Mod cut: Orphaned (quoted post has been deleted).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob-Man
I don't ever want to create a broken family, so I'd rather do marriage before kids.
|
Unmarried pareents are not a broken family.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewdroplet76
If polygamy were legal - would you get married?
|
Thanks for the question - it is a thoughtful one unlike some replies. The answers is it is not for me no. Other than the aforementioned tax benefits I see nothing appealing or attractive in the notion of marriage. I would likely have no interest in it even if the relationship I was in did not already preclude it. I do however have contact with some other people in relationships similar to my own - and opinion is divided there too. Some of them would like to have marriage in the same way as everyone else. Others have no interest. While others have some interest but accept the fact that their chosen relationship simply precludes it and they accept this.
I would not like to derail the thread into a specific discussion on marriage - there are plenty of threads on that already - but in short I feel marriage is an institution that is out of step with the demands of modern society. It needs an overhaul and updating. The things I actually require from marriage - such as ensuring inheritance rights, next of kin rights, medical proxy rights, and guardianship of the children in our relationship in the event of death etc etc - I have acquired by other means for us.
I have nothing AGAINST it though - or anyone who wants it or does it. Do not get me wrong. I am not here preaching against marriage or suggesting people not do it. Those that want it - go for it and I am all for it and am happy for them. But it is not for me.
All I am saying here is that those that claim it somehow benefits child rearing - have failed to back up this claim in even the smallest way. If you trawl the entire thread looking for such support - the best one can find is anecdotes of broken families where the parents happened not to be married. And they leap to conclusions off the back of such anecdote.
I am entirely neutral on the subject of marriage in other words - but not at all neutral on people claiming without substance that it is some kind of must have before procreation. There simply is no reason on offer here to think that is true.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewdroplet76
Most people do not make that kind of commitment all the time without marriage.
|
Yes - the majority of people who choose to have children are married. You are statistically correct here. But you are statistically stating the obvious too. No one is disputing this - and you will get no argument from me. The majority and "norm" is clear. Most people who commit to having children DO marry first.
But that is not the question of the thread to my eyes. The question of the thread is SHOULD it be so. Is there a reason it should be this way. Does it benefit us in any way at all? Are children brought up in stable households with marriage ANY better off than those brought up in stable households with no marriage? And currently the support for thinking so is - nothing. At all.
And as I said when I pulled a user in another thread - who constantly preaches that marriage is a necessity and ideal for child rearing - up on this the best she could do was produce studies comparing children in married households to children in divorced ones - broken ones - or families where one or other parent died or left. Hardly useful.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewdroplet76
I know couples that never married - and a couple of them have children. But most of the people that I know that have been together for a long time are married - unless it wasn't legal to do so.
|
And again I wholly agree with you. MOST of the people with kids I know are married too. No one here is disputing this at all. I fear you are making a point to me that I have absolutely not disputed - and entirely agree with.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoFigureMeOut
I just can't imagine anything more tacky than being an unmarried woman with a kid. My parents would kill me if I ever did anything like that.
|
That says a lot about your parents - and very little about marriage and child rearing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lmw36
Also, I'm not saying people can't have a certain level of commitment without marriage. However, the thread asked my opinion and the choices I would make in my life.
|
The point is that there is no reason to think that the "level of commitment" is any less (or more) in a married couple with children than an unmarried couple with children. The moment someone makes such a claim they are engaging in wild assumptions.
And the thread did not just ask you what choices you would make in your life. If it did then I likely would not even have replied to the thread. Each persons choice is their own. What the thread DID ask - right there in the thread title - is whether we believe people SHOULD be married before having children. Not what you do with your life - but what other people "should" do with theirs. And that is a different ball game.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lmw36
To me, marriage symbolizes the highest level of commitment
|
And to me the exact opposite is true. To me choosing to spend your life with someone is the highest level of commitment. And marriage is simply one of many possible ways to express that choice externally.
It sounds to me like someone saying "Football symbolises the highest level of commitment to fitness" when in fact there are a multitude of ways to express a commitment to fitness.
In other words - You are merely taking ONE possible expression of an ideal - and without any basis or reason declaring it to be the highest example of the form.
As I say if it is the highest expression of your commitment for YOU then that is great - you will get no argument or disparagement from me in any shape or form - just my praise and congratulation. But I repeat that the thread is not asking that. It is asking what OTHER people "should" do - and that sets off a different set of alarm bells in me.
What people "should" do when having children is ensure they can provide a stable loving home for it. Marriage is neither a pre-requisite nor a guarantee of any such thing. It is - in and of itself - superfluous to requirements - regardless of how precious it might be to your personally.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gentlearts
Yes. A woman would have to be a fool to have children outside of marriage, unless she is financially secure. If she is, then she could consider it, but she still will run the risk of having children who are maladjusted due to the lack of a positive male influence.
|
Yet another user who is missing the point that not being married is not the same as not having both parents. Nor does it significantly increase or decrease the risk of a two parent family ending up a single parent family.
As for "positive male influence" there are plenty of children of single parents who have turned out every bit as well adjusted and healthy as you or I. Some more so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChessieMom
Duh.  Of course there are. But it is FAR more difficult to walk out on a marriage than on a live-in. Surely you realize that. That is the whole point of marriage...it binds a couple legally, as well as emotionally. Far more stable for raising children. |
I guess a lot of this might depend on the laws local to you. I do not know the laws local to you - or even where is local to you - but where I live even though I am not married - if I suddenly upped and walked out tomorrow the legal requirements upon me to support my children financially would be no less than a married man doing the same thing.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
