What happened to getting married before having children?

TUS

Nefertare wrote: »

tbh my decision not to marry was based purely on three factors:

1) I didn't want a wedding...i'm one of a few girls I know who don't crave a big wedding day.
2) I'm atheist so the religious aspect is irrelevant
3) No one can explain to me why I should.

I'm 27, I have been with my partner 9 years now and we have an 8 month old daughter (planned!). We don't own a house yet as I decided that the important things to me in life were owning (and decorating) a house and having a child with my partner. As having a child is better done younger (I mean medically here, less chance of problems etc...) and having grown up with young parents (four children before they were 30) I knew I didn't want to be 50 and still have a child in secondary school! So the child came first.

This was all planned and decided a few years ago. We've spoken about children since we got together at university so we both knew we wanted them and with each other. So we did.

We both have happily married parents. I grew up in a big Irish catholic extended family, his is a big English protestant/atheist family. As both of us are informed atheists (we have studied and questioned the subject rather than just dismissed it) we feel no obligation to go through any religious ceremonies and as we have no property as yet and are protected by legal documents we feel no need to be married in the eyes of the law. So why would we? People can say it can be as cheap as you want - but there are family commitments to take into account, if someone got married in my family without inviting at least the aunts and uncles (15 on my side alone) there would be uproar - having watched the stress caused when my two brothers planned their weddings I'm happy to avoid it! so even a cheap wedding will be a considerable expense. And as we want a house, a car that works and to enjoy days out with our daughter i'd say it would be more irresponsible of us to pay out even the minimum £300 odd for the registry alone.

For the last 5 yrs we have had to deal with my family going over and over the wedding issue and now we've started it all again with stating there will be no baptism (which resulted in my Nan giving my daughter an emergency baptism with lourdes holy water - hilarious! if a little disrespectful of our views). We've dealt with every possible arguement for marriage and yet I'm still suprised at the attitude of the Dave poster who states that we effectively saying 'i love you but not enough' - not enough for what? Not even my seriously religious family have ever implied that we don't love each other as much as they love their partners. I love him enough to have a child with him, to trust him to care for her (I work full time) and to stay with me through thick and thin and not to cheat or hurt me...that's no less than a married couple. I appreciate that some people have religious views that make marriage more important than merely a legal contract. But please don't imply I'm less of a person because I don't share that view. I am an awesome parent and partner and so is he. Marriage won't change anything for us and we do not see how a piece of paper will enahnce the relationship. We would not have had a child if there was any doubt in our minds that we would split up - I would assume most people who marry are the same, you'd never do anything at that level of commitment if you weren't 100% sure it would last forever would you? To us the commitment was in place yrs ago and the child was born only after we were sure we wanted to spend the rest of our lives together. it was not a 'i want a child now' or an accident situation. Please assume that quite a few people out there are the same as us - commited in their own way and ready for children.

oh and she has a double barrelled surname, not a chance would I ever give up my name even if I was married and I'm not being written our of hers just cause tradition dictates it so. She can choose a single surname for her 16th birthday (as I know she'll choose mine - it's better!:rotfl:) or indeed she can make one up for all I care. I wanted to give her the surname Pendragon...my partner veto'd it...boooo

Superb post.

qetu1357

Research has shown time and again that children brought by a couple who are married have happier lives (on average) than children who don't.

If you don't get married, have kids you are much more likely to split up which can (not always) have negative affects on the kids.

weezl74

qetu1357 wrote: »

Research has shown time and again that children brought by a couple who are married have happier lives (on average) than children who don't.

If you don't get married, have kids you are much more likely to split up which can (not always) have negative affects on the kids.

Hi there, have you got a link to that research, I thought it showed that children were happier if their parents were together, rather than married.

Interesting stuff

weezl74

a ps to my earlier post, the only studies i can find showing a negative outcome are if the parents are not together, not unmarried: see Scott 1998, Carlson and Corcoran, 2001, also of interest: Fluori and Buchanan, 2002 and 2003 studies.

note this is not always the case, if one parent has anti-social tendencies the child has a better outcome when raised apart from them. (Jaffee et al 2003.)

HTH

Siemo

weezl74 wrote: »

Hi there, have you got a link to that research, I thought it showed that children were happier if their parents were together, rather than married.

Interesting stuff

I don't have a link to hand but I did my uni dissertation on this many moons ago and at the time research proved that married couples were statistically more likely to stay together long term than non married couples. Obviously there are always exceptions to the rules, and we all know couples that disprove this, but you can't get away from the fact that on average married couples stay together longer.

I don't think it really makes any difference to children whether their parents are married or not, if they are together. But parents splitting up does affect children in a big way and (statistically) this is less likely to happen if the parents are married.

weezl74

thank you twinkliestar that's an interesting thought and I can see what you mean.

I wonder if the newer research is beginning to challenge/offset this though, since the caregiving role of fathers is changing so much. For example the NICHD have studied the positive benefits of father's caregiving when the fathers have (amongst other things!) untypical views on roles in childrearing, partnerships and marriages, and are less likely to be married, but more likely to be deeply invested in longterm relationships with the mothers of their children.

esmerelda98

weezl74 wrote: »

thank you twinkliestar that's an interesting thought and I can see what you mean.

I wonder if the newer research is beginning to challenge/offset this though, since the caregiving role of fathers is changing so much. For example the NICHD have studied the positive benefits of father's caregiving when the fathers have (amongst other things!) untypical views on roles in childrearing, partnerships and marriages, and are less likely to be married, but more likely to be deeply invested in longterm relationships with the mothers of their children.

I find your last sentence quite difficult to understand. However, one would expect the effect on children of a relationship breakdown to be more marked now fathers are generally more 'hands on'.

weezl74

esmerelda98 wrote: »

I find your last sentence quite difficult to understand. However, one would expect the effect on children of a relationship breakdown to be more marked now fathers are generally more 'hands on'.

sorry, what I'm trying to argue (unsuccessfully due to lack of clarity!) is that children are happier too in homes where the fathers are very hands on, and that these men are not as likely to be married, but are likely to stick around. (suggested by the research)

This may offset (I am suggesting) twinkliestar's fear that the non-marriedness might be more likely to end in splitting up and therefore childhood trauma.

Errr is that any better :rotfl:

jamespir

swingaloo wrote: »

Before I start I just want to say that this is in no way aimed at any of the posters on this forum.
The question just came to mind because of reading through some of the threads.

So many young people are choosing to try for a family and dont appear to have given a thought to getting married. I know that no one would want to go back to the dark ages when being an unmarried mother brought shame upon the family but dont you think we are going too far the other way.
One lady in our street is waiting till her three girls are a bit older so they can all be bridesmaids! Children are now growing up thinking that its the norm to have parents who dont live together, maybe for financial reasons and have different surnames.
Maybe Im wrong, maybe it dosnt matter, but I do worry about the disposable world we live in. Ive heard people say they wont marry because it may not work out, yet they will produce children together and not worry about it working out.

Having said that maybe Im being hypocritical because I live with my partner and we are not married. However, Im way past childbearing age and can honestly say that if I was younger I wouldnt give a thought to having a child without marrying. In a strange way I feel we owe it to our children to provide them with a secure family upbringing.

I know people will jump on this and say that many marriages do not work out. I accept that argument but cant see that as a reason for not trying to make a commitment. I know that having children together is a commitment but then so is buying a washing machine together!.

Its the same thing when people say they dont live together because they cant afford to. If thats the case then why have children? Surely togetherness as a family is more important than claiming more benefits.

I can see in the years to come that this 'easy come- easy go' lifestyle will be the norm.

I just struggle to understand why the baby comes before the commitment to each other. Im not trying to upset anyone with my view, I would just like to understand.

it went out with the stone age


i have children and am not married i dont feel theres a rush it wont change anything

qetu1357

weezl74 wrote: »

Hi there, have you got a link to that research, I thought it showed that children were happier if their parents were together, rather than married.

Interesting stuff

Plenty of stuff here.

http://www.centreforsocialjustice.org.uk/default.asp?pageRef=266