Marriage Before Babies or Vice Versa?

littlegreenparrot

Marriage then children has always seemed the most logical thing to me.

Although I know of course that it doesn't guarantee anything, if someone isn't prepared to make a commitment to me with marriage, how on earth can I believe they will be committed to children?

Its always baffled me as well when people have children , but say marriage is to much of a commitment.

aileth

Transformers wrote: »

Too many people now put themselves first instead of thinking of their children.

Sorry to be facetious, but I couldn't resist!

fairy_lights

Transformers wrote: »

Personally I think that a lot of our social problems are related to the devalued status of marriage.

Decades ago it was the norm to get married first. To have children out of wedlock was shameful. This discouraged people from rushing into having children too soon in a relationship.

Now, it's not uncommon for people to get intentionally pregnant only months into a relationship. Sorry, but how can you REALLY know that you have met your 'life partner' and father/mother to your children in that short space of time?

Not sure I agree with this.
My mother married her first husband back in the 70's because she was pregnant and didn't want to be seen as one of those shameful women who have children out of wedlock. Their marriage was essentialy a sham based around doing the 'right' thing and getting married before having children - it certainly didn't create a stable home as the divorced after a few years.
I'm sure they weren't the only couple to marry for that reason.

lulu_92

Transformers wrote: »

Personally I think that a lot of our social problems are related to the devalued status of marriage.

Decades ago it was the norm to get married first. To have children out of wedlock was shameful. This discouraged people from rushing into having children too soon in a relationship.

Now, it's not uncommon for people to get intentionally pregnant only months into a relationship. Sorry, but how can you REALLY know that you have met your 'life partner' and father/mother to your children in that short space of time?

I'm sad that society is moving away from marriage - I genuinely believe that this has sparked the views that relationships don't have to be permanent to have children.

Too many people now put themselves first instead of thinking of their children.

Just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should.

I don't think society is moving away from marriage, I just think the time is different. Most people don't get their weddings paid for by family and it is harder for young people to scrape money together for a house deposit. I know people who opted for marriage over house and vice-versa. It is down to the couple.

My mum divorced twice, so maybe that gives me a different outlook. I know that marriage doesn't necessarily secure you for life. I also appreciate that my mum managed to raise us alone. It was hard and obviously not ideal, but we were never deprived of food, clothes, warmth and love. As long as children are loved and not abused or being harmed in any way, what does it matter in the big picture whether the parents have a piece of paper?

It makes me sad that people get pregnant intentionally after such a short time together. I agree that you don't know the person well enough, which is why I waited until recently to have the baby talk with OH.

Mojisola wrote: »

There are legal protections and benefits available for married couples which can't be claimed by unmarried couples/parents.

An unmarried partner whose family home is owned by their partner could be out on the street in a moment if their partner wanted to break up with them. As you have money in your name, your position wouldn't be as difficult as for many who don't have savings.

Yes, that is true. Which is why for me it isn't the top thing on my to-do list. I know that wouldn't be the ideal situation for others.

aileth

I agree with Lulu, I think your parents probably have a great influence on your own views in this matter.

My parents have been married almost 40 years, in fact in my entire extended family there has never been a divorce. I was brought up pretty old-fashioned really. If I had got pregnant before marriage, my parents would've been no doubt excited but also probably very disappointed as well, which was a huge dissuading factor for me.

If my dad had his way, he probably would've removed my ovaries and kept them in a box, presenting them to me after I'd signed the register.

peachyprice

Money_maker wrote: »

This is what I feel, therefore I think the marriage should come first. It's too easy to have children a short way into the relationship, almost before the relationship is properly established. Next thing you know, there are several children with different fathers. Complicated relationship and family connections. If you're not ready to commit to a lifelong relationship with one person then hold fire on the children for just a little while. Just to make sure.

Yes, because people with children never get divorced do they.

Mojisola

I think it's time for the legal aspects of marriage to be set out much more clearly, perhaps in PSE in school as well as leaflets given out to couples planning a wedding. The differences between living together and being married should be understood.

It is a legal contract between two people, first and foremost.

Sox77

I did not get married to my older childrens father as I did not believe in marriage - or so I thought, but when we broke up and I met my husband I wanted to marry him (we did have another child first - we wanted ALL of our children at our wedding ) so in hindsight I think it wasn't that I didn't want to get married, but that some part of me knew that I wasn't with the right person...


That said my opinion is do whatever makes you happy

Transformers

http://www.centreforsocialjustice.org.uk/policy/pathways-to-poverty/family-breakdown

marriage is the strongest form of relationship: according to recent research 97 per cent of intact couples with 15 year old children are married. As well as social damage, the breakdown of families has a significant economic impact.

http://www.oglesbycharitabletrust.co.uk/media/6358/csj1476_fractured_families_short_paper_03-12-13_web-1-.pdf


Under-recognised for its role in family breakdown is the rise in unmarried cohabiting parenthood. Cohabitation has increased dramatically (the number cohabiting has doubled since 1996 to almost 6 million today) and has become socially acceptable and living together before marriage is now the norm. But while about half of all cohabitees go on to marry, cohabiting parenthood is less stable than marriage. Parents who cohabit instead of marrying are three times more likely to have separated by the time their child is aged five, and even after accounting for socio-economic status and education, cohabiting parents are between two and two-and-a-half times more likely to break up than equivalent married couples.

whigfield

Marriage, then into married quarters (RAF husband), 4 years later baby, then bought a house a couple of months after that.