What is the difference between children inside and outside of marriage? (wife, long-term)
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.
It’s not a popular opinion here but marriage is an economic union. The path to economic success is to get your education, get your career launched, meet someone with similar socioeconomic status, get married, then think about reproducing. And then stay married. Violate any of that and the odds of a good outcome for you or your offspring having a good outcome drop dramatically.
I’m not talking some reality TV couple popping out a dozen kids. I’m talking 0, 1, or 2 kids, what your economic picture looks like after 35 years working, and how any kids end up.
I agree...
So when a couple is having difficulties in marriage (let's assume no abuse or anything like that) they are forced to weigh in the children's future when considering divorce.....
We have a lot of threads that recommend divorce fairly readily... stating that "the lack of a loving relationship between parents isn't doing the children any good" and similar.
Status:
"I don't understand. But I don't care, so it works out."
(set 11 days ago)
35,637 posts, read 17,994,810 times
Reputation: 50679
Quote:
Originally Posted by usayit
I agree...
So when a couple is having difficulties in marriage (let's assume no abuse or anything like that) they are forced to weigh in the children's future when considering divorce.....
We have a lot of threads that recommend divorce fairly readily... stating that "the lack of a loving relationship between parents isn't doing the children any good" and similar.
Any thoughts?
I agree that if one or both parents can't manage to be civil with each other around the children, it's probably best to get the one who can't be civil out of the house.
Just like if you develop gangrene in a leg, it's probably best to remove it although no one would say life with one leg is as preferable as life with two.
I agree that if one or both parents can't manage to be civil with each other around the children, it's probably best to get the one who can't be civil out of the house.
Just like if you develop gangrene in a leg, it's probably best to remove it although no one would say life with one leg is as preferable as life with two.
But what if they are civil and coparenting (essentially) is pretty much all that is left..?
They say kids "know". So does a couple sticking it together for the reasons stated (economic reasons) or is that equally (more?) damaging to the children's success in the long term?
Marriage is considered the contract that starts a family unit, spiritually and socioeconomically.
Therefore, throughout history, having children inside of marriage has been viewed as lawful and respectable, as well as the best arrangement for both children and parents. It is designed to provide emotional and financial stability, as well as promote accountability. Ideally it provides love, security, help, support, and understanding when faced with the challenges of life.
Having children outside of marriage does not usually confer those benefits.
But what if they are civil and coparenting (essentially) is pretty much all that is left..?
They say kids "know". So does a couple sticking it together for the reasons stated (economic reasons) or is that equally (more?) damaging to the children's success in the long term?
I think staying together "for the kids" is one of the most harmful lies you can tell your children.
Not only can it teach them bad parenting and relational skills, but in the likely event that the parents finally split up once the kids are in college or supposedly old enough to handle it, when they find out that their childhood was basically a sham, it can shake them to the core and make it harder for them to trust people overall.
Even if parents are civil and polite to each other in the house, it's still all a lie.
IMHO it would be better for a couple to model earnest coping skills and civil co-parenting in separate relationships than to rip the rug out from under them after years of deception.
I think staying together "for the kids" is one of the most harmful lies you can tell your children.
Not only can it teach them bad parenting and relational skills, but in the likely event that the parents finally split up once the kids are in college or supposedly old enough to handle it, when they find out that their childhood was basically a sham, it can shake them to the core and make it harder for them to trust people overall.
Even if parents are civil and polite to each other in the house, it's still all a lie.
IMHO it would be better for a couple to model earnest coping skills and civil co-parenting in separate relationships than to rip the rug out from under them after years of deception.
vs
Quote:
Originally Posted by GeoffD
It’s not a popular opinion here but marriage is an economic union. The path to economic success is to get your education, get your career launched, meet someone with similar socioeconomic status, get married, then think about reproducing. And then stay married. Violate any of that and the odds of a good outcome for you or your offspring having a good outcome drop dramatically.
I’m not talking some reality TV couple popping out a dozen kids. I’m talking 0, 1, or 2 kids, what your economic picture looks like after 35 years working, and how any kids end up.
Economic success is also only one factor to consider in a healthy life.
Those are conflicting (loving relationship vs economic stability).... either path isn't the ideal but that's life. The key here is which is the better path which is the discussion I'm trying to spark.
Personally, I've seen far more damage to individuals from a childhood amidst a divorce into single parenthood than coparenting which the parents are both involved on a daily basis. Something near impossible to maintain once one parent leaves and enters a part-time parenthood (which inevitable post divorce). Decades ago, this was arrangement was common as divorce wasn't as common today... some would argue that's the root to a lot of social issues today.
I think most adults children would understand that their childhood isn't a lie... I think that's a bit over the top. As long as they understood that their parents both loved them and both parents are involved in a healthy relationships (assuming that the parents are amicable) with each other and their children.
Anyways, I've seen the product of both paths.... some resulting in well adjusted individuals vs maladjusted individuals. So there's probably more factors involved and whether parents stick it together for economic reasons or split for relationship reasons is probably just one. I still think that two involved loving parents are still better than one.... which ever path that results in that is probably the best the parents can do.
Those are conflicting.... either path isn't the ideal but that's life. The key here is which is the better path which is the discussion I'm trying to spark.
Personally, I've seen far more damage to individuals from a childhood amidst a divorce into single parenthood than coparenting which the parents are both involved on a daily basis. Something near impossible to maintain once one parent leaves and enters a part-time parenthood (which inevitable post divorce). Decades ago, this was arrangement common as divorce wasn't as common today... some would argue that's the root to a lot of social issues today.
Some might argue that.
I would say it's a matter of whether you want your kids to feel their pain now, where you can have some influence over how they navigate it, or later, when they are older, less likely to seek out your guidance and more likely to hold it against you.
I think most adults children would understand that their childhood isn't a lie... I think that's a bit over the top. As long as they understood that their parents both loved them and both parents are involved in a healthy relationships (assuming that the parents are amicable) with each other and their children.
That's speculation, really. In my experience, children don't learn to be that magnanimous until they've lived their own struggles and can relate more to their parents as people.
Quote:
Originally Posted by usayit
Anyways, I've seen the product of both paths.... and it is a mixed result... some resulting in well adjusted individuals vs maladjusted individuals. So there's probably more factors involved and whether parents stick it together for economic reasons or split for relationship reasons is probably just one. I still think that two involved loving parents are still better than one.... which ever path that results in that is probably the best the parents can do.
There are more factors, of course, and there is also a possibility to have two loving, involved parents who aren't living a manufactured set-up.
I don't really believe that everyone is doing the best they can do, unfortunately. A lot of people are doing the best they can do to avoid what pains THEM the most, whether or not that is truly best for those around them.
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.
