Better off Alone or Married?

[lonely_john]

Question for those MSM (Men who have Sex with Men) who ARE or WERE married:

Do you think you are/were better off alone, or married? Is there value or advantage in formalizing a union and why?

Edited December 2, 2021 by lonely_john

[jeezifonly]

Alone vs Paired is one question

Paired/partnered vs legally wed is another

I am yes to paired and wed. Been paired for 33yrs, wed for 13 of those, and we have both been better off for it.

In my previous midwestern life I might never have come out, but gotten married and had kids and been sneaky and miserable, as one can change what he does, but not what he wants.

We all know people who are paired off for life, but not wed legally. 

The basic element of the marriage contract is actually about property, and inherent right to power of attorney and other decision making for the spouse. State laws regulate what happens if/when marriage ends in divorce, or when one spouse survives the other. Credit Scores are also entwined in marriage, meaning a careful money manager may be compromised by matrimonial link to someone with huge debt and/or credit issues.

Better off alone is its own question, and a yes to that in your heart makes the rest moot.

Try thinking of yourself as something other than your handle here. If IRL you also define yourself as lonely, you may miss something right in front of you. ❤️

[+ Topseed]

Some of the loneliest people I know are married.

I see this as not a question of which is “better”. There is no ranking.

Instead: do I know what brings me joy? …what brings me purpose? And is a relationship additive to these? 

[Epigonos]

I've never considered myself good partner or spouse material.  I'm far to selfish, self centered, and controlling.  I usually have the attitude that it's my way or the highway.  The truth is I'm totally happy being alone.  Don't get me wrong I enjoy being around people but on my terms.  Being a public high school teacher for thirty-six years and please believe me I loved nearly every minute of it, I also, at the end of the day looked forward to coming home and enjoying the peace and quite and my own company so I could recharge my batteries for the next day. 

[+ Charlie]

I am generally happier with a partner, but not in an old-fashioned monogamous relationship. I was an only child, so I am used to the freedom of doing things alone and making decisions for myself, but I still am happier as part of a couple. My partner and I have been together for 53 years, legally married for eight years, and there are advantages and disadvantages to both situations. Everything depends on the personalities of the two people in the relationship. I lived with my first partner for four years (I call it my "trial marriage"), and I broke it off because we had very different ideas about the nature of our partnership. That helped me to understand what I really wanted in a relationship, and I was lucky enough to get it the second time.

[jtwalker]

Pros and Cons.  While I like the idea of not being strapped down now, I loathe the idea of being lonely later in life.

[Rudynate]

I'm much better off married. I have big needs and have trouble satisfying them by myself. My husband is very stable, reliable and loyal and has an extraordinarily strong character.  With his nurturing and support I have done amazing things with my life these past thirty years.  One of the most important things he does for me is that he reminds ME all the time about what a strong man I am.  Of course it becomes routine - but I rely on that routine as a sort of compass.   We've helped each other through a lot of shit AIDS, the financial crisis, the pandemic, the deaths of our mothers,  needing to get a loan modification on our house after the financial crisis, his business failing after the financial crisis.  I've been hospitalized 5 times over the course of our relationship, had three major surgeries.  He has been hospitalized twice for life-threatening kidney infections.  And through it all, we have cared for and looked after each other and been there.  It seems every time we come through a hardship, our relationship is stronger.

[+ jessmapex]

As a gay man, in my 20s, 30s and early 40s I thought being single with providers taking care of the carnal part and other single friends to rely on for the social/emotional support part would be a good model to live a happy life. But in late 40s and early 50s the friend network dispersed and due to the pandemic it nearly dissipated. Provider quality deteriorated. That, in addition to waning interest in carnal pleasures, rising costs also caused the carnal side of my life to become unstable.

Now I dig stable, loving companionship/ partnership. But I know I won't be happy with that arrangement either..given the freedoms I have grown accustomed to. 

Most likely I will die alone. But the memories of hot times with beautiful sexy providers will keep me company forever.

[+ Tygerscent]

On 12/5/2021 at 2:03 PM, jessmapex said:

As a gay man, in my 20s, 30s and early 40s I thought being single with providers taking care of the carnal part and other single friends to rely on for the social/emotional support part would be a good model to live a happy life. But in late 40s and early 50s the friend network dispersed and due to the pandemic it nearly dissipated. Provider quality deteriorated. That, in addition to waning interest in carnal pleasures, rising costs also caused the carnal side of my life to become unstable.

Now I dig stable, loving companionship/ partnership. But I know I won't be happy with that arrangement either..given the freedoms I have grown accustomed to. 

Most likely I will die alone. But the memories of hot times with beautiful sexy providers will keep me company forever.

Same page… 👍😎 I am blessed with my Client relationships… I have loved my companionship with four legged fuzzy buddies~ That’s enough~ I foresee no “dating” husband/husbear relationship happening in my life unless it’s a kor-Indian that likes a lot of independence~ IDK… I actually don’t believe in either straight or gay marriage~ 

F92FBE8A-26A5-40C2-90FA-F5D7A71321A0.webp

Edited December 6, 2021 by Tygerscent

[pubic_assistance]

I never really understood why some gays were so eager to marry.  I always rather admired their freedoms, free of that other person ( or persons - to those of us with children ) who we must constantly consider, and factor in to every move of every day of our lives. 

Now that it's several years into gay marriage rights, it seems the reality is creeping in.

A close friend who's a lawyer says the gay divorce business is an enormous and growing market for the legal field.

Caveat emptor

[lonely_john]

1 hour ago, pubic_assistance said:

I never really understood why some gays were so eager to marry.  I always rather admired their freedoms, free of that other person ( or persons - to those of us with children ) who we must constantly consider, and factor in to every move of every day of our lives. 

Now that it's several years into gay marriage rights, it seems the reality is creeping in.

A close friend who's a lawyer says the gay divorce business is an enormous and growing market for the legal field.

Caveat emptor

Even gay couples with children?

[marylander1940]

1 hour ago, pubic_assistance said:

I never really understood why some gays were so eager to marry.  I always rather admired their freedoms, free of that other person ( or persons - to those of us with children ) who we must constantly consider, and factor in to every move of every day of our lives. 

Now that it's several years into gay marriage rights, it seems the reality is creeping in.

A close friend who's a lawyer says the gay divorce business is an enormous and growing market for the legal field.

Caveat emptor

Is always nice having the choice to marry instead of simply not having it. 

No doubt gay men also divorce other gay men but they also get rights: green card, taxes, etc. Besides is nice NOT being a second class citizen. 

[+ Charlie]

If my partner and I had been able to legally marry in the earlier years of our relationship, I would have been reluctant to do it. However, when I finally decided that the relationship was definitely permanent, after we had lived together for about thirty years, I definitely could see the the advantages of legal marriage.

[Guest]

3 hours ago, Charlie said:

If my partner and I had been able to legally marry in the earlier years of our relationship, I would have been reluctant to do it. However, when I finally decided that the relationship was definitely permanent, after we had lived together for about thirty years, I definitely could see the the advantages of legal marriage.

I know you've been together for a long time, but are you married? One thing for sure is that when one partner passes away, it makes passing assets much quicker and tax-free (such as a house). Assuming we stick together, it will be imperative at some point for me to marry "Chris" so that he can continue receiving my pension, assuming I pre-decease him. 

[lonely_john]

9 hours ago, Charlie said:

I definitely could see the the advantages of legal marriage.

Which are?

[+ Charlie]

In CA, community property laws make it easier for married couples to combine financial affairs, and to file taxes jointly if they wish. It is easier for spouses to manage one another's health issues. In emergencies, one doesn't have to obtain legal permission to take responsibility for one another. Although it would not be the case in our relationship, I have known a case in which the family of a deceased gay man evicted his long time partner from the couple's home and banned him from the funeral. Even in something as simple as the purchase of a home or car, the question of joint ownership isn't questioned and doesn't need to be explained or justified.

And then there is the issue of alimony in the event of a divorce😁

[MikeBiDude]

11 minutes ago, Charlie said:

In CA, community property laws make it easier for married couples to combine financial affairs, and to file taxes jointly if they wish. It is easier for spouses to manage one another's health issues. In emergencies, one doesn't have to obtain legal permission to take responsibility for one another. Although it would not be the case in our relationship, I have known a case in which the family of a deceased gay man evicted his long time partner from the couple's home and banned him from the funeral. Even in something as simple as the purchase of a home or car, the question of joint ownership isn't questioned and doesn't need to be explained or justified.

And then there is the issue of alimony in the event of a divorce😁

@Charlie, as fellow Californians my younger brother and his partner of 25 years surprised us (pleasant surprise) by getting married recently. Everything you mention above were considerations for them - but they also both have large pension plans, and with legal marriage they can get the pension benefits if their spouse pre-deceases one or the other.

[Bacon]

On 12/2/2021 at 6:56 PM, Epigonos said:

I've never considered myself good partner or spouse material.  I'm far to selfish, self centered, and controlling.  I usually have the attitude that it's my way or the highway.  The truth is I'm totally happy being alone.  Don't get me wrong I enjoy being around people but on my terms.  Being a public high school teacher for thirty-six years and please believe me I loved nearly every minute of it, I also, at the end of the day looked forward to coming home and enjoying the peace and quite and my own company so I could recharge my batteries for the next day. 

Oh, I so relate to this . . . but have become accustomed to DINK status. In reality, I probably could afford the same standard of living alone, but there is much truth in the song "breaking up is hard to do." And there are the children to consider . . . okay, the dogs, but still. It's strange to me how so many people pair up and get married and remarried multiple times. Seems so exhausting. 

[+ Charlie]

2 minutes ago, MikeBiDude said:

@Charlie, as fellow Californians my younger brother and his partner of 25 years surprised us (pleasant surprise) by getting married recently. Everything you mention above were considerations for them - but they also both have large pension plans, and with legal marriage they can get the pension benefits if their spouse when the spouse passes away.

I forgot the added possibility of being added to a spouse's health insurance if one is married. Long before same sex marriage was legal, my own employer's group health insurance allowed one to add an official "domestic  partner" to the plan, but my partner's plan did not allow that.

[pubic_assistance]

There was a plan under the G.W. Bush administration to adjust the Domestic Partnership laws so that gay couples could have inheritence and insurance rights nationality. The gays told him "go to Hell"..because they needed that WORD "marriage". Took another 14 years the same rights but with another word. Always baffled me. 

[+ Charlie]

1 hour ago, pubic_assistance said:

There was a plan under the G.W. Bush administration to adjust the Domestic Partnership laws so that gay couples could have inheritence and insurance rights nationality. The gays told him "go to Hell"..because they needed that WORD "marriage". Took another 14 years the same rights but with another word. Always baffled me. 

The problem was that "marriage rights" are already enshrined in numerous federal and state laws, whereas there wasn't any national "domestic partnership" law, and getting one enacted was problematic. Also, by settling only two of the most obviously unfair discriminations against gay couples, it would make it even harder to remove the other ones.

[pubic_assistance]

The sticking point was the religious component in marriage rights.

Originally the US DID only issue a civil certificate

Then somewhere around the World Wars, traditionalism slipped God into various components of Government.

"In God we Trust" on our bank notes and "Marriage" became a state matter instead of a church matter.

This could have all been settled more fairly by issuing EVERYONE Civil Union Certificates by Government which would guarantee rights of property and MARRIAGE could have stayed on as a religious ceremony, thus separating church and state, and the gays would have their legal rights met, and the religious right people would have left the matter alone. For now the conservative states are still trying to challenge the law based on the mixing of religion and government

 

[+ Charlie]

Where did you get the info that the gov't issued civil union certificates before World War II? The civil union movement was something that began as an alternative to same sex marriage, but it was dependent on individual state recognition of a "civil union" between gays, and each state had different ideas about what rights it established for the couple; many states never passed a civil union law, and there was no federal recognition of the concept. Religious conservatives were opposed to the civil union idea just as they were opposed to same sex marriage, which was why it never became operative beyond a few states like Vermont.

You may be confusing the civil union idea with the fact that marriage itself is a civil concept, which is why each state has its own marriage laws, and a couple has to obtain a license (a civil "certificate") to become legally married in that state. State marriage laws can only be altered if the Supreme Court decides that they conflict with the federal Constitution, which is why states that prohibited marriages between individuals of different races were forced to allow interracial marriages, and why it took the Supreme Court decision to force them to allow marriages between persons of the same gender.

[pubic_assistance]

3 hours ago, Charlie said:

You may be confusing the civil union idea with the fact that marriage itself is a civil concept

I may be using the wrong term. But yes...that is what I am referring to. "Marriage" was not a government issue in the earlier years of this country. The religious nut-jobs are right when they claim that marriage is a religious institution. It used to be so. Had it stayed that way, the State could control what's just and fair legally and the religious crazies can have all their usual exclusions.

Edited December 11, 2021 by pubic_assistance
spelling

[+ Charlie]

This country has always had provisions for civil marriages, i.e., marriage ceremonies performed by a civil official such as a justice of the peace, judge, government official, or anyone licensed by the state to perform the ceremony, not just an official of a religion such as a priest, minister or rabbi. There was even a special exception allowing Quakers to marry themselves in front of their meeting (Quakers had no clergy), as long as they had a license for the marriage from the state. No marriage needed the blessing or consent of a particular religion to be legal, just the consent of the state government. Popular sentiment may have thought of it as a religious institution, but legally it was a civil institution, and there were many places in which there were actually more civil marriages than religious ones. (The idea that every American belonged to some organized religion in the 18th and 19th centuries is also a popular myth.)

My own wedding ceremony was performed by a deputized County Commissioner for Civil Marriages.