Anybody want kids but not a marriage ceremony (girls, living together, daughter)

[NJ Brazen_3133]

Originally Posted by Dewdrop93

You do realize that you can get married without a big wedding -right?

That is basically what I mean. I dont want the wedding. I dont mind legally committing. I just dont what that ritualization of it.

Maybe I did not choose my words carefully. I meant the wedding and ceremony mumbo jumbo.

[Ruth4Truth]

Originally Posted by NJ Brazen_3133

That is basically what I mean. I dont want the wedding. I dont mind legally committing. I just dont what that ritualization of it.

Maybe I did not choose my words carefully. I meant the wedding and ceremony mumbo jumbo.

So don't do the mumbo jumbo. There are couples who opt out of all that. The trick is to find a woman who's on the same page as you in that regard. People elope. It happens all the time.

[monumentus]

Originally Posted by NJ Brazen_3133

I feel it is important to produce offspring.

Important for you you mean?

Originally Posted by NJ Brazen_3133

But I dont feel it is necessary to go through the silly archaic ritual known as "marriage"

Agreed. Some people want to - which is great for them. But I do not see it as "necessary". Due to the dynamics of my own relationship marriage is not even an _option_ but I do not feel I have missed out on anything - and we have the first two of four planned children already.

Originally Posted by NJ Brazen_3133

I am feeling the pressure from my parents.

Then you need to politely and firmly tell them to butt out.

Originally Posted by don1945

Every child deserves to grow up in a stable, traditional family where they know who they are and that their Parents thought enough of them to bond and make a real family, not just two people shacking up.

And nothing you have listed there requires marriage or anything to be "traditional". One can demonstrate stability - love - and commitment without marriage.

In english there is usually enough words to say the exact same thing in many different ways. So too is it with demonstrating love and committment. Marriage is only one sentence of expression in that language.

Originally Posted by ChessieMom

Without commitment your chances are pretty slim.

Lack of marriage is NOT the same thing as lack of commitment. Too many people falsely conflate the two.

Originally Posted by burgler09

It's always the children that suffer in these "non-traditional lifestyles".

If you can't even make a commitment to get married, you shouldn't have kids.

^ Bull. Total total bull.

I know many many children - including my own - born of relationships without a formal marriage. And not one of them is "suffering" for it. Nor can I think of a single reason why they should/might - and you have not given one either.

Originally Posted by Idon'tdateyou

The reality is most kids born to unwed parents are born on welfare and usually the parents don't stick together.

You have statistics and citations to back up this wanton assertion do you?

Originally Posted by mysticaltyger

There's something about signing on the dotted line and committing to someone in public that makes the whole thing more serious.

Not to me. To me there is something about getting up each day and building and maintaining a life committed to a shared path that makes the whole thing more serious. Ink blots on dotted lines add - for me - nothing at all to that. Our actions - ongoing each and every day - testify to our committment to a relationship. Not a piece of typed paper that is reversable anyway.

Originally Posted by mysticaltyger

I generally think people who say things like "marriage is silly and archaic" are BSing themselves. What they really mean is they're afraid of commitment. That's fine...but PLEASE don't have kids if that's the case.

I think I will take them to mean what they say they mean - not what you have made up and pushed into their mouth. Why should they not have kids? Because YOU decree it? No thanks. They have every right and justification legally and morally and ethically to have kids as much as anyone else.

Originally Posted by 20yrsinBranson

It's sad that think that you declaring your eternal love to another human being, that you would foresake all others, love them in sickeness and health, in good times and bad, and pledge your honor and troth is pointless. How sad for you.

No what is sad is your misrepreentation of others in order to get a dig in. No one here is saying declaring your eternal love is pointless. They are saying that doing so _in this particular way_ is pointless. Massive massive difference. But do not let the difference get in the way of you misrepresenting people to attack a position they do not even hold.

Originally Posted by JustJulia

I dare you to call my nephew a bastard in my presence. Double-dog dare.

Sure. If you are ever in the area and want me to do so - for whatever reason you have that is hidden from me - I am happy to oblige. But only if the term actually is accurate and fits. I would not see the point in calling someone a "bastard" who is not actually one. That would just be dishonest.

But I do not see why this requires - how did you put it - "stones"? If someone walks up to me with someone who fits the definition of "bastard" and says "Is this person a bastard" I do not need stones to say "Yes this person is a bastard".

And if you walk up to me with a mop and ask "Is this a mop" I will say "Yes this is a mop". Do I need stones for that too?

Accurate use of language is not a bravery "stones" issue for me. Why is it for you?

Originally Posted by 20yrsinBranson

Vis a vis the social stigma of unmarried parents. Many of you may think that it is passe and "no big deal" but I can assure you that people of the upper class very much still look down on children born out of wedlock.

I do not feel compelled to take your assurances as fact on _any_ issue. Let alone this one. Especially given I have not observed anything in the reality around me which fits with what you are "assuring" people is true. I simply have not observed the stigma of which you speak in the modern society around me.

Originally Posted by Artifice32

Well, I'm a devout Catholic--like really devout--and I just want to post another Catholic perspective. I don't think anyone is evil for having children unmarried or refusing to get married but I do think it is unwise.

Then you appear to be giving _your_ perspective. Not a catholic one. Because in that religion any sex ousdie marriage is seen as sin. Not just "unwise". I think yuo might be mixing up "the perspective of a catholic" with "a catholic perspective". You have given the former. Not the latter.

Thankfully there is no reason at present to take the catholic opinion on the matter seriously at all.

Originally Posted by don1945

If two people aren't married and have kids they are simply Baby Mama and Baby Daddy. (God, how I HATE those terms ! )

So are people who ARE married. I am not seeing the difference.

Originally Posted by Idon'tdateyou

Men have to look for a woman with a job instead of a lazy woman.

Not clear here - but are you equating unemployment with laziness? Thats a bit sweeping if so.

Originally Posted by mysticaltyger

No, we're not confused. We do think not getting married=not committed.

Then yes - you are confused - very much so. Because the two things are not the same. And declaring them to be the same will not magically make them the same. You are even confusing "I" for "we" here. Speak for yourself. Do not pretend to speak for others to attempt to make it sound like your opinion carries added weight.

Originally Posted by mysticaltyger

We're calling BS on that statement.

As am I on all of yours.

Originally Posted by mysticaltyger

The evidence is overwhelming that kids do better in married, two parent families.

Is it? Great. Present it then. It is hard to be overwhelmed by someething I have not seen - and I am not going to be overwhelmed by you simply telling me I will be overwhelmed. Show us this mystical evidence.

Do not take it personally if I choose not to hold my breath as I wait however.

Originally Posted by Dewdrop93

Getting married DOES mean something - which is why so many people are fighting for the right to do so.

Might be worth being cautious not to over labour that point. That people fight for the right to do something does not mean doing that something is actually important or meaningful. It is the _right_ to do X and having that right that is more important sometimes than _doing_ X.

Originally Posted by Dewdrop93

I don't know anyone that chose to start a family unmarried.

Now you do. Me. 2 children. 2 more planned.

Originally Posted by usamathman

Committment....two incomes....tax benefits......emotional support...I will take marriage.

3 of those 4 things are just as available and present for people unmarried. And the other is present in many ways too.

Originally Posted by NJ Brazen_3133

Maybe I did not choose my words carefully. I meant the wedding and ceremony mumbo jumbo.

Then do not do it. Some people can even get married now by post in the much the same way as you would order a magazine. Or just drop by the registry office during lunch some day.

[JustJulia]

Do you call your children bastards, momentus?

[timberline742]

Originally Posted by Artifice32

But my argument to that is that if some sort of recognition either by or both by state or religion were unimportant so many gay and lesbian couples wouldn't still be fighting for it--as they should. In an ideal state of commitment sure, I agree, nothing is necessary. I'm not a cynical guy but I have yet to witness that ideal state of commitment.

I don't agree with this at all. It isn't the recognition by the state that is important to most (there are exceptions, of course), but from the friends I've known that have gotten married in MA it was the equality aspect. They didn't see their commitment or relationship as being different, it was that a segment of the public viewed them differently. We're seeing that bias in this thread. The ones that were less likely types to give a crap what other people thought generally didn't get married.

Personally I think government should be out of marriage all together... let that be a religious sacrament and just have civil unions be a government thing (if that).

[Mikala43]

Originally Posted by NJ Brazen_3133

That is basically what I mean. I dont want the wedding. I dont mind legally committing. I just dont what that ritualization of it.

Maybe I did not choose my words carefully. I meant the wedding and ceremony mumbo jumbo.

It's not necessary, I did both of my weddings with very little pomp and circumstance. Getting married doesn't require parties, dresses, caterer's, etc.

[NJ Brazen_3133]

Originally Posted by JustJulia

Do you call your children bastards, momentus?

Or maybe snow, sand, flowers, rock, rivers, storm, Pyke, stone, waters

[Cantabridgienne]

I'm curious as to those who draw a hard line between married and unmarried couples (or gasp! parents)--do you make sure to ask their marital status right off the bat so you know how to consider/treat them?

[Cantabridgienne]

OP-are you really unaware that one can be married without a wedding ceremony?

[Idon'tdateyou]

Originally Posted by monumentus

You have statistics and citations to back up this wanton assertion do you?

Someone posted them earlier.

Originally Posted by monumentus

Not clear here - but are you equating unemployment with laziness? Thats a bit sweeping if so.

That's not what I said. Too many men look for women and instead of looking for quality look only at her looks. Many of these women then decide not to work and years later when the couple splits the guy complains because he is paying alimony. If he found a woman who stayed with her job not likely he would be paying alimony.

Charming, that someone intentionally has kids without marriage. Then we wonder why society is messed up. Children deserve married parents who are together.