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

aileth

It's funny, I had an old school friend on my facebook feed today who has just had a baby. Someone asked him when he was going to marry the mother, and his response was 'it's too much commitment.'

What exactly is the baby then? Surely nurturing and caring for a human life is more commitment than a legal 'piece of paper'?

unicorn1984

aileth wrote: »

It's funny, I had an old school friend on my facebook feed today who has just had a baby. Someone asked him when he was going to marry the mother, and his response was 'it's too much commitment.'

What exactly is the baby then? Surely nurturing and caring for a human life is more commitment than a legal 'piece of paper'?

A girl from my work was having a "debate" about how having a dog is MORE responsibility than a child and required more commitment.... it angers me when she compares my child to her dog!! Apparently dogs require more care and attention than a newborn baby (which my son was at the time when she started to compare him to her pet).... I'm not saying people who have pets don't LOVE them like a child, but there is no way they are more of a commitment!!

Ha ha totally off topic but your comment made me think of it x

Soleil_lune

Savemesomemoneyplease wrote: »

Oh no I had a typo disaster. :eek:

Tbh this doesn't worry me as I fully intend to get married, when I reach the financial stability and age that is right for me. I'm in a long-term relationship and not actively abstaining from marriage, it's just not right for us yet.

If this is the case, then why are you so bitter about married people? Your comment about 'smug marrieds' gave that away. Are you having problems getting your man to commit?

Re the issue of married and co-habiting. I would never ask why someone is not married, as it's none of my damn business, but I don't understand WHY they don't want to get married. And I certainly don't think children should be born out of wedlock. And that is my opinion.

And as for tiddlywinks in response to geri1965

Tiddlywinks wrote: »

... this is a sad reflection on our society now - yet you are offering it up as a 'success' story.

Don't you think those children with 3 kids with 3 different men would have wanted both parents around? Wouldn't it be a better environment to have two parents supporting each other?

What about the older child having had 3 different 'fathers' and then having lost them all?

No, parents shouldn't stay together 'because of the children' but... this is the other end of the spectrum.

Your sister made it work to the best of her ability - good for her BUT I shudder at the thought of 'x number of children by x number of fathers' becoming the norm... and the readiness for people to see this as normal.

Totally agree with tiddlywinks. It's becoming more and more normal to have many kids with different men now, and it's rare to have a woman and a man AND their kids all have the same surname. I think it's sad.

Also, I cringe at the amount of women in their 30s I have seen/heard yelling with joy that they are about to become a nan! :eek: The woman had a baby at 19, and 'their' daughter had one at 18, and they think it's 'great!' It makes me cringe.

This country is going downhill fast, and I blame how easy it is to live on benefits and get a council house if you have a kid. Luckily this is changing gradually.

thorsoak

Whether married or not, living together or separate, ideally children should have TWO parents.

Now I acknowledge that there are many people who find themselves as single parents with no support from an absent parent and I have nothing but respect for those I know or see struggling to bring children up on their own.

I feel very sad when women express their "right" to have a child without a partner - or those who have children by several fly-by-night partners, and mostly with those who think that having a baby will cement an already fragmenting relationship.

catkins

aileth wrote: »

It's funny, I had an old school friend on my facebook feed today who has just had a baby. Someone asked him when he was going to marry the mother, and his response was 'it's too much commitment.'

What exactly is the baby then? Surely nurturing and caring for a human life is more commitment than a legal 'piece of paper'?

I find this really sad.

unicorn1984 wrote: »

A girl from my work was having a "debate" about how having a dog is MORE responsibility than a child and required more commitment.... it angers me when she compares my child to her dog!! Apparently dogs require more care and attention than a newborn baby (which my son was at the time when she started to compare him to her pet).... I'm not saying people who have pets don't LOVE them like a child, but there is no way they are more of a commitment!!

I am certainly not saying that having a dog is anything like having a child but the bit about a dog requiring more care and attention is true to the extent that a dog can live to maybe 16 and will still need to be walked, brushed etc whereas a child as it gets older can do things for itself.

It also annoys me when couples get a dog then split up fairly quickly and the poor dog ends up in rescue or being pts.

Savemesomemoneyplease

Soleil_lune wrote: »

If this is the case, then why are you so bitter about married people? Your comment about 'smug marrieds' gave that away. Are you having problems getting your man to commit?

Re the issue of married and co-habiting. I would never ask why someone is not married, as it's none of my damn business, but I don't understand WHY they don't want to get married. And I certainly don't think children should be born out of wedlock. And that is my opinion.

And as for tiddlywinks in response to geri1965



Totally agree with tiddlywinks. It's becoming more and more normal to have many kids with different men now, and it's rare to have a woman and a man AND their kids all have the same surname. I think it's sad.

Also, I cringe at the amount of women in their 30s I have seen/heard yelling with joy that they are about to become a nan! :eek: The woman had a baby at 19, and 'their' daughter had one at 18, and they think it's 'great!' It makes me cringe.

This country is going downhill fast, and I blame how easy it is to live on benefits and get a council house if you have a kid. Luckily this is changing gradually.

Bitter? Not at all - as I've said I am not set up in the world enough yet for marriage. We have agreed a target year which we are saving towards.

I believe in marriage, but I don't think a couple is better purely because they're married, that's pretty close minded.

I do agree with everything else you say though.

thegirlintheattic

Marriage is a bit of paper - there are committed couples, living together who have kids and it all works out, all without that bit of paper.

There are others who get married within months and wonder why it all falls apart when they have kids.

I do hate married people thinking that they are better than people who decide not to marry. No, that's not bitterness before anyone asks, I just don't see the need to have a contract to prove my love and commitment.

thorsoak

thegirlintheattic wrote: »

Marriage is a bit of paper - there are committed couples, living together who have kids and it all works out, all without that bit of paper.

There are others who get married within months and wonder why it all falls apart when they have kids.

I do hate married people thinking that they are better than people who decide not to marry. No, that's not bitterness before anyone asks, I just don't see the need to have a contract to prove my love and commitment.

And I feel sad that people who have not married think that they are "better" than those who have committed themselves through marriage.

thegirlintheattic

thorsoak wrote: »

And I feel sad that people who have not married think that they are "better" than those who have committed themselves through marriage.

I don't know where you got that idea from. I did not say or imply that. If you're married fine, if your not fine, it's your own personal choice but some of the comments on here suggest that you're selfish, immature, uncommitted etc. for having kids without a marriage, and strongly imply that being married is a better and more committed relationship then cohabiting. That's just tosh - each relationship is different.

Dunroamin

thegirlintheattic wrote: »

I don't know where you got that idea from. I did not say or imply that. If you're married fine, if your not fine, it's your own personal choice but some of the comments on here suggest that you're selfish, immature, uncommitted etc. for having kids without a marriage, and strongly imply that being married is a better and more committed relationship then cohabiting. That's just tosh - each relationship is different.

Surely we all think that the route we've chosen is the better way or else we would have done things differently?