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

POPPYOSCAR

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 must have missed that.

Who has said that please?

shop-to-drop

It is frustrating and sad that even though the aspects of marriage have been discussed at length in this thread that some people still don't understand what marriage is. Maybe they just don't want to but sadly I fear one day they may regret this when they suffer the consequences of not being married. Marriage is a legal promise to each other. Giving you both rights and responsibilites to/for each other. It can have a religious aspect to it but that is optional and in addition.

The above poster seems to be confusing marriage with a 'wedding' needing to save up for a wedding so won't get married yet but will be having a second and third child in the near future.

Another misunderstanding is that some feel other posters 'think they are better' because they are married. This has not come across to me at all just that they feel they are in a more secure position with a legal contract binding their family unit.

POPPYOSCAR

shop-to-drop wrote: »

It is frustrating and sad that even though the aspects of marriage have been discussed at length in this thread that some people still don't understand what marriage is. Maybe they just don't want to but sadly I fear one day they may regret this when they suffer the consequences of not being married. Marriage is a legal promise to each other. Giving you both rights and responsibilites to/for each other. It can have a religious aspect to it but that is optional and in addition.

The above poster seems to be confusing marriage with a 'wedding' needing to save up for a wedding so won't get married yet but will be having a second and third child in the near future.

Another misunderstanding is that some feel other posters 'think they are better' because they are married. This has not come across to me at all just that they feel they are in a more secure position with a legal contract binding their family unit.

The above poster?

Not me. I do not need to save up for a wedding and already have two children.

I would agree that being married gives more legal protection in some cases but not all. I do not agree it binds the family as a unit more than living together does or there would not be so many divorces which seems all too easy these days. I have seen so many couples divorce and do so with a huge sense of relief and not sadness.

I could not be more committed to my partner, being married would not make any difference. We are dreading the day when one of us might be left without the other one and have both said that we would not want to meet anyone else if this should happen.

lostinrates

POPPYOSCAR wrote: »

The above poster?

Not me. I do not need to save up for a wedding and already have two children.

I would agree that being married gives more legal protection in some cases but not all. I do not agree it binds the family as a unit more than living together does or there would not be so many divorces which seems all too easy these days. I have seen so many couples divorce and do so with a huge sense of relief and not sadness.

I could not be more committed to my partner, being married would not make any difference. We are dreading the day when one of us might be left without the other one and have both said that we would not want to meet anyone else if this should happen.

One of my friends divorce came through this year.

She was committed to her realtionship to, and her partner didn't want to marry but did want a child, She wouldn't have a child without marriage, so they did.

And she's bloody glad now.. Her jobs always took a back burner because of the nature of his career then motherhood, (and their agreement the child would have a sahm, his insistence primarily, she found it quite stressful tbh). Anyway. After the child was born she found things increasing ly hard, and then, discovered he'd been having an affair with a colleague for an unknown period of time.

Thanks to the marriage she hasn't had to leave just with child support, but has enough money to set up a home from the marital assets. He wanted to give her zilch.

I would agree divorces are common, I'd also suggest they offer more protection than separation in a relationship where income and duties are inequitable, as is often the case in 'traditional' families. I think that is part of the stability ( stability when things go wrong) that marriage can offer in families where there are financial assets.

catkins

gayleygoo 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?)

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. 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.

I don't think you have to be religious to have enough morals to think that having 4 children by 4 different father is not exactly something to be proud of nor, on the whole, a good thing for those children.


Mine and OH's idea of "what a marriage should be" is that it is a commitment to each other for life. Our marriage was a celebration of our love for each other and it didn't cost very much at all. I didn't realise that a celebration of love for each other means spending a lot of money on completely unnecessary things

Tiddlywinks

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?

Not a problem? Why would you have children with someone if you didn't intend for it to be a long term relationship?

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.

So, you have two children already and are planning a third... but you then say:

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.

So, you already have two children, are planning to have another, have no savings, are unsure if your OH's pension will even pay you if he were to die... how will you support yourself and your (soon to be) three children if the worst should happen?

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

It has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with personal planning, commitment and doing right by your family unit.

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?)

What does it matter? You think it's OK to hop from one partner to another and have babies without a long term commitment? I don't... and I hope you are not in the majority on this one.

... and to think I was worried that we might have a decline in moral values.

I needn't have worried, this post sums up all that is wrong with our 'progressive' society.

Do what you want, no need to worry about anyone else or plan for the future... great.

Cottage_Economy

clearingout wrote: »

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'.

Couldn't agree more.

I watched three friends go through this and the only one who came away with anything was the one who was married because that piece of paper gave her rights.

The other two, despite living with the others halves for more than a decade each, had nothing. One is still legally scrapping to get the money back that she spent helping to renovate 'their' love nest (it was his name on the deeds and mortgage) as he claimed she was only a long term friend with 'benefits' who he had helped save a fortune in paying rent, but otherwise she had contributed nothing to the fabric of the building. She was devastated, because as far as she was concerned she felt as good as married, but once the relationship was over he protected what was his to her detriment and left her with nothing.

bugslet

shop-to-drop wrote: »

It is frustrating and sad that even though the aspects of marriage have been discussed at length in this thread that some people still don't understand what marriage is. Maybe they just don't want to but sadly I fear one day they may regret this when they suffer the consequences of not being married. Marriage is a legal promise to each other. Giving you both rights and responsibilites to/for each other. It can have a religious aspect to it but that is optional and in addition.

.

I will try again as last time |I posted this it was misunderstood. I have never wanated to marry, possibly because my parents had a very unhappy marriage, but for wahtever reason, the whole married thing sends me running for the hills.

I have been with my OH for 28 years, after 19 years he had an affair. At no point did I structure my finances to exclude him, however it ended up being beneficial to me as the other woman, who barefacedly asked me what his stake in my company was, disappeared remarkably quickly when she realised that actually he wasn't due anything as he had no shares and we weren't married. As far as work was concerned, I did my thing and he did his - he had a company already when when we got together and I never thought I had hold over it. Anyone who has been through an affair, will tell you that they will do all they can to stop the other person from benefitting from their hard work, and that includes married people.

If we split up because we wanted to or he had wanted to, but done it properly, IYKWIM, then a division of assets would have been fine.

Anyway, she left, he stayed and ten years later we are still together and had happy times. If he had left with half the business I slaved over and took half the house, I doubt we would have got back together.

As he is going to die in the next couple of days, I can tell you that from a point of making decisions about his treatment, as he has not been able to for some months, and from dealing with his practicalities, it has been smooth sailing because we organised things before hand.

So I've never suffered the consequences of not being married.

I don't get anyone who says being married/not being married is better, it's just a choice.

BTW, Mr Bugs was married twice before, once for about 5 years and once for 7. Marriage or living together is what you make it to be.

bugslet

Cottage_Economy wrote: »

Couldn't agree more.

I watched three friends go through this and the only one who came away with anything was the one who was married because that piece of paper gave her rights.

The other two, despite living with the others halves for more than a decade each, had nothing. One is still legally scrapping to get the money back that she spent helping to renovate 'their' love nest (it was his name on the deeds and mortgage) as he claimed she was only a long term friend with 'benefits' who he had helped save a fortune in paying rent, but otherwise she had contributed nothing to the fabric of the building. She was devastated, because as far as she was concerned she felt as good as married, but once the relationship was over he protected what was his to her detriment and left her with nothing.

Because they didn't plan and presumed they had some rights. As long as you plan, you can have the same rights.

Person_one

bugslet wrote: »

I don't get anyone who says being married/not being married is better, it's just a choice.

BTW, Mr Bugs was married twice before, once for about 5 years and once for 7. Marriage or living together is what you make it to be.

I'm sorry to hear that your husband is so close to the end, I hope his last days are peaceful and comfortable.

You're right that marriage isn't automatically better, and it's completely valid for two adults to weigh up the pros and cons and decide they prefer to stay less entangled.

Issues arise when there are children involved, as they are not a party to the decision making but often have to cope with the consequences, or when the two adults aren't aware or understanding enough of the differences to make a fully informed decision, which seems to be the case for many who think its 'just a piece of paper'!