed to start looking to date guys in their late 40s/early 50s. She was good looking and a graduate student at Columbia University at the time. A lot of women in their mid 30s who should have very good dating prospects have a lot of stress about being passed over for younger women, and unfortunately they're often not wrong to worry.

If you can't imagine leaving your partner for someone else, and they're worried about being left because they're seeing their friends getting left, words are cheap and your partner will know it. If you can't imagine leaving your partner, then there aren't many downsides to getting married, and your partner will also know this.

Of course, there are others in different situations, but that's the experience of me, my wife, some of my wife's single female friends, and some of my single female friends in their mid-30s. Several of them very pleasant good looking women with graduate degrees from Ivy League schools and good careers.

So, for me, I had gotten a bit tired of the dating scene, really liked my partner, couldn't imagine breaking up, and knew my parter was getting anxious. For us, it was a good move, and has made our relationship much stronger.

> Unfortunately, she had a poor relationship with her father which is a no-go for me due to past bad experiences.

Genuinely curious why this was (for you) a leading indicator of a bad relationship?

The father-daughter relationship is critical. It can affect how a woman will relate to men for the rest of her life. There are no perfect parents, but there are bad ones. Therapy can help.

Exactly. Growing up, we all subconsciously build mental models of the minds of others that help us interpret the motivations behind the actions of others and anticipate future actions. For many women, their fathers play a dominant part in their modelling of the minds of men that help them sort out situations where there's conflicting information. This is clearly a generalization, but my experiences are close enough to what I've read.

I've had one girlfriend who was essentially abandoned by her father and another whose father was essentially indifferent to her emotional well being or success in life. It was pretty obvious that at least for both of them, they always had a nagging feeling that I seemed to love and support them, but maybe it was just a charade. After noticing the connection, I actively sought out women with supportive fathers who clearly cared for their daughters.

My father-in-law is strict, but unquestionably supportive of my wife. My wife talks to her dad on the phone at least 5 times per week. When we were first dating, I consciously asked my wife about her father and watched her body language and listened to the way she talked about him.

Even early in our dating, my wife was far more likely to have a charitable interpretation of my actions/motivations vs. my ex-girlfriends whose fathers showed little evidence of caring. On the other hand, my wife still calls me 2-3 times per day at work, but it's a small price to pay for her subconsciously believing I genuinely have an altruistic interest in her well being.

Ugh. Get one aspect right and compromise on another :-) I know nothing but what you said in that comment, but she sounds a little something (needy? Dependent?). Calling dad 5 times a week and you 3 times a day seems a bit off. We all have issues ;-)

There are no perfect people. We've all got a few things wrong with us. Find someone with weirdness you don't really mind, help them grow, but don't try to change them. If talking to you too much (edit: asking you what you want to eat and when) is the worst thing about your partner, your life is pretty sweet.

Edit: there's also a heavy dose of cultural and personal context here. Her calling isn't being needy, but feeling culturally duty-bound. In her home country, as the only daughter, it's considered her responsibility to take care of her parents. Her brother lives 5 minutes from the parents, and he makes sure they're taken care of, but my wife feels a bit guilty living in another country and wants to make sure her parents don't feel abandoned. One of her father's sisters married an American, moved to the U.S., and slowly lost touch with the rest of the family, so she wants to ease any anxiety her parents have around that. Also, as much as I remind her that it's not her job to cook, as soon as she finishes lunch (at her place of work), she feels like a bad wife if she doesn't consult with me about what she should cook for dinner and what time she should start cooking to have dinner perfectly timed for my return from work. I've tried a bit to get her to stop asking what I want for dinner, but you can't change a person, and it is very sweet, other than it makes me feel a bit awkward. She cooks and I clean, and she finds cooking a good way to de-stress after work, but I still feel a bit bad that she feels like it's her duty to cook. She also talks with her brother's kids one or two times a week to help get them practice with their English. She's really trying to help out her whole family and keep everyone connected across the miles. Thailand: land of spicy food and sweet people.

I would love in the future if my girls wanted to talk with me that much.

In many places privacy laws prevent unmarried partners from being automatically notified in medical situations, from making medical decisions, and misc other medical situations you might expect your committed partner to be involved. This probably doesn't matter as long as you are conscious, but if you've involved in an accident or become incapacitated, you'd need a living will on file to have your partner participate in some of these.

This is why I carry a digital documentation describing what to do with me if I am in that situation. My phone's lockscreen has a note on how to check it.

I wonder if there is any standard place I can put the information on what to do if I am on brink of death somewhere so hospitals know to check for it.

I have a friend whose girlfriend and him felt that way until a recent experience.

They were applying for jobs in the same place, same people interviewing them etc. People didnt know they were dating.

When they found out he was partnered, they treated it very seriously, as if they were in a committed relationship, deserving of protection etc. When they found out she was partnered, it was different, he was just a boyfriend of who knows what status etc.

They decided to get married after that experience.

As others have noted, the purpose of marriage is to protect the relationship, but what that really means is protecting each other. In some cases this means ensuring equity of treatment.

Similar cases have shown up with COVID. Every couple of months this year I've listened to news stories about couples dealing with cross border restrictions on being able to see each other. The last one included a couple who had been together for years and were despairing about the fact that protections of border crossing only extended to married couples. I'm not suggesting judgement should be cast on them for not being married, as that's between them, but it's another example of how representing the significance of the relationship to the state can have consequences.

It's traditionally linked to religion, but not exclusive to it. Outside of the legal status, getting married is still a way to formalize and celebrate your commitment to someone.

This reminds me somewhat of the 'Pont des Arts' in Paris - where couples often affix padlocks to the railing and throw the key into the water as a symbol of commitment. The number of combination locks on there was quite notable last time I saw it!

The weight of the locks was damaging the bridge, so they removed them in 2015. https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/paris-love-locks-bridges-...

Fair enough. That's a nice thought - two people with unstable income and a modest support network joining together for love, and making it last. Thanks for that, ssully!

Reiterating what KMag wrote below:

For some, publicly declaring your commitment to one another can have a powerful affect on the relationship. It can communicate a shared vision and commitment for a lifetime. It is not requisite for that commitment, but it leverages cultural support structures that can help keep a relationship healthy.

For me personally, I believe marriage provides a couple with an important concept that they are part of something greater than themselves. This is not an exclusively religious idea (I consider myself an atheist). When times are difficult (and they will be over the course of a lifetime), this bond can help a relationship survive when otherwise the pressure to give up can be significant.

No it is not. Our society is build around people living together are married. You get more rights (inheritance, euthanasia, etc) and benefits (pooling your taxes).

It is that way because it was the default for a long time. Now it is shifting and it will take time for society to adjust to this new reality.

RE: taxes

Look into the marriage tax penalty, in some situations you will pay more (both high income earners)

> Without religion, children or a stable income, why would a person need or want to get married?

I suppose there are legal reasons to get married.

There are Tax benefits in some countries.

Why do oxygen atoms pair up? For many, there's considerably more stability in the situation for a lot of reasons. Obviously not always, but even if 'someone doesn't have children' - we're still mostly designed to behave in a social context where there are children. So a 'childless' marriage is one-step removed from the classical state, it's still pretty close.

Taxes?

A mixed bag depending on your incomes. There used to be a marriage penalty for similar-income dual-earner households, but that was mostly erased with TCAJ (2017). (There's still a marriage penalty for very high dual-earner households.)

I don't think most people get married for tax reasons.

The Sunken Cost Fallacy applies to unhappy marriages. It is often a better monetary wager to "persist" despite obvious misery. But it's a terrible choice in the psychological cost. And... you only live once.

The financial devastation of divorce in a period of economic uncertainty makes marriage a very poor long-term value proposition. You can't really protect yourself from a predatory divorce in any way that will withstand a legal challenge.

Younger adults seeking independence should be very wary of "marriage". Love and relationship can exist in a healthier way outside of the sunken-cost fallacy.

An economic union only makes sense if the terms of rupture are clear and fair. A romantic union only makes sense if there is love. To confuse these two types of union is a huge mistake.

Or the other way around: those getting married have actually thought it through, rather than feeling peer or family pressure? Who knows.