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

claire16c

Dunroamin wrote: »

That might be true if you or your family are rich and can spend that sort of money without blinking. If not and it means years of saving and going without other things then it does seem to me to be symbol of immaturity and lack of commitment.

Or they could just have a fairly well paid job, live somewhere cheap & be good at saving etc

Or perhaps some people want a big wedding & are therefore happy to sacrifice other things & save for a long time. Whilst living in a committed relationship. Maybe they're just not in a rush to marry. Surely it's a sign of commitment to stay together & save together?

I don't think in any type of marriage or wedding equals commitment. Surely that comes down to the relationship itself? Cheap or expensive I don't see what it's got to do with the partnerships strength.

Tiddlywinks wrote: »

I agree BUT so many people cite the reason for not marrying is that it is just an 'expensive piece of paper'.

We are just pointing out that it does not need to be expensive - not that everyone should get married in a sack cloth.

There are always posts on here that suggest if you have a big wedding your relationship is doomed. I'm not sure why people think that.

Yes I do think people who say that are mainly using it to hide the real reason why they don't want to get married. Or they don't realise the legal benefits of being married.

duchy

Gillyx wrote: »

I know plenty of married people who have stayed together very unhappily for the sake of the kids, even participating in extra marital affairs.

After watching my parents marriage fall apart, I don't have a wish to get married at all, so apparently that means I shouldn't have my son? I'd like to think he is being brought up in a loving, stable family home and that my relationship status doesn't affect that.

What about couples who are together 10 years plus before they decide to have children, shouldn't they do it if they decide not to get married?

Several people have mentioned a commitment equal to marriage -I believe a lot depends on why a couple doesn't want to stand up in public and say -This is the one I'm committing to for the rest of my days ............. Marriage is simply a public declaration of this -all the rest is fluff. Sometimes there are good reasons not to -but "can't afford a big party" or "we've got three kids but he's still not sure he wants to make such a grown up commitment" aren't good reasons. I do think a lot of couples do find marriage is raised when talking about having a baby comes along -after ten years of not wanting kids yet. If after ten years together a man didn't want to marry me..... I'd be wondering why not in the absence of some very solid reasons.

duchy

claire16c wrote: »

Or they could just have a fairly well paid job, live somewhere cheap & be good at saving etc

Or perhaps some people want a big wedding & are therefore happy to sacrifice other things & save for a long time. Whilst living in a committed relationship. Maybe they're just not in a rush to marry. Surely it's a sign of commitment to stay together & save together?

I don't think in any type of marriage or wedding equals commitment. Surely that comes down to the relationship itself? Cheap or expensive I don't see what it's got to do with the partnerships strength.




There are always posts on here that suggest if you have a big wedding your relationship is doomed. I'm not sure why people think that.

Yes I do think people who say that are mainly using it to hide the real reason why they don't want to get married. Or they don't realise the legal benefits of being married.

But we're talking in the context of having children -and waiting til after the wedding to have them. If you want a big wedding and are saving for that exclusively then wouldn't children be further down the line after saving for the wedding -kids cost even more than the most flash wedding after all

DigForVictory

The judge meant well - not his fault marriage is no reliable marker of a stable relationship, although non-marriage is a hint. He probably wishes he didn't see so many damanged children (of all ages) in his courts.

Gillyx

duchy wrote: »

Several people have mentioned a commitment equal to marriage -I believe a lot depends on why a couple doesn't want to stand up in public and say -This is the one I'm committing to for the rest of my days ............. Marriage is simply a public declaration of this -all the rest is fluff. Sometimes there are good reasons not to -but "can't afford a big party" or "we've got three kids but he's still not sure he wants to make such a grown up commitment" aren't good reasons. I do think a lot of couples do find marriage is raised when talking about having a baby comes along -after ten years of not wanting kids yet. If after ten years together a man didn't want to marry me..... I'd be wondering why not in the absence of some very solid reasons.

For me it's family reasons, my parents are separated, after seeing everything that went on with there separation (after 20+ Years so not a flash in the pan) I vowed I'd never want to be in that situation. If it was up to my partner we'd be married. It's not I don't envisage a future with him or have any issues with a public declaration.

I do imagine in the future we'l get married for 'legal reasons' IMO is that the right reason to get married, no it isn't.

I'm glad my partner understands where I'm coming from and isn't pushy and questioning my commitment to him.

At the end of the day, it doesn't bother me what other people think about our relationship, we might not be conventional as I know quite a few females grow up to want to be a wife, and be married, but it's not me. I have nothing against people who are married, or who chose to spend a large amount on a wedding or who chose to spend very little. I see couples who are married every day who aren't a good example to there children of how a functioning adult relationship should work and I see couples who aren't married who are fantastic role models in that area and vice versa.

I'd like to think anyone looking at my son wouldn't have a clue whether his Mum and Dad were married or not.

peachyprice

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 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.

What's to say that this posters sister would have behaved any differently if she had married each of the fathers? There are plenty of women out there who get wed at the drop of a hat and see divorce as nothing more that an occupational hazard before moving onto the next husband.

Reading some of the posts on here you would think that divorce was rare amongst parents and is the path to a stable family, shame that's complete BS.

duchy

peachyprice wrote: »

Reading some of the posts on here you would think that divorce was rare amongst parents and is the path to a stable family, shame that's complete BS.

Marriage is an indicator of commitment ..........and accepting that if things don't work out you will be sharing the assets so in essence saying the family unit will come first......... whilst the law continues to refuse that protection to unmarried couples then marriage will always be more stable than an unwed relationship where property remains in seperate ownership. (and there's little prospect of the law changing in that way). I do believe with more single people owning property -it does cause lower numbers of marriages as some people want to "protect their investment". Of course if you're 100% committed - would you feel the need to protect anyway ?

More live in rather than married relationships with children end every year so although marriage comes with no guarantees it appears to have better odds when children are involved.

bylromarha

Blurring the line of marriage and stable relationship in this thread is irrelevant.

The reality is 2 people in a committed relationship, committed to each other for the long haul, through thick and thin, and committed to the children's wellbeing, is BY FAR the best for the children.

Those who get pregnant a short time into their relationship, in this day and age, are far FAR more likely to split up and leave those poor kids living in a home with only 1 parent resident. Today's society accepts this as okay and normal.

Most kids make the best of it as it's all they know, but when I speak to my wonderful teenage niece and nephew, who have different dads and are now living with a guy who is not their father, but has bought a step brother into their family, they would both have prefered to have mum and dad in the same house throughout their lives. The heartache my sisters breakups caused was awful to watch the kids endure. And having to watch them adapt to the new guy - all the people in this scenario are great people and I love them all dearly, but the throwaway attitude people have to relationships in this day and age scares me.

My sisters scenario is accepted as normal. She never wanted it this way or planned it either, it just happened.

But how can the tide in society be turned now? Relationships need time, time and more time invested in them. They're hard work. Both parties have to keep on plugging away. But the disposable society of today feels that's too much effort. Bin it and get a new one. That's best for you.

Sorry - rant over.

Nada666

fluffnutter wrote: »

For crying out loud. Half of children are born to unmarried parents. It's not whether you're married or not, it's the stability of your relationship and your overall support network. The main hardship for children is poverty, and to a certain extent the age of the parents. Put simply the older you are when you have children the more likely you are to be solvent and the more stable your relationship will be as a result. Obviously there are many exceptions of people parenting wonderfully despite being very young and/or having dire financial problems but that's the general trend.

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

The main hardship is hardship. This is very rarely down to income - it is down to how the parents spend their income.

Dunroamin

claire16c wrote: »

Or they could just have a fairly well paid job, live somewhere cheap & be good at saving etc

Or perhaps some people want a big wedding & are therefore happy to sacrifice other things & save for a long time. Whilst living in a committed relationship. Maybe they're just not in a rush to marry. Surely it's a sign of commitment to stay together & save together?

I don't think in any type of marriage or wedding equals commitment. Surely that comes down to the relationship itself? Cheap or expensive I don't see what it's got to do with the partnerships strength.

There are always posts on here that suggest if you have a big wedding your relationship is doomed. I'm not sure why people think that.

Yes I do think people who say that are mainly using it to hide the real reason why they don't want to get married. Or they don't realise the legal benefits of being married.

I'm afraid that I do think that saving for years for a wedding rather than spending those same years being actually married (and then saving for your future together) does show a lack of commitment and maturity though. It may not mean that the relationship is doomed but it does seem to me to be based on false priorities.