What is your opinion on children before marriage?

VfM4meplse

no1catman wrote: »

With the way many people regularly use 'bad' language, e.g. all sorts of 'fs' flow quite freely. Yet, the swear word of '!!!!!!!' seems rarely used - is it because there are now so many!??

I'm guessing you might be referring to bar stewards?

moneypuddle

no1catman wrote: »

Sorry to be controversial, but something that occurs to me - especially with comments about wills.

With the way many people regularly use 'bad' language, e.g. all sorts of 'fs' flow quite freely. Yet, the swear word of '!!!!!!!' seems rarely used - is it because there are now so many!??

What a weird question to ask. Who do you expect to have an answer to that? :cool:

suki1001

claire16c wrote: »

But why abstain when you could just use contraception?

A 'Happy Accident' then

I called my daughter a lovely surprise!

Having been with my then boyfriend for 4 years, my dd came along before we got married and we decided we wouldn't rush into a wedding. But we did want to get married. So planning the wedding gave me something to do when my daughter was a baby. We then got married when she was 11 months old and she was a flower girl. She even came along on my hen night!

She's just started secondary school. After we got married we waited a couple of years before we had a second.

Before I would have got married and then had children, but it made no difference in the long run and I do like the way it happened. It was a nice surprise for the whole family, everyone was over the moon. My gm met her first ggc weeks before she died and my uncle saw his only great niece before he died. She was the first child of the next generation on my side of the family and because she was such a blessing, i wou;dn't have done it any other way.

daska

Aubergine wrote: »

I often hear people talk about this but I don't quite get it. I live with my partner and we have a child. We have no plans to marry. If, for example, my partner dies, does this mean that his family can take everything from me?

Very simply: YES!

Bank accounts and property which are registered in joint names belong to both of you but you have no entitlement to any of each other's personal belongings or property or bank accounts. Without any proof of a legal right to your partner's estate you can't claim any of it if they kick you out, walk away or die before you. Kids might struggle as well unless they can prove the relationship or a dependency.

If one of you dies without a Will (intestate) then the estate is distributed according to strict rules and only to direct family, not cohabitees. If there's no direct family (or the relationship can't be proven) it goes to the tax man. So, if the house is in one name, you may well find yourself out on your ear unless his family love you very much... and as is often said, death brings out the worst in families.

The cheapest and easiest way to protect the weaker party is to get married. I'm not talking about a big fat wedding, the only bit that matters is that little bit of paper with 5 signatures on it (yours, his, 2 witnesses and the registrar). It's a pretty watertight property contract, proven over the years and, while it can't guarantee that you aren't left up the proverbial creek, it's the best legal defence you've got against death and ill-will. And it's extremely cost effective - it can be cheaper than having a will drawn up.

catkins

I am in my late 50's and would admit to being pretty old fashioned.

Upto fairly recently I would have said that I thought couples should have been married before having children but now my opinion has changed. I just think it is important that a couple have a strong happy relationship before having children.

It just seems so sad that so many parents, married or not, split up and then the children often suffer.

I believe very very strongly in marriage but appreciate that others don't. Like other posters I do find it very strange that couples who believe in marriage often have one or more children before getting married. If you don't believe in marriage ok but if you do why would you wait? Of course some say because of the cost! Not only does a wedding cost what you want it to what about the cost of children?

Chakani

I am one of those people who believe in marriage, but have children without being married Catkins.

Our first was an accidental pregnancy, when we had been together for 4 years (but a very loved baby). We have now been together 8 years and are expecting our 3rd. We do intend to get married one day, but not anytime soon.

Our reasons for that are that we both, seperately and together made our commitments to our son when we decided to continue with the pregnancy (and of course to our subsequent children just as much). We have done everything legally and financially to protect each other and our children in the event of one of us dying etc.

Our commitment to each other, we both feel, is separate to that, and we didn't want it to be overshadowed or influenced by the fact that we had a baby - we didn't want the baby to be the reason we got married, either in our heads, or in the view of anyone else.

What we will probably do now is wait until this baby, which will be our last, is old enough to remember a wedding. We already have a stable home, and our children are secure, happy and well-loved, so there is no hurry to marry in order to create that sort of environment, so the next best thing to me, being where we are, is that our children will be able to witness and take part in us making our marriage commitments to one another. I hope that will make it as special to us as a couple and a family as if we had done things the "right" way round.

southoftheriver

I haven't read all the comments in the thread, but for me I want to get married first. Not because I think it is best for children necessarily, many committed parents are not married and in relationships.

Its more for the selfish reason that I want my partner and I to make a commitment to each other before embarking on a family. If we're not willing to make a a promise to each other, then I wouldn't want to do something that will permanently tie us together for life (as mariage no longer does that). I appreciate that for others you can make that promise without being married but that is my view.

I say this coming from a family where neither my parents or grandparents married, and until recently I had a completely different view. If I did get pregnant before getting married it wouldn't be the end of the world.

catkins

Chakani wrote: »

I am one of those people who believe in marriage, but have children without being married Catkins.

Our first was an accidental pregnancy, when we had been together for 4 years (but a very loved baby). We have now been together 8 years and are expecting our 3rd. We do intend to get married one day, but not anytime soon.

Our reasons for that are that we both, seperately and together made our commitments to our son when we decided to continue with the pregnancy (and of course to our subsequent children just as much). We have done everything legally and financially to protect each other and our children in the event of one of us dying etc.

Our commitment to each other, we both feel, is separate to that, and we didn't want it to be overshadowed or influenced by the fact that we had a baby - we didn't want the baby to be the reason we got married, either in our heads, or in the view of anyone else.

What we will probably do now is wait until this baby, which will be our last, is old enough to remember a wedding. We already have a stable home, and our children are secure, happy and well-loved, so there is no hurry to marry in order to create that sort of environment, so the next best thing to me, being where we are, is that our children will be able to witness and take part in us making our marriage commitments to one another. I hope that will make it as special to us as a couple and a family as if we had done things the "right" way round.

No offence, but you have already been together 8 years and you don't intend getting married for quite a few years more so why bother?

Chakani

Because we want to? Why would it be less valid because we have 10 or more years of certainty behind us, that we are committed to each other and to making a relationship work, than someone who has only known their partner a year?

iwannabeonthebeach

I am quite old fashioned I think. Met my boyfriend when I was 16, got engaged when I was 22, bought our first house 2 months later, got married in 2011 and now at 26 am expecting our first baby early next year. Not many people my age seem to be bothered about being married first but for us is was important, as we felt it was a sign of our commitment before deciding to have a baby.