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.
Hurting the children. Money can always be replaced, emotions can't. I'm not assuming it would be easier separating when not married, but it might make things easier on the kids and the couple.
Children aren't hurt by "divorce" - they are hurt because their parents split up - and hurt more so when the split is hostile. Even if you weren't married - splitting up would still be every hard on the children. It's still the same thing to them - just a different word.
Hurting the children. Money can always be replaced, emotions can't. I'm not assuming it would be easier separating when not married, but it might make things easier on the kids and the couple.
This is just my opinion, but I don't think it really does make it easier on the kids... but I might be wrong, I never looked into it. It might be worth researching because I don't know that kids think of "marriage" so much as "mommy and daddy aren't together." They don't care or even know about the legality of it all. I suppose it depends on the age of the kids when there is a split up.
Listen, I am not trying to beat you up... I am not on the side of a hypothetical woman. Heck, I often say I will never get married again and often argue why I won't. But I also have no plans to have any more children. But I have a friend who struggles with his paternal rights and he's who I am thinking of when I tell you you should really investigate the laws in your state. Especially paternal rights for unwed fathers.
Really, I am trying to give practical advice that I hope will save you heartache. I do have opinions on marriage and children and what's best, but enough people are chiming in on that and have covered what I would say. I am trying to show you something from another angle.
This is just my opinion, but I don't think it really does make it easier on the kids... but I might be wrong, I never looked into it. It might be worth researching because I don't know that kids think of "marriage" so much as "mommy and daddy aren't together." They don't care or even know about the legality of it all. I suppose it depends on the age of the kids when there is a split up.
Listen, I am not trying to beat you up... I am not on the side of a hypothetical woman. Heck, I often say I will never get married again and often argue why I won't. But I also have no plans to have any more children. But I have a friend who struggles with his paternal rights and he's who I am thinking of when I tell you you should really investigate the laws in your state. Especially paternal rights for unwed fathers.
Really, I am trying to give practical advice that I hope will save you heartache. I do have opinions on marriage and children and what's best, but enough people are chiming in on that and have covered what I would say. I am trying to show you something from another angle.
Thank you for your input. I understand your angle, but I see it from my own. I'm not saying that will ever change, but it is how I feel.
Before I would make my decision, I would consult an attorney that specializes in child custody and rights. Besides money and assets being split whether married or just living together , the battle with kids is so much more difficult with just " living together " should something go wrong. She might decide one day, she wants a marriage finds someone, and after raising your kid, you might not see them until they turn 18. Wise versa after years the guy could say I'm tired I want out, the kid is not mine you cheated have fun I'm out to the women. The legal battles are very murky in this department versus divorce where most things are spelled out regarding children and the involvement of the other parent.
Just my opinion, I talk with the attorney that just handles these cases and they are doozies, would put Jerry Springer to shame.
It's like making an agreement in writing vs one that's verbal. Both are contracts, but one is easier to weed through the other is very grey and you don't know how it's going to turn out.
You know, I am not a big fan of marriage and I won't ever do it again, but to say there are no benefits to men is misleading. As was mentioned, his paternal rights are the big one not to mention the financial, tax, and other benefits. There is a reason men are quicker to remarry after divorce and being widowed and there is a reason why gay men want the right to marry. Most marriages succeed. Close to 60% and that number grows every year as the divorce rate has gone down since its peak in 1979.
There are disadvantages in divorce (which is what you are really talking about--not marriage), and you brought up good points earlier. But that effects both parties. Divorce is fun for no one. I took a financial beating during my divorce. If a man is really worried about the financial problems of divorce (like alimony) the answer is simple, marry a woman who makes more than you do and always encourage her career--even at the expense of your own. Almost all states are gender blind when it comes to divorce and money.
But of course, this is all aside from the Op. This isn't a debate about marriage vs. non-marriage (which this has turned in to). The OP wants to find a woman who will have children with him out of wedlock. Those women are out there, but not easy to find. A lot are financially independent themselves and don't want to be tied down to a husband (or risk their money in divorce). It would serve the Op well to do his research to find out what's best for him... espically looking into paternal rights in his state, common law marriage (if it should come to that), and marriage itself. He might actually have more security (with his paternal rights) and advantages in marriage. He should really look into it and then decide.
Good posts, Jill.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ7
First and foremost it isn't a problem, it is what and how I feel.
Secondly, marriage is buying...not monetarily speaking but you do invest your life into someone else. That same investment can be made without marriage.
If you were only talking about marriage I might agree, but you are talking about parenthood. The sacrifices and risk expected of women up front and over their lifetimes is greater, so the investment being sought is your commitment to the family you intend to create.
If you were only talking about marriage I might agree, but you are talking about parenthood. The sacrifices and risk expected of women up front and over their lifetimes is greater, so the investment being sought is your commitment to the family you intend to create.
But that can easily be fixed -- he just becomes the primary caregiver, and stays home with the kids, and chooses a partner who wants to keep going with her career and support the family.
But that can easily be fixed -- he just becomes the primary caregiver, and stays home with the kids, and chooses a partner who wants to keep going with her career and support the family.
Well, ignoring the fact that fathers don't gestate, give birth, breastfeed, or receive the same social bias once they're parents, yes. There's also the fact that not many of them choose to do it.
Well, ignoring the fact that fathers don't gestate, give birth, breastfeed, or receive the same social bias once they're parents, yes. There's also the fact that not many of them choose to do it.
Sure. But my point is, if he thinks the traditional arrangements benefits women over men at breakup, he can just switch it around. I know househusbands with small kids. It's not like they don't exist.
I get annoyed with guys pulling out the 'just a piece of paper' line when what they really mean is 'I want her to give up her career and take care of the kids so I don't have to, so I will still have a good job if we break up'. They want to have their cake and eat it too, and they don't care who else is hurt.
I don't know if the OP is still set on that. I only read the first 5 and last 3 pages of the thread, mea culpa. But he started out that way. Maybe you have knocked some sense into him.
I figure, if a guy wants to be a parent, let him be a parent. Not hire some woman to quit her job and raise his kids.
No. Marriage does not mean less likely to leave. Get it through your head. And if the point you're really trying to make is that it's harder to leave therefore marriage is better, you're out of your mind. In that case, all it does is make everything harder on everybody than it has to be, unless somebody just runs out first. Marriage does not in any way equal stability. Get it through your head.
I can see where you're coming from considering when most marriages end the wife reaps all the benefits but you'd have a hard time finding a women that just wants kids but not a wedding, if anything it's usually the other way around lol they want the wedding but are iffy about kids.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
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.
