"There is no point in getting married if you're not having kids"

MrSmartprice

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

We were married in a civil ceremony when I was 21 and my husband was 22. We had no faith at the time. Thirteen years later, when we had both become believing Christians, we re-took our vows in church, because we wanted to make our promises to each other before God and surrounded by our Christian 'family'.

Although this service was very meaningful to us, and had a great sense of holiness and rightness, we weren't any more married than we were when we got married as atheists after spending twenty minutes in a registrar's office thirteen years before. We didn't feel any 'more married'. We were just pleased that we had said our vows in front of God and not just a registrar.

(Just a humorous note: Our son was four at the time and was getting fed up with the service. He had a plastic laser gun to play with. At one point in the service the Minister asked for him to come to the front, so he could give the blessing to all of us as a family. Our son came to the front with his laser gun, pointed it at the Minister, said 'BANG!' and then said at the top of his voice 'WHY DOESN'T HE FALL OVER?'. Well of course everyone else fell over, laughing, and it took us months to rid ourselves of comments about shotgun weddings )

I can appreciate what you are saying. But if you 'believe', then surely your god would have been there at the register office. Even if you didn't believe at that point, when you did, you would then surely presume that he'd been there at the time.

Not trying to be funny, and I do appreciate that some people want 'big' weddings for all sorts of reasons. Some people have a big do later in life because they couldn't afford it first time round.

Great story, by the way!:beer:

Gloomendoom

MrSmartprice wrote: »

No, it isn't. It is all about what people choose to do, whether the add-ons be getting married on a ship, in a church, on a fairground ride or at an Elvis shop in Las Vegas. From a purely legal point, every one is the same. But you make it what you want, and it makes no difference in the grand scheme of things.

I agree, from the purely legal point of view, every one is exactly the same. I don't believe I have said anything to the contrary.

My issue with you is that you have tried to pretend that the legal status is not as important, when in fact it is the only part of the process that is vital. Without it there is no marriage. I can grasp it as an atheist, but your god-based bigotry seems to prevent it sinking in. SDW is a christian and she is telling you the same thing. So just accept it.

You see there you go again. This is only your opinion. It is not a statement of fact. I can understand, given your atheism, why religion would have had nothing to do with your marriage but you are unable, or unwilling to accept that religion played a vital part in mine and millions of others.

Just who is the bigot?

With all due respect to SDW, she may be a Christian, but I don't think she would claim to speak for all followers of religion in the world. She certainly doesn't speak for me. Not that I think she actually claims to.

I'm out of this.

Liz3yy

I'm sorry but what bozo turned a discussion about not wanting children when married, into one about religion?! *Jesus....no pun intended*

no1catman

Curiously enough, several years ago my (now late) Father asked if was going to get marry my partner, and said 'No, it's not as if we are going to have any kids' - but then we were/are too old for them anyway (thankfully).

seven-day-weekend

MrSmartprice wrote: »

I can appreciate what you are saying. But if you 'believe', then surely your god would have been there at the register office. Even if you didn't believe at that point, when you did, you would then surely presume that he'd been there at the time.

Not trying to be funny, and I do appreciate that some people want 'big' weddings for all sorts of reasons. Some people have a big do later in life because they couldn't afford it first time round.

Great story, by the way!:beer:

God was there at the Register Office, of course. But we didn't know that at the time and we wanted to knowingly chose to make our vows before God.

It wasn't a big 'do', I wore a dress I already had and we made the flower sprays with flowers from our garden and had a small buffet at our church with people donating food.

Better_Days

Interesting thread.

DH and I married in a civil ceremony many years ago whilst on holiday in Stranraer without telling anyone as we didn't want a fuss. Two of the admin assistants were our witnesses. We couldn't afford a big wedding (had just bought a house, well got a mortgage to buy a house) and I just didn't want to go through all the 'who to invite', sorting the venue etc. The important thing to us was the commitment we were making to each other for a future together.

Neither of us have ever wanted children. I seems to me that the default position for some seemed to be to have children rather than weighing up whether or not the couple actually wanted and could adequately provide emotionally and practically for children. As the years went by we got asked less and less if we were going to have children, probably as a result of my terse replies. Although the question has never been articulated to me in the way OP has described, I suspect many of the questioners see children as an inevitable consequence of marriage.

But what I have found very tedious is some parents who behave as if they are part of some exclusive club and that couples without children are not as important as they are.

Having had endless Sunday's wasted by being dragged to tedious pompous church services as a child there was no way that religion would ever play any meaningful part in a marriage ceremony for me. YMMV.

Soleil_lune

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

Our son was planned and wanted and we still love him dearly now he is a grown-up in his 30s and wouldn't be without him

However, had we the benefit of hindsight, we'd have stayed child-free. It's one less thing to worry about and one less thing that cramps your style.

He and his partner of five years say they don't want children, so at least we won't have the worry of grandchildren.

I find this a really depressing post... Children 'cramp your style?' You apparently 'wouldn't be without' your son, but say with hindsight you would have stayed child-free as children 'cramp your style'

And now you don't even want grandchildren??? Why don't you want grandchildren? :huh: And your son does not want children either?

Re; the OP, yes it IS perfectly OK to get married when you are not planning to have kids.

Better_Days

Soleil_lune wrote: »

I find this a really depressing post... Children 'cramp your style?' You apparently 'wouldn't be without' your son, but say with hindsight you would have stayed child-free as children 'cramp your style'

And now you don't even want grandchildren??? Why don't you want grandchildren? :huh: And your son does not want children either?

Not everyone wants children. Some for financial reasons. Some for emotional reasons. Some like their life as it is and are happy and fulfilled without children. Some are unable to have children, make peace with the situation and move on. Surely that is OK?

Parent's lives change enormously when they have children. Some adults don't want their lives to change.

Better to make a conscious decision not to have children than to have children because those around them think it is a good idea and they are happy with their children. Miserable parents regretting they had children makes for miserable childhood's - believe me I know.

Different people have different priorities. I can't see what harm it does not to have children and why you find it depressing.

poet123

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

Our son was planned and wanted and we still love him dearly now he is a grown-up in his 30s and wouldn't be without him

However, had we the benefit of hindsight, we'd have stayed child-free. It's one less thing to worry about and one less thing that cramps your style.

He and his partner of five years say they don't want children, so at least we won't have the worry of grandchildren.

I have to say that I find this a contradictory post.

I can understand someone who has had a problem child saying that with hindsight they wish they have been child free, but that doesn't seem to be the case here.

And as for kids "cramping your style", your other posts don't portray you as someone with a lifestyle which would preclude children so I would be genuinely interested as to what that really means in day to day terms. I was surprised to read it from you when allied to other posts. No offence, but it did really surprise me.

Person_one

poet123 wrote: »

I have to say that I find this a contradictory post.

I can understand someone who has had a problem child saying that with hindsight they wish they have been child free, but that doesn't seem to be the case here.

And as for kids "cramping your style", your other posts don't portray you as someone with a lifestyle which would preclude children so I would be genuinely interested as to what that really means in day to day terms. I was surprised to read it from you when allied to other posts. No offence, but it did really surprise me.

I don't think its contradictory to love your children very much but still feel that you would make a different decision if you had your time again.

I do still find the post odd though, I agree.