What is your opinion on children before marriage?

Noctu

Back in the 1920s etc I think it was unusual for an unmarried couple to be living together for an extended period of time without at least plans to marry. Marriage was simply the 'done thing' once you were courting for however long. The benchmark of a stable relationship.

These days it is more acceptable to live together and have a stable relationship without getting married - the benchmark is no longer held in such regard. Consequently, having children without being married isn't really so much of a big deal anymore as long term relationships are seen as more stable than they once were.

Personally I prefer the legal aspects of being married before having children, and believe children should have the same surname as both their parents to a) foster a sense of family and b) avoid bullying. It is much harder to divorce someone than to just split up with them and perhaps this might help (force?) couples to try and make a go of a relationship and keep the family together if they're struggling.

Just my opinion...

margaretclare

I agree with daska # 5. No, marriage is not just 'red tape'! Nor is it 'just an excuse for a party' or to be a 'princess for a day'.

Opinions have changed a lot over the past couple of generations, but there used to be a nasty word which was applied to children born out of wedlock. It was applied to me, in the school playground, when I was being chased on the way home, and in my mother's hearing. Worse was said about her. At best, she was patronised, sneered at and exploited by neighbours and by the women whose houses she cleaned. At best, she was pitied.

I would never have brought any child into the world before marriage. Even before The Pill, there were always condoms.

Things have changed, marriage has been much devalued, but who knows, as Betty Friedan the feminist said, the pendulum could swing back as it has done before.

Faith177

I have plenty of friends who have kids outside of marriage.

For me personally I was always adamant that I was not having kids before marriage.

The main reason for this is that I have always thought it was the "right" thing to do. Also my mum raised us on our own when my dad passed and I think everyone expected us to go off the rails a bit and I wanted to prove them wrong.

dizsiebubba

margaretclare wrote: »

I would never have brought any child into the world before marriage. Even before The Pill, there were always condoms.

This is a bit of a silly thing to say.... you are assuming all babies born out of wedlock are unplanned....you are wrong in that assumption!

Idiophreak

margaretclare wrote: »

Things have changed, marriage has been much devalued, but who knows, as Betty Friedan the feminist said, the pendulum could swing back as it has done before.

Interesting you say that marriage has been devalued of late, I find quite the opposite. I know the reasons that I chose to get married - and the reasons my friends and family have made this choice. I think love, commitment and even having someone bless your union are all better reasons to get married than "if I get married, I can finally move out of home and get my leg over" which seems very much to have been the attitude a couple of generations ago. Marriage is now something you do because you want to, not because you feel you have to. To me, marriage is more powerful now than ever.

Idiophreak

dizsiebubba wrote: »

This is a bit of a silly thing to say.... you are assuming all babies born out of wedlock are unplanned....you are wrong in that assumption!

I don't think that was what was meant. Just that people have always had a *choice* about whether they get pregnant outside of wedlock or not...

balletshoes

margaretclare wrote: »

I agree with daska # 5.
No, marriage is not just 'red tape'!
Nor is it 'just an excuse for a party' or to be a 'princess for a day'.

to you its not - to me, it is.

Alikay

I think the stability of the parents' relationship is what's important, rather than marital status. However, it's interesting that not one of the children I've fostered have had married parents.

JimmyTheWig

Errata wrote: »

Statistics show that on average living together relationships don't last as long as marriages. On that basis it would seem sensible to have children inside a marriage.

But the "living together" break-ups include couples who wouldn't necessarily be ready to commit to each other for life.
E.g. a married couple may have already been through
1. "Shacked up" together.
2. Engaged.
3. Married.

The equivalent for a couple who decide that marriage is just red tape that they're not interested in would be
1. "Shacked up".
2. Agree that they want to be together forever, but that marriage isn't for them.
3. A year (e.g. length of time of engagement in other scenario) past this point and still together.

I would suspect that in each case the proportion of break-ups of couples in category 3 would be similar.
But those in categories 1 and 2 in both scenarios all add to the "break-ups while not married" statistic - so that is bound to be increased.

PasturesNew

If he's not marrying you, he doesn't think you're good enough; he thinks he can do better.