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.
Why do people think the duggars getting married to someone after less than a year of dating is okay but a couple in a steady relationship for 5 years having a baby outside of marriage is not? What is the difference between the duggars rushing into marriage and babies and someone getting pregnant 3 months into a new relationship? Neither of them know their partner all that well..
Seems like most people on this board are pro marriage. Most of the people i know under 30 (I'm 19, no kids) aren't married and don't plan to be but have children with their partner. I live in canada so when you live with a partner and have kids you become common law and are considered basically legally married by the gov anyway. Maybe it's the people I'm surrounded by but i don't think it's a big deal to decide not to get married? I've never been particularly religous so maybe that's part of the reason.
Can someone explain the difference between my above example (the duggars getting married after months of dating vs a couple of 5 years having a baby outside of marriage) marriage makes in this situation to me?Educate me don't belittle me lol
I can't imagine why anyone would think anything the Duggars do is OK.
So do you think getting married because of a pregnancy is in the best interests or worst interests of a couple and baby? Is the foundation of the child's life more stable because the parents got married after discovering they're expecting?
It's going to vary from one situation to another, as the people involved vary. Being married does not magically make a relationship a healthy, stable one. Being unmarried does not mean a relationship can't be healthy and stable.
I don’t remember specifically being asked about whether my parents were married, but I went to a strict Christian school where we were taught that sex outside of marriage was wrong, so I always felt ashamed about it because I knew that they weren’t married even if other people didn’t know.
Well, you can waste a lot of time fretting about what third parties consider to be "right" and "wrong", or you can live your live. The choice is yours.
Well, you can waste a lot of time fretting about what third parties consider to be "right" and "wrong", or you can live your live. The choice is yours.
Sensible advice like that is fine for adults, but children are going to feel what they feel.
Why do people think the duggars getting married to someone after less than a year of dating is okay but a couple in a steady relationship for 5 years having a baby outside of marriage is not? What is the difference between the duggars rushing into marriage and babies and someone getting pregnant 3 months into a new relationship? Neither of them know their partner all that well..
Seems like most people on this board are pro marriage. Most of the people i know under 30 (I'm 19, no kids) aren't married and don't plan to be but have children with their partner. I live in canada so when you live with a partner and have kids you become common law and are considered basically legally married by the gov anyway. Maybe it's the people I'm surrounded by but i don't think it's a big deal to decide not to get married? I've never been particularly religous so maybe that's part of the reason.
Can someone explain the difference between my above example (the duggars getting married after months of dating vs a couple of 5 years having a baby outside of marriage) marriage makes in this situation to me?Educate me don't belittle me lol
How long you've dated is zero indication of how well you'll do as a married couple. The dynamics are totally different, even if you live together. My wife met, dated, got engaged, and were married within ten months of laying eyes on one another. On the other hand, we've known people who dated for years, finally were married and were divorced within months.
The point of marriage is to give the relationship both religious and absolute legal sanction. If you're not particularly religious, then you don't have to worry about that aspect of things. At the same time, there are protections afforded by marriage that common law marriage just doesn't provide. In fact, in the United States, most states have come to abolish common law marriages because the lines were just way too blurry to provide any kind of consistent interpretation of the law. It just became too problematic. Only twelve states now recognize the practice.
So even if you were married in a state that recognized common law marriage, if you moved your marriage wouldn't be recognized. that would be a big problem in the event you split. Imagine entering into a common law marriage such as Alabama, a state that still recognizes the practice, moving to North Carolina and then splitting up several years later. The legal protections you might have enjoyed in Alabama wouldn't exist in North Carolina. But even in Canada the status of common law marriage varies widely from province to province. So I wouldn't be so confident of your own status in your country. And this is especially true when it comes to the matter of child support or parental rights.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that if someone says it's just a piece of paper, know that it's a very, very important piece of paper. Personally, if you want to avoid the rigamarole of a big wedding, hie thyself to the justice of the piece so that you can enjoy your relationship with a fair degree of confidence.
Marriage is a public declaration of the union of the couple, where their family and friends can celebrate the union of the couple.
Society has changed and a few generations ago, if a woman was pregnant it was expected for her to get married, and if she did not, she would have likely been sent to a home for pregnant mothers where once the mother had a child, the mother then had to give up the child for adoption.
Pregnant mothers who were not married was not accepted in society and people believed that those that had children out of wedlock came from a dysfunctional home.
However today single unmarried women have a lot more support from government payments and there no real threat for the woman to give up the baby once she has it. Also, there are no financial benefits from the government for a married couple with a child compared to an unmarried couple that has has a child.
However today single unmarried women have a lot more support from government payments and there no real threat for the woman to give up the baby once she has it. Also, there are no financial benefits from the government for a married couple with a child compared to an unmarried couple that has has a child.
In a way this situation is very sad. As you noted, there's an incentive NOT to get married because they qualify for more government benefits. (If the guy is working and present, his income is considered when determining eligibility for benefits based on need.) I don't know how to change it but I wish we could.
And it boggles my mind that anyone would have a child with the assumption that the government needs-based programs will support them from Day One- not just in an emergency such as job loss or disability.
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.
