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

clearingout

Billie-S wrote: »

If you think that is all it is, then you are very naive. There is a lot more to marriage than 'just a piece of paper.' I despair of people with this attitude. The older you get, and the longer you go on in your life being part of a couple who is not married, the more you will realise it is not 'just a piece of paper.'

If you split up, or he dies (God forbid,) you will find the rights you have quite different from people with just 'a piece of paper.'

'Just a piece of paper' is not what marriage is, and people who believe this need educating.

Very much so. That piece of paper literally saved me when my ex walked out. Had we not been married, I'd have lost everything. No exaggeration. That piece of paper meant that he had no choice but to comply with the legal process and ultimately, it meant that I came away with a fair share of what he hadn't managed to fritter away in the interim. Too many people don't understand what it means should a relationship break down and way too many others rely on the fact that their partner is a 'decent' person who 'wouldn't do that to the kids'. There is an assumption that those of us who were treated badly somehow deserved it or that our partners were out of the ordinary, horrible people all of the time. Not so, relationship breakdown changes people in the short term for the worse and someone who would have once laid down their life for you is suddenly very much capable of using a loaded gun.

Anyone - male or female - in a relationship without the benefit of marriage and who is somehow compromising their own futures by taking time out looking after children, or working when the other partner isn't, or who has become a carer for an elderly relative - seriously needs to understand the potential implications of this should their partner not come home one evening. There is an awful, awful lot that can be lost.

System

I believe in being in a stable realtionship before having kids, and I guess deep down I'd want to have the commitment (or the intent to commit) before having kids

But marriage doesn't mean everything will be hunky dory. My parents had been married a few years before having me and then 2 years later they divorced and still hate each other to this day. At times I wish they hadn't had me but they did and I'm the one who's had to live with it since. So really marriage doesn't always make it all ok.

Though on the flip side my mum and stepdad married a year after my sister was born and they've been married for 20 years now so I guess my siblings did have more stability

thegirlintheattic

Billie-S wrote: »

If you think that is all it is, then you are very naive. There is a lot more to marriage than 'just a piece of paper.' I despair of people with this attitude. The older you get, and the longer you go on in your life being part of a couple who is not married, the more you will realise it is not 'just a piece of paper.'

If you split up, or he dies (God forbid,) you will find the rights you have quite different from people with just 'a piece of paper.'

'Just a piece of paper' is not what marriage is, and people who believe this need educating.

You have just argued against your own point. Marriage is a piece of paper - it's a legal contract when you strip it down to the bare bones. It's a contract that gives you the rights you speak of. That is what it is.

I know just what rights my OH and I have (and don't have) not being married, and we have taken steps to make sure we both have protection should the worst happen. There are quite simple legal documents you can have drawn up to sort out what happens to mortgages, accounts etc. should a couple split up or one passes away. For example, most pension providers allow a partner to be named to get the benefit should the person die. I would point anyone interested to http://www.advicenow.org.uk/living-together/ in the first instance.
I agree it can be more complex once children are in the mix but luckily that is not a situation I am in or am likely to be.

I have no problem with people who are married or want to be, but just because people chose not to get married doesn't make them second class citizens, or bad parents, or uncommitted, or not really in love, or stupid and unaware of their rights (or lack of), as has been suggested or implied by some posters here.

There are many reasons why people don't get married. Some people don't get married for religious or moral reasons, some have experienced a bad marriage (e.g. their parents) and that has affected them so much they don't want to get married, and in some parts of the world people cannot get married to who they want.

Brallaqueen

I don't generally give a monkey's how adult consenting adults live their lives. However, children don't get to make the choice and I do think it is a parent's responsibility to protect their child and that includes the legal protection that marriage offers.

gayleygoo

I hadn't realised there was a problem of couples deciding "not sure if I really like you or not, but sure lets have a baby anyway and see how it goes". Or does the judge mean that non-committed couples should have abortions of unplanned pregnancies?

My OH and I are not married, but we have lived together happily for 9 years now. Our first child was unplanned (I forgot a couple of Pills) and my OH nervously asked if my parents would expect us to get married. Luckily for him, they didn't, they thought it was silly just to get married because of pregnancy! We've since had another child, and hopefully next year will have another, we certainly don't plan to get married in order to so so.

I understand there are legal issues - if my OH was to die then I might not get his pension benefits or whatever (although I am named on them as next of kin, I know some companies don't pay out to unmarried widows). Legal protection is something I see as mostly a middle-class problem anyway, perhaps if my partner earned more or we had any savings or a mortgage, there would be more of an incentive to get married. I think it's very sad that our government still puts the beliefs of religious people over than of non-religious people.

On the issue of "lifetime commitment", congratulations to all of you who manage this, but frankly I don't see the point in it as a moral stand (unless your are religious, if not, really what does it matter if you have lots of relationships and babies to 4 different fathers?) Yes, my partner do feel committed to each other for as long as we live, but if we ever become unhappy with each other we won't have to shell out for a divorce. We will of course try our best to repair our relationship, why should a marriage make it different?

I see marriage as a religious thing, where "god" apparently wants people to have sex with only one person in their lives. I don't believe in religion, or the so-called morals of the bible. Not so long ago, marriage has also been a "business transaction" where daughters where married off to secure land or wealth, and the women had no rights if they were unhappy or abused. I fail to see the moralities of marriage.

That's not to say I wouldn't like to get married, if I do however it will be a celebration of our love for each other. How wonderful that through millions of years of evolution, in this vast universe, that OH and I have so much love for each other and do want to spend the rest of our relatively short lives together. We would need to save for it of course, it wouldn't just be a registry-office-with-two-witnesses kinda thing, no, we want our loved ones to join in the celebration with us! For those of you who'd say it's ridiculous that people "can't afford" to get married when they can just do it for £40 (and imply that they *should* be married already), then it's likely you just have very different ideas of what a marriage should be.

Having children is a much bigger commitment IMO. You can't just divorce them!

unicorn1984

catkins wrote: »

I find this really sad.



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.

No, she said compared to my newborn son she thought her dog required more care and attention... and her and her boyfriend were more committed for having a dog. They have split up, she kept the dog and it stays in her 1 bed flat from 7am til 7pm while she is at work. I think that is mean to have a dog in them circumstances. I mean, I couldn't come to work and leave my son alone in the house for 12 hours..... and yes, when he gets older he will be able to do things for himself, but its definately not the same thing!


Yes I hate that as well, a lady who lived round the corner from us got a black lab pup for her 2 young sons, within a few months the boys had gotten bored of the puppy, who was locked in the garden shed during the day because she hadnt bothered to house train him, so he was shoved out there. The woman was planning to get his put to sleep and my Mum said she would have him. The woman asked my Mum for £200 for him!! Mum told her to eff off and said she would take him for nothing, as she would have to pay to have him put to sleep, and how could anyone treat an animal like that.
My Mum still has him, but I find it disgusting that anyone could do that!!

thorsoak

gayleygoo wrote: »

I hadn't realised there was a problem of couples deciding "not sure if I really like you or not, but sure lets have a baby anyway and see how it goes". Or does the judge mean that non-committed couples should have abortions of unplanned pregnancies?

My OH and I are not married, but we have lived together happily for 9 years now. Our first child was unplanned (I forgot a couple of Pills) and my OH nervously asked if my parents would expect us to get married. Luckily for him, they didn't, they thought it was silly just to get married because of pregnancy! We've since had another child, and hopefully next year will have another, we certainly don't plan to get married in order to so so.

I understand there are legal issues - if my OH was to die then I might not get his pension benefits or whatever (although I am named on them as next of kin, I know some companies don't pay out to unmarried widows). Legal protection is something I see as mostly a middle-class problem anyway, perhaps if my partner earned more or we had any savings or a mortgage, there would be more of an incentive to get married. I think it's very sad that our government still puts the beliefs of religious people over than of non-religious people.

On the issue of "lifetime commitment", congratulations to all of you who manage this, but frankly I don't see the point in it as a moral stand (unless your are religious, if not, really what does it matter if you have lots of relationships and babies to 4 different fathers?) Yes, my partner do feel committed to each other for as long as we live, but if we ever become unhappy with each other we won't have to shell out for a divorce. We will of course try our best to repair our relationship, why should a marriage make it different?

I see marriage as a religious thing, where "god" apparently wants people to have sex with only one person in their lives. I don't believe in religion, or the so-called morals of the bible. Not so long ago, marriage has also been a "business transaction" where daughters where married off to secure land or wealth, and the women had no rights if they were unhappy or abused. I fail to see the moralities of marriage.

That's not to say I wouldn't like to get married, if I do however it will be a celebration of our love for each other. How wonderful that through millions of years of evolution, in this vast universe, that OH and I have so much love for each other and do want to spend the rest of our relatively short lives together. We would need to save for it of course, it wouldn't just be a registry-office-with-two-witnesses kinda thing, no, we want our loved ones to join in the celebration with us! For those of you who'd say it's ridiculous that people "can't afford" to get married when they can just do it for £40 (and imply that they *should* be married already), then it's likely you just have very different ideas of what a marriage should be.

Having children is a much bigger commitment IMO. You can't just divorce them!

"On the issue of "lifetime commitment", congratulations to all of you who manage this, but frankly I don't see the point in it as a moral stand (unless your are religious, if not, really what does it matter if you have lots of relationships and babies to 4 different fathers?)

Seriously? You ask what does it matter to have babies to 4 different fathers???? What about the uncertainty for the children who experience the upbringing with various "daddies" popping in and out of their lives? All that is doing is creating a very insecure family.

That is exactly what the judge commented against! There are very few excuses for unplanned pregnancies in these days - and much as I abhor the idea of abortion, this would often be the best option when a woman does find herself pregnant whilst she is not sure whether she is in a relationship or not.

Georgiegirl256

gayleygoo wrote: »

I think it's very sad that our government still puts the beliefs of religious people over than of non-religious people.

Huh?

I see marriage as a religious thing, where "god" apparently wants people to have sex with only one person in their lives. I don't believe in religion, or the so-called morals of the bible. Not so long ago, marriage has also been a "business transaction" where daughters where married off to secure land or wealth, and the women had no rights if they were unhappy or abused. I fail to see the moralities of marriage.

You see, that's where you are wrong. Yes, it can be a religious thing if you want, you can get married "in the eyes of God", or, you can do what we did and not get married in a church. We are not religious, and there was no way my husband would have got married in a church. But not just because of the religious aspect, but also because it was only a very small wedding which was exactly what we wanted.

People say to just go down to the registry office if you want a small wedding, but that option didn't appeal to us either (especially as ours is right on a junction opposite McDonalds :rotfl: handy for the reception I guess!), as we wanted something nicer and more special to us, and we wanted our parents there (just didn't want any other guests lol!), so we got married at Gretna Green. All organised within a month, and I loved the tradition behind it, thinking how many brides and grooms had got married there before us in the Old Blacksmiths Shop.

So, you can have a religious wedding if that's what appeals, or a non religious one, you can even get married on the London Eye or in a cave if you should so desire. I guess what I'm saying is when I think of marriage, I had never just thought it to be a religious thing.

Georgiegirl256

thorsoak wrote: »

"On the issue of "lifetime commitment", congratulations to all of you who manage this, but frankly I don't see the point in it as a moral stand (unless your are religious, if not, really what does it matter if you have lots of relationships and babies to 4 different fathers?)

Seriously? You ask what does it matter to have babies to 4 different fathers???? What about the uncertainty for the children who experience the upbringing with various "daddies" popping in and out of their lives? All that is doing is creating a very insecure family.

That is exactly what the judge commented against! There are very few excuses for unplanned pregnancies in these days - and much as I abhor the idea of abortion, this would often be the best option when a woman does find herself pregnant whilst she is not sure whether she is in a relationship or not.

I didn't actually see that bit about babies to 4 different fathers! :eek: Ulrika Johnson has, and it's earned her the nickname 4x4! :rotfl:

rpc

thegirlintheattic wrote: »

I know just what rights my OH and I have (and don't have) not being married, and we have taken steps to make sure we both have protection should the worst happen. There are quite simple legal documents you can have drawn up to sort out what happens to mortgages, accounts etc. should a couple split up or one passes away.

For some of what you describe, there are alternatives to marriage. For others, marriage is the only way. No route other than marriage can provide all the various bits of security. Alternatives are either non-binding or can be changed without the other partner knowing.