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

ska_lover

Savemesomemoneyplease wrote: »

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.

:T:T Absolutely

Sorry but this entire thread is a judgemental load of codswallop....

littlerat

Savemesomemoneyplease wrote: »

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.

I'd hope nobody would think that! I'd want to be sure that person was as committed as if we were married, long term relationship etc.


That said, I don't think time always makes a relationship, my parents were married 18 months after meeting and were together for 20 years almost when Mum died, never any real troubles (my parents were fairly honest with us growing up, now as an adult my Dad is entirely honest, so not rose-tinted) other people seem to wait 7, 8 years and be divorced within 2. It can go the other way too of course, but time together isn't always that relevant.


As for the better with 2 parents thing, it depends on the 2 parents. I don't think divorce, parents living apart is particularly harmful. The harm tends to come when there's fighting and spite and nastiness, as there so often seems to be after divorce.

I know one of my school friends was glad when his parents separated as they'd be arguing so much. Not living together, the arguing stopped, his life was easier - so he sometimes slept at a different house, so what. But there was no custody arguments or anything to make it hard. He was also a teenager which I suppose means a more logical, grown up view too.


One of my distant cousins is being raised by a wonderful father - he's not biologically, but he has been for longer than she can remember and has PR or equivalent (live abroad). The biological father signed his rights away cheerfully. But some people are not fit to be parents, if they stayed together anyway, life for a child in that position would be awful.



I do think being committed to each other is very important, but yes life doesn't always happen that way, sometimes people can be committed and it just fails later on due to other stresses, there's no guarantees.

catkins

Mojisola wrote: »

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.

But that never used to be the case and still isn't in lots of registry offices.

I got married in a room that probably would have seated at least 20 and it was one set fee for getting married not the size of room.

I have looked at Essex Council's prices for weddings in registry offices and they have a flat fee - nothing about costing more for bigger rooms.

To answer your question, yes I would expect to pay the same price to get married whether I was in a room big enough for 4 or a room big enough for 100. What extras exactly are being provided with the bigger room apart from more chairs?

Savemesomemoneyplease

littlerat wrote: »

I'd hope nobody would think that! I'd want to be sure that person was as committed as if we were married, long term relationship etc.


That said, I don't think time always makes a relationship, my parents were married 18 months after meeting and were together for 20 years almost when Mum died, never any real troubles (my parents were fairly honest with us growing up, now as an adult my Dad is entirely honest, so not rose-tinted) other people seem to wait 7, 8 years and be divorced within 2. It can go the other way too of course, but time together isn't always that relevant.


As for the better with 2 parents thing, it depends on the 2 parents. I don't think divorce, parents living apart is particularly harmful. The harm tends to come when there's fighting and spite and nastiness, as there so often seems to be after divorce.

I know one of my school friends was glad when his parents separated as they'd be arguing so much. Not living together, the arguing stopped, his life was easier - so he sometimes slept at a different house, so what. But there was no custody arguments or anything to make it hard. He was also a teenager which I suppose means a more logical, grown up view too.


One of my distant cousins is being raised by a wonderful father - he's not biologically, but he has been for longer than she can remember and has PR or equivalent (live abroad). The biological father signed his rights away cheerfully. But some people are not fit to be parents, if they stayed together anyway, life for a child in that position would be awful.



I do think being committed to each other is very important, but yes life doesn't always happen that way, sometimes people can be committed and it just fails later on due to other stresses, there's no guarantees.

Time isn't an indicator of a great/ strong relationship but that's my point.

Being married doesn't suddenly make you above everyone (as has been inferred by some in this thread!)

I find the comments about being immature having a long term relationship before marriage particularly strange. I find my peers who have got married at a young (under 20) much more immature than those who are carefully planning and saving for the future.

A marriage without any money, a stable home etc is not a great place to bring children into. However one where the parents have worked hard to buy a house, secure a good life and have the maturity and financial provision etc is likely to be more stable.

Many of my friends live together and are in long term relationships, saving for their future. The only married couple I know well live in their parents house (they are 21 and 30) because they weren't financially set before the wedding.

I think everyone is set in their views here so it's no use debating.

lostinrates

Savemesomemoneyplease wrote: »

Time isn't an indicator of a great/ strong relationship but that's my point.

Being married doesn't suddenly make you above everyone (as has been inferred by some in this thread!)

I find the comments about being immature having a long term relationship before marriage particularly strange. I find my peers who have got married at a young (under 20) much more immature than those who are carefully planning and saving for the future.

A marriage without any money, a stable home etc is not a great place to bring children into. However one where the parents have worked hard to buy a house, secure a good life and have the maturity and financial provision etc is likely to be more stable.

I think everyone is set in their views here so it's no use debating.

Actually I see a lot of common ground on what you are saying with what some others are saying.

I couldn't give a fig if people are married or not if they are otherwise well legally and financially covered. Its a free world. I do care that many make immature and poorlY planned emotional decisions which is fine but when it impacts on children as well as the adults its less 'every one's own choice'.


I think 'proper' weddings are beautiful things, but I didn't have one for personal reasons, and I agree with you that they are not more important than sensible planning for other basics, and the emotional questions asked, and the legalities (however decided on) for safe financial future etc in place.

Tiddlywinks

Savemesomemoneyplease wrote: »

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.

Did you read the article...?

It was talking about long term committed relationships so your last point is not really relevant. You just said that to have a cheap pop at the 'pure smug married' didn't you?

Savemesomemoneyplease

Tiddlywinks wrote: »

Did you read the article...?

It was talking about long term committed relationships so your last point is not really relevant. You just said that to have a cheap pop at the 'pure smug married' didn't you?

Yes I did read the article, but I also read the comments!

Mojisola

catkins wrote: »

To answer your question, yes I would expect to pay the same price to get married whether I was in a room big enough for 4 or a room big enough for 100. What extras exactly are being provided with the bigger room apart from more chairs?

I don't think your expectations are reasonable.

ska_lover

I got married last year, and we had the pick of three rooms of differing sizes, all same price. Might be different in other areas.

lostinrates

catkins wrote: »

But that never used to be the case and still isn't in lots of registry offices.

I got married in a room that probably would have seated at least 20 and it was one set fee for getting married not the size of room.

I have looked at Essex Council's prices for weddings in registry offices and they have a flat fee - nothing about costing more for bigger rooms.

To answer your question, yes I would expect to pay the same price to get married whether I was in a room big enough for 4 or a room big enough for 100. What extras exactly are being provided with the bigger room apart from more chairs?

I am guessing it takes more time to get more people in and out, meaning each ceremony needs more allotted time, plus the value alone of space, wear and tear and provision of more facilities like chairs/ loos etc. Time must be a significant issue though.