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

Tiddlywinks

fluffnutter wrote: »

I don't 'like' or 'dislike' it. Nor do I dispute it but you need to understand the difference between causal links and correlations. People who marry tend to be older and more solvent - that's why their relationships are more stable. If you are unmarried you are more likely to be younger and poorer. Both of these are a barrier to relationship longevity.

People split up because they're young and skint, not because they're not married.

I disagree with your assertions about being older, more solvent etc... Marriage is legal at 18 (16 with parental consent) and getting married is NOT expensive... people CHOOSE to make it expensive.

Even so, if YOU believe your assertions then surely all the more reason NOT to have children before marriage.

Don't have kids until you are financially and emotionally stable.

Tiddlywinks

lika_86 wrote: »

But do those statistics relate to unmarried couples with children or just unmarked couples who live together? Many couples will live together in full knowledge that they aren't ready for marriage or children, should a couple who have moved in together to see how things go but then split up really be compared to a couple who are married (or unmarried) with children who split up?

.

Research appears to be around the children and then looking at the parents' status.

duchy

fluffnutter wrote: »

I don't 'like' or 'dislike' it. Nor do I dispute it but you need to understand the difference between causal links and correlations. People who marry tend to be older and more solvent - that's why their relationships are more stable. If you are unmarried you are more likely to be younger and poorer. Both of these are a barrier to relationship longevity.

People split up because they're young and skint, not because they're not married.

Which is fine ....just don't drag kids into the mix until you have relationship with a better chance of lasting. If you're not prepared to make a public and legal commitment to your relationship -then why if your commitment to the relationship isn't absolute-would you not delay having children until you can offer them the stability of two parents who have made that commitment publically and not just "seeing how it goes". If it's a matter of playing the odds -don't gamble with kids stability and security-just your own.

duchy

fluffnutter wrote: »

Moaning about people being married is stuffy, reactionary nonsense and totally unhelpful in today's society.

Moaning about "We can't afford to get married" is shallow and immature. If you can't afford a modest wedding -or think a marriage is all about one day and if you have favours or a sweet buffet and how much a dress costs....then you're probably not mature or financially stable enough yet to have children.

If people followed the more traditional route of obtain a stable and secure home for the committed couple and THEN have the kids (with or without a marriage ceremony ) there would be a lot fewer kids living in one parent families.

It's not about marriage as a ceremony -it's about stability.

Errata

catkins wrote: »

Figures show that couples that live together are much more likely to split up than married couples. You may not like that but facts show it to be true

The stats do show that, but they include all the couples in their twenties who live together for a couple of months or years who have no intention of having children together and don't.
That scenario is not replicated in couples who marry.

barbiedoll

Tiddlywinks wrote: »

I disagree with your assertions about being older, more solvent etc... Marriage is legal at 18 (16 with parental consent) and getting married is NOT expensive... people CHOOSE to make it expensive.

Even so, if YOU believe your assertions then surely sll the more reason NOT to have children before marriage.

Don't have kids until you are financially and emotionally stable.

That is the important bit. There may be many reasons why perfectly stable and happy couples don't marry. Religious differences, personal beliefs (like *max* who won't get married until everyone can) and even still being married to someone else who won't grant a divorce could be "valid" reasons.

And yes, I am married (Not that it matters to anyone else!)

pollypenny

I agree that commitment is the most important aspect of a relationship. However, I am regularly amazed by the lavishness of weddings now.

duchy

MrsDrink wrote: »

Article confused me. (Not hard - I have woken up to fluey head).

If he saying couples should only have children if their relationships are stable enough to consider getting married, but they don't have to? (In which case I agree, children should never be seen as a final attempt to salvage an already doomed relationship).

Or is the saying couples should only have children if they are considering getting married, and are going to? (In which case I disagree, as long as the relationship is stable I don't see the need to be married or not).

This one if your relationship isn't stable enough to make a commitment equal to marriage emotionally and financially then it sure isn't stable enough to have children within.

Tiddlywinks

pollypenny wrote: »

I agree that commitment is the most important aspect of a relationship. However, I am regularly amazed by the lavishness of weddings now.

... and it is this 'cost' that is always rolled out when people want to give the excuse that they can't afford to get married.

The number of people on here that are saving for years to get married but still have kids in the meantime... why not just have a small ceremony and then have a 'flash' party with a nice dress for a 10th anniversary or something.

It's not about the dress, the party, the 'favours', the sweetie bar or whatever.... it should be about the commitment to each other.

claire16c

pollypenny wrote: »

I agree that commitment is the most important aspect of a relationship. However, I am regularly amazed by the lavishness of weddings now.

Just because someone has a lavish wedding doesn't mean commitment isn't there though.

I know a couple who got married in a registry office, then had a small party in a community centre hall down the road. Which according to a lot of people on this board means you'll be together forever just because you had the cheapest wedding ever.

They split up within 2 years.

I don't see why how much money you spend or how crazy/lavish/cheap your wedding is has anything to do with the strength of your relationship.