What happened to getting married before having children?

Fang_3

iolanthe07 wrote: »

People who say that marriage is 'just a piece of paper' really don't get it at all. Lifelong commitment for better or worse is so much more than 'a bit of paper'.

As evidenced by the incredibly low divorce rate. Oh. In any case you can have all that without the piece of paper. So you don't get it. Most people don't stop being able to function as an independent entity when in a relationship.

balletshoes

iolanthe07 wrote: »

People who say that marriage is 'just a piece of paper' really don't get it at all. Lifelong commitment for better or worse is so much more than 'a bit of paper'.

Totally agree - lifelong commitment is so much more than a bit of paper - which is exactly why I don't consider the bit of paper a pre-requisite to a long-term committed relationship.

Fang_3

Torry_Quine wrote: »

I love it when people say we didn't plan to have a baby before we got married it just happened that way! Obviously you were behaving in such a way that a baby was a possibility so if you didn't plan a baby before marriage you shouldn't have been together and waited until after the wedding.

You are allowed to say 'sex' you know. It's not something dirty* or shameful.



*well sometimes, but it's all in good fun.

Oldernotwiser

jtr2803 wrote: »

I know of many men who have remarked that they don't need to get married as it doesn't change their day to day situation. I tend to find in my social circle that it is mostly the men who have no desire to get married whilst the women would love to have that commitment regardless of whether they had a 'big day' or not.

And many women convince themselves that they don't want to get married either, rather than accept the fact that their "partners " are not as committed to the relationship as they are.

JodyBPM

Fang wrote: »

As evidenced by the incredibly low divorce rate. Oh. In any case you can have all that without the piece of paper. So you don't get it. Most people don't stop being able to function as an independent entity when in a relationship.

But statistically, you are more likely to stay together if you are married than if you are merely cohabiting.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/7523186/Marriage-more-stable-than-living-together-Office-for-National-Statistics-finds.html

According to the Office for National Statistics, that is.

Because before marriage, you really, really think about whether or not this is what you want.

Cohabiting is often something you do because you haven't found anything better. Sorry, but its true.

This doesn't mean that I think that all marriages stay together, or that all co-habitees will split up. But, on average, if you are committed, you get married, if not, you co-habit and have all the benefits without the committment.

jtr2803

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

And many women convince themselves that they don't want to get married either, rather than accept the fact that their "partners " are not as committed to the relationship as they are.

Whilst I think I understand the point that you are making I do not believe it to be true in a large number of cases.

I also do not believe that marriage is an indication of happiness in a relationship, it is perfectly possible to be committed and totally in love with another person whether you are married to them or not.

jtr2803

JodyBPM wrote: »

Cohabiting is often something you do because you haven't found anything better. Sorry, but its true.

.

This is an awful comment and judgement to make.

I am co-habiting as you would put it and I am not doing this because 'I haven't found anything better', I live with my partner because I love him very, very much, I want him to be the first thing I see in the morning because he brightens my whole day and because he is totally and utterly 'my other half'. I would like to get married but if it does not happen it doesn't mean we don't adore each other and remain committed to each other.

Another suggestion - what about all the couples that are married but don't have any sort of relationship and are just too damn lazy to leave? Such a thought might skew any statistics relating to % of couples still together who are married....

JodyBPM

jtr2803 wrote: »

This is an awful comment and judgement to make.

I am co-habiting as you would put it and I am not doing this because 'I haven't found anything better', I live with my partner because I love him very, very much, I want him to be the first thing I see in the morning because he brightens my whole day and because he is totally and utterly 'my other half'. I would like to get married but if it does not happen it doesn't mean we don't adore each other and remain committed to each other.

Another suggestion - what about all the couples that are married but don't have any sort of relationship and are just too damn lazy to leave? Such a thought might skew any statistics relating to % of couples still together who are married....

That's the point! You feel like you do, and would like to get married.
If he feels like that, why wouldn't he want to marry you?

Fang_3

JodyBPM wrote: »

But statistically, you are more likely to stay together if you are married than if you are merely cohabiting.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/7523186/Marriage-more-stable-than-living-together-Office-for-National-Statistics-finds.html

According to the Office for National Statistics, that is.

Because before marriage, you really, really think about whether or not this is what you want.

Cohabiting is often something you do because you haven't found anything better. Sorry, but its true.

This doesn't mean that I think that all marriages stay together, or that all co-habitees will split up. But, on average, if you are committed, you get married, if not, you co-habit and have all the benefits without the committment.

You don't get all the benefits if you co-habit, that's the point. Only an incredibly insecure and rather sad person would need a piece of paper to know that their partner is committed to them.

That study doesn't go into detail, which is the point of it, but it's not nearly detailed enough to draw a realistic conclusion from it.

PolishBigSpender

clairibel wrote: »

It makes me laugh all these so called ideologies..marriage first then children. Who says? some sexist male yonks ago according to the church.

I had my son 2 years before marriage came, he came to the wedding and looked cute :T

Did you get married in a church then?