'Don't have kids unless you are ready to marry' says judge

dizsiebubba

...or even before they start school.... I am not that young a mum lol

lostinrates

dizsiebubba wrote: »

It is most definitely a rip off I agree - there is a whole thread on the weddings board saying that... but people want to argue it costs nothing to get married...
!

It isn't expensive to get married. Its expensive to get married with people there, there is a difference! (I'm not saying the expectation to have people there is wrong, but its incorrect to say its unaffordable because friends and family cannot attend). Fwiw, we were married in a room that would seat twenty or so, just us. It was quite funny really. D they have rooms for four people, or if you turned up with your parents would they just be allowed into what ever room it was being done in anyway?

Mojisola

catkins wrote: »

I don't really understand the "4 people max". I have never heard anyone tell me that have had to pay more to have more than 4 people attend their wedding. That's ridiculous and, I think, a rip off.

Isn't that the difference between having a "signing of paperwork" meeting in an office or providing a bigger room for larger number of people and some kind of ceremony?

I wouldn't expect to pay the same for two different occasions.

Tiddlywinks

dizsiebubba wrote: »

It is most definitely a rip off I agree - there is a whole thread on the weddings board saying that... but people want to argue it costs nothing to get married...

Babies - they really can cost nothing! As long as you have money to spare before you start school you are sorted - oh and maybe to buy a carseat!

... we only got onto this subject because people cite the expense of getting married as an excuse not to.

I still say that if a couple has children when not married AND the only reason they are not married is that they say they can't afford it then that is rubbish.

Getting married does NOT cost the earth... if you think it does then you are not financially in a position to have children either!

pelirocco

geri1965 wrote: »

I don't think she's ever been bothered about having a committed partner, she just loves having kids. That's why she did the fostering as hers started growing up.

She was a bit worried at one point about the lack of a male role model for the kids, but it doesn't seem to have affected them in any way.

They had a lot of love, and I think that's what really matters.

That is incredibly selfish , children deserve better ( no matter what you say about them being well rounded )
My parents divorced when I was about 11 , it was the 1970s and i didnt know anyone in the same position and it was very hard and affected me for years
I vowed i would never put my children through that , I have been married over 30 years , and it certainly hasnt been a bed of roses 100% of the time ...........but you work through it , and it makes you stronger not just as a couple but as individuals too . I often think people expect far too much and want the fairy tale .

My daughter has a few friends who have children by different fathers , the school my grandchildren go to its more normal then to a child living with both parents it seems .......and thats at a school in a supposidly ''good area ''

My eldest two are both married with children , work have mortgages etc and i tell them these years are your investment years , and you will reap the benefits in years to come

Savemesomemoneyplease

Being married provides a good stable foundation for children = yes
The majority of unserious relationships that result in children aren't strong like those of married couples = yes

Being married makes your relationship stronger than those who are unmarried = untrue, that's just pure smug married. If you really think a 6 month relationship/ new marriage is as strong as a 4 year relationship then you're just being facetious.

catkins

unicorn1984 wrote: »

TOTALLY agree with this. I definitely believe that this is the case. Children have been without 1 or both parents for generations, yet they don't all go off the rails and act like delinquents. My parents split up, a messy divorce, and I turned out fine, so did my brother and stepbrother.

Its a "nice" idea, man meets woman, get married, have perfect kids, live happily ever after. Unfortunately this is so often not the case, infact I know more people whos parents have gotten divorced than are still together. I look in awe and ask "wow how have they stayed together so long"? because couples that are STILL married seem (to me at least) to be the minority, whereas years ago it was the complete opposite.

In mine and OH's family divorce is very rare. My parents married for 61 years (very happy), my sister married 31 years, my brother married 31 years, me and OH married 33 years, three sets of aunts and uncles married for over 50 years, Out of 6 cousins 2 have been married for 25 years, 1 for 23 years and 1 for 10 years. OH's parents were married for over 60 years (dad is no longer alive), his sister has been married for 28 years. All the above are first marriages.

Two of my cousins are divorced (1 twice).

My brother in law has 2 sisters and 3 brothers - 4 all married for over 30 years (first marriages), 1 never married.

lostinrates wrote: »

. I also was very moved my a friend whose parents held hands often. It just used to say nothing loud or ostentatious, but everything.

My parents hold hands all the time, both indoor and outside as do me and OH

catkins

lostinrates wrote: »

It isn't expensive to get married. Its expensive to get married with people there, there is a difference! (I'm not saying the expectation to have people there is wrong, but its incorrect to say its unaffordable because friends and family cannot attend). Fwiw, we were married in a room that would seat twenty or so, just us. It was quite funny really. D they have rooms for four people, or if you turned up with your parents would they just be allowed into what ever room it was being done in anyway?

Until today, I had never heard of there being a limit to the number of people who can attend a wedding. Well obviously I would assume most registry offices cannot hold hundreds of people but surely they can hold 20 or 30?

Mojisola wrote: »

Isn't that the difference between having a "signing of paperwork" meeting in an office or providing a bigger room for larger number of people and some kind of ceremony?

I wouldn't expect to pay the same for two different occasions.

I got married in a registry office with only 10 guests but we were never asked how many people were going to attend.

I know a few people who have married in registry offices and, to my knowledge, there has never been mention of paying more to have more than 4 people there.

I wouldn't pay more just so I could have more than 4 guests and if all the registry offices in Kent abide by this ridiculous rule then shame on them

Mojisola

catkins wrote: »

I wouldn't pay more just so I could have more than 4 guests and if all the registry offices in Kent abide by this ridiculous rule then shame on them

If all a couple want is for themselves and their witnesses to sign the necessary paperwork, the registrar's office is adequate and the price is accordingly low.

If the couple want to use one of the larger rooms so that they can have more people attending the ceremony, they wouldn't really expect to get it for the same price as the office, would they?

If I book a room at our village hall for a meeting, the price varies with the size of the room we choose. No-one thinks that is a rip-off.

Dunroamin

POPPYOSCAR wrote: »

[/B]




I agree with you.

I also find it quite sad that my father had a miserable life staying married to my mother because he took the vows so seriously.

I would have loved him to have left her and had a happy life.

If the vows meant so much to him, I doubt he would have been happy if he'd broken them. You should be proud of him.