Mortgage or Children late 20's

elvis86

anon123456 wrote: »

It's not "baby at any cost" she wants to be young enough when we have them to be still fit and active as they grow older. The thought of her in her 50's with under 18's horrifies her. (sorry if offends older mothers just her view point)

We had a chat sunday night. We are going to start "trying in March 13 when she's turned 27 so hopefully will have one and one on the way when she hits 30.

That gives me enough time to save the deposit and security i want. Both happy

I wasn't disputing your fiance's reluctance to be an older mother, I can completely understand that preference (though I can equally understand why some people wait until their mid-late thirties and spend 10 years having a great time together first as my parents did - though I also appreicate that the potential for problems is greater - it's a minefield!).

But realistically a couple of years between 28 and 30 isn't all that much, especially if it means the difference between being skint and prematurely testing a new relationship, or in a good financial position and enjoying a strong, enduring relationship.

I have plans myself and like your fiance, I have said that I would like to have a child before I'm 30. But I wouldn't demand it or hold my OH to ransom over it. We're a gay couple so there will be a lot of obstacles in our way, so if it takes until I'm 35 then so be it (though I acknowledge that I've not got a biological clock ticking away so can afford not to rush!).

Anyway, you say you've solved it so best of luck with what you've decided. Although I'm sure that statistics might have something to say about the longevity of relationships where kids arrive very early on, there are plenty of couples who have children quickly and last the distance, and you and your fiance must think a lot of each other to have moved things along as fast as you have, so good luck to you.:)

euronorris

thorsoak wrote: »

Actually, I'm on the side of Sam! (few other posters appear to be). She would like to get pregnant straight away - but who is to say that this will happen? It took me 3 years to conceive no 1 (although nos 2, 3 & 4 appeared almost "on demand ).

Even if she were to conceived immediately, you would have 8 months or thereabouts to get used to living on your salary whilst saving hers. Of course, living on one salary does mean certain financial restrictions ....fewer meals out/weekends away/impromptu parties/spontaneous buying etc etc etc - are you afraid of missing out on such things?

I feel the same way, and would love to start trying for a baby now, but......I have to respect OH's feelings, and his experiences of being moved from home to home as a child (which he absolutely hated - it was a result of divorce, but the end result was the same with regards to stability).

The idea that any child of his may have to do the same, really upsets him, and I understand why.

So, for now, at 28 (almost 29 and he is 32) we are waiting. Actually, he should've heard more about his job situation here today (that is what we are waiting on before buying).

In the meantime, I'm continuing to tackle the debts and making sure we eat more healthily etc. We may be paying those off a lot quicker, as a couple soon, but after getting some opinions on here and then discussing it further we have decided to wait another couple of months so that there is still an emergency fund.

OP - I can understand Sam's feelings. It's very upsetting when you long for a baby so much, and you feel that your partner is more interested in a house (it was a lot easier for me to understand and appreciate his side when he explained what he was really worried about). But just keep talking, and I mean really talking, so that you can both understand each other and reach a decision that you will benefit you as a family.

skintchick

catkins wrote: »

No you don't have to life together for a while before having children but on the whole it's better if you do. Not being nasty but you have only been married 3 years which is nothing really.

I have met many many people over the years that are divorced and they almost all without fail said problems only started when children came along. Also look at all the well known couples that have children really quickly - how many of them are still together?

No-one in my church lived together before marriage and we've only had one divorce (and that is because she came here from abroad openly wanting a husband so she could have citizenship, so it's not a big surprise really).

I don;t agree it is better to live together first - if you go into marriage with eyes open then it makes no difference. Living together first smacks of 'try before you buy' and I'd have been insulted if my husband had wanted to 'test me out' before deciding if I was good enough to marry!

Equally, if problems come when children do, then living togther beforehand won;t make any difference, unless you borrow a baby for a while!

angelil

skintchick wrote: »

No-one in my church lived together before marriage and we've only had one divorce (and that is because she came here from abroad openly wanting a husband so she could have citizenship, so it's not a big surprise really).

I don't disagree fully with your other points, but this one totally lacks logic. What would you say to the idea that maybe there have been so few divorces in your church because...organised religions in general tend to oppose divorce? People in such a situation may continue trying to fix an ailing marriage long after other people may have realised they are just flogging a dead horse. To me it seems naive to say that there being so few divorces in your church just proves you don't have to live together first in order to have a happy marriage. Behind closed doors and all that...!

OP, based on your latest information, to be totally honest with you I wouldn't be looking to either get married or have kids in your situation...you've barely been together for five minutes! I was with my husband for 3.5 years before we moved in together, 4.5 years before we got engaged, 6.5 years before we got married...you get my drift. I know she might feel her biological clock is ticking but it's not a reason to rush a relationship. My parents were also together for 4 years before they got married (have now been married for more than 30 years) and had been together for more than 10 years by the time they had their first child!

Lunar_Eclipse

anon123456 wrote: »

We have been together 11 months

I'm just wondering why you've only got £3.5k saved so far??

Ok, I think the former (& all the related detail) helps to explain the latter.

Most people, in their 20's and having been together for 11 months, aren't engaged to be married and discussing babies or a mortgage in the near future. I probably subconsciously assumed you'd been together for more like 11 years, than 11 months. Having said that, when you meet The One (if you believe in that), then time is irrelevant.

claire16c

skintchick wrote: »

No-one in my church lived together before marriage and we've only had one divorce (and that is because she came here from abroad openly wanting a husband so she could have citizenship, so it's not a big surprise really).

I don;t agree it is better to live together first - if you go into marriage with eyes open then it makes no difference. Living together first smacks of 'try before you buy' and I'd have been insulted if my husband had wanted to 'test me out' before deciding if I was good enough to marry!

Equally, if problems come when children do, then living togther beforehand won;t make any difference, unless you borrow a baby for a while!

Statistically you are more likely to get divorced if you do not live together before marriage - I was reading a report on the other day anyway..

And the reason why many religious couple do not get divorced, and they have not lived together beforehand, is because of their religion. It doesnt mean they are happy!

I could say the same thing - all of my friends who are married lived together before marriage and non are divorced. Which is true.

Also I do think it makes a difference if you live together before, not necessarily because of reasons to do with divorce but more in terms of the first part of being married.

I know 2 couples who for religious reasons did not move intogether beforehand, and both of them remarked at one point or another that it had been 'awkward' the first few weeks because they were not used to living together, and so had that to cope with as well as being married. So it all sort of came at once. Not to mention one of them lost their virginity that week too. Id much rather not have that thanks!

skintchick

Despite having lived on my own for years (over a decade) I didn;t find it weird living with OH at all. It was just lovely! Anyway, the rest of the argument is for a different thread I feel, don't want to derail OP's thread entirely.

Amara

claire16c wrote: »

Statistically you are more likely to get divorced if you do not live together before marriage - I was reading a report on the other day anyway..
Statistcally? Where did you get this data from? I was reading other report and they said is more likely to get divorce if you DO live together prior marriage. My parents married a year after they got together, had my brother 11 months after wedding and me three years later. They've been married nearly forty years, very happy couple.
I agree with other post,if you found The One, time is irrelevant.

claire16c

Amara wrote: »

claire16c wrote: »

Statistically you are more likely to get divorced if you do not live together before marriage - I was reading a report on the other day anyway..
Statistcally? Where did you get this data from? I was reading other report and they said is more likely to get divorce if you DO live together prior marriage. My parents married a year after they got together, had my brother 11 months after wedding and me three years later. They've been married nearly forty years, very happy couple.
I agree with other post,if you found The One, time is irrelevant.

Uh your parents dont really have much to do with it, thats just anecdotal. Charles and Diana didnt live together - oh look they divorced. You cant just point to 1 couple.

Ive just tried searching for it but cant find it, I read it about 2 weeks ago and also heard it on the radio.


Not everybody wants to get married anyway, and many people are perfectly happy to live together without needing it. Some people are secure in their relationships without it and dont need to be married in order to commit to someone in terms of living with them.

Amara

claire16c wrote: »

Amara wrote: »

Uh your parents dont really have much to do with it, thats just anecdotal. Charles and Diana didnt live together - oh look they divorced. You cant just point to 1 couple.

Many people didn't live together before they married and in many cases they still don't . Cohabiting before -or instead- marriage is relatively new custom. Again, I know some couples, they lived together before and divorced. There's no rules, really.
And yes, not everybody wants to get marry anyway.