• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should people wait until marriage to have children?

Should people wait until marriage to have children?

  • Yes

    Votes: 55 77.5%
  • No

    Votes: 3 4.2%
  • I don't know

    Votes: 2 2.8%
  • I don't care

    Votes: 11 15.5%

  • Total voters
    71

Voltaire X

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 7, 2011
Messages
551
Reaction score
206
Location
New York, New York
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I'm fine with premarital casual sex and whatnot, but birth control should be used.

Do you know what the poverty rate in the US is for families that wait until marriage to have children and stay married? 2%.

The poverty rate for the general population is 13%, more than six times as high. Plus, children that grow up in single parent households are much more likely to end up involved in criminal activity.

I look down on people that have children outside of marriage. They are hurting their children, their families, themselves, and their country.

Also I'm an atheist so religion has nothing to do with why I believe this.
 
People should wait until they're ready to have children, to have children.
 
Yes, although I also personally believe that people should wait until they are married before having sex.
 
good families don't necessarily fit into one stereotype. my personal choice would be to marry before having kids, but i know plenty of people who had kids before getting married, and my own path could have easily been different. my opinion is that being a good parent and having a happy family is less dependent on marriage and more dependent on a conscious choice to put the kiddo first and to do the best that you can.
 
good families don't necessarily fit into one stereotype. my personal choice would be to marry before having kids, but i know plenty of people who had kids before getting married, and my own path could have easily been different. my opinion is that being a good parent and having a happy family is less dependent on marriage and more dependent on a conscious choice to put the kiddo first and to do the best that you can.

Bravo! Well stated! :thumbs:
 
Preferably yes.

In addition to hopefully providing more stability in upbringing and family environment, studies show that children with married parents are less likely to grow up in poverty and less likely to have discipline problems.
 
I'm fine with premarital casual sex and whatnot, but birth control should be used.

Do you know what the poverty rate in the US is for families that wait until marriage to have children and stay married? 2%.

The poverty rate for the general population is 13%, more than six times as high. Plus, children that grow up in single parent households are much more likely to end up involved in criminal activity.

I look down on people that have children outside of marriage. They are hurting their children, their families, themselves, and their country.

Also I'm an atheist so religion has nothing to do with why I believe this.

I think people should wait until they're married to have children. "We're not ready yet" simply doesn't resonate with me. If a couple is ready to bring a child into the world? They should be ready to get married. Playing house is fine; but without the benefit of marriage? In reality, that's all it is. "Playing house." Unless two people structure their coupled relationship like two Philadelphia lawyers, they can expect very little help from the courts should their partnership dissolve. That can make for a nasty, painful and expensive break-up. That's not conducive to good parenting.
 
I think people should wait until they're married to have children. "We're not ready yet" simply doesn't resonate with me. If a couple is ready to bring a child into the world? They should be ready to get married. Playing house is fine; but without the benefit of marriage? In reality, that's all it is. "Playing house." Unless two people structure their coupled relationship like two Philadelphia lawyers, they can expect very little help from the courts should their partnership dissolve. That can make for a nasty, painful and expensive break-up. That's not conducive to good parenting.

I disagree. I don't think marriage makes a difference, but I do think that a mom and dad in the picture is important. Why is marriage more meaningful than just being together as a couple?

I'm sorry, maybe I'm just jaded about marriage, but IMO it is nothing more than a piece of paper and a couple of rings with some meaningless vows and the obligatory celebratory activities.

People, of course, will say that if you are "married" that means that it makes you somehow more committed to one another than a couple who isn't married, but I'm not buying it.
 
I think couples should have children when they they are ready to have children. Especially in Quebec common law couples have children and they are fine. Though recently there was a case of separation of a common law couple with three kids and the father now pays 36,000$/month in child support. So I think the kids will be fine.
 
good families don't necessarily fit into one stereotype. my personal choice would be to marry before having kids, but i know plenty of people who had kids before getting married, and my own path could have easily been different. my opinion is that being a good parent and having a happy family is less dependent on marriage and more dependent on a conscious choice to put the kiddo first and to do the best that you can.

The couples that have kids before marriage but end up getting married later or at least stay together aren't the problem. I don't have any problem with that. But all too often, one parent (usually the father) leaves, and then the child is growing up in a single parent household. I've seen that happen too many times, and it breaks my heart every time.
 
I would generally say, like SB, when people are ready, they should have kids. It's people who weren't ready, having kids, that makes things messy. Without the conscious decision to start a family, married or not, there is less of chance of stability.
 
I think couples should have children when they they are ready to have children. Especially in Quebec common law couples have children and they are fine. Though recently there was a case of separation of a common law couple with three kids and the father now pays 36,000$/month in child support. So I think the kids will be fine.

Common law marriage isn't recognized in all the states. It isn't in my state. I don't know why. That is so stupid. :roll:
 
The only reason why a marriage certificate would afford more stability in a relationship is because of fear IMO.
 
People should wait until they're ready, able, and stable enough to make a commitment to each other and the child to raise it in a responsible way. The single parent setup is not particularly good for kids' situation, and so people should avoid this however possible. Married couples who divorce and fight over the kids in drawn out custody battles, triangulate (i.e. talk through the kid to send messages to the other), and put the kids through other divorce/separation-related crap like that are toxic. Similarly, staying married and together despite fighting like animals all the time is also irresponsible and damaging, and this should also be avoided in whatever way possible. This all comes down to having the maturity and mental/emotional stability to put the kid first, rather than to put yourselves first and expect the kid to adapt to your bull**** on his/her own.

It's more important that the parents remain committed to each other, or at least committed to working together to best meet the child's needs, than it is for those parents to be legally married. There was a study (though I'm not going to dig for it right now) that showed children of divorce generally being at higher risk for emotional and behavior problems and other issues, but specified that children of divorce whose parents maintain a friendly, cordial, mature relationship with one another, and were united in support of the kids' needs and held consistent messages with them, etc., showed virtually no ill long-term effects from the divorce itself. That should shed some light on what kids need, which isn't marriage of their parents per se.

As a general rule, it would be better for people to at least wait until they can make a marital commitment to one another before they think about undertaking the most important 20-year-long duty they'll ever have.
 
Last edited:
I disagree. I don't think marriage makes a difference, but I do think that a mom and dad in the picture is important. Why is marriage more meaningful than just being together as a couple?

I'm sorry, maybe I'm just jaded about marriage, but IMO it is nothing more than a piece of paper and a couple of rings with some meaningless vows and the obligatory celebratory activities.

People, of course, will say that if you are "married" that means that it makes you somehow more committed to one another than a couple who isn't married, but I'm not buying it.

Well, to each their own. First, the problems of a living-together arrangement don't rear their ugly heads until it's time to not live together anymore. That "piece of paper" entitles a married couple to certain rights not available to two people deciding to live together. Here are some of the Federal protections a married couple have that aren't available to others:

  • Social Security survivor benefits
  • Many, if not most, employers don't allow someone to add a domestic partner to their health insurance; those that do? The premium paid by the employer for the partner's health insurance is taxable to the employee.
  • If there is no will in place (most people don't have one, unfortunately, the partner is going to be completely by-passed if there is any estate.
  • If a husband dies, the wife is able to transfer his IRA into her own and avoid taxes. If a partner dies? The other partner may not even get the funds; if the other partner was named as a beneficiary, she would have to pay ordinary income tax on the IRA proceeds.
  • Most companies' medical care leave does not extend to partners.
  • Under current laws, "partners" are excluded from the Federal Employees Health Benefit Program.
  • COBRA laws do not require employers to provide COBRA for partners.
  • Been a stay-at-home mom? If you split, you have no inherent right to temporary alimony to get you on your feet.
  • You cannot file a joint income tax return resulting in a tax penalty.
  • Estate planning benefits are lost on a partner.
  • Unless you have a healthcare power of attorney in place? You will, in most cases, be excluded from any decision-making in case of serious illness. You may find yourself on the outside looking in as family members step up.
  • There is absolutely no guarantee that, in the case of a split, you will get an equitable property division.
  • You have no right to sue a third person for the unlawful death of your partner. (You do if you are the spouse.)

One only has to look up the rights same-sex partnerships are fighting so hard for in order to realize the importance of "that piece of paper."

"We love each other!! We don't need no stinkin' piece of paper!!" Good luck with that.
 
Well, to each their own. First, the problems of a living-together arrangement don't rear their ugly heads until it's time to not live together anymore. That "piece of paper" entitles a married couple to certain rights not available to two people deciding to live together. Here are some of the Federal protections a married couple have that aren't available to others:

  • Social Security survivor benefits
  • Many, if not most, employers don't allow someone to add a domestic partner to their health insurance; those that do? The premium paid by the employer for the partner's health insurance is taxable to the employee.
  • If there is no will in place (most people don't have one, unfortunately, the partner is going to be completely by-passed if there is any estate.
  • If a husband dies, the wife is able to transfer his IRA into her own and avoid taxes. If a partner dies? The other partner may not even get the funds; if the other partner was named as a beneficiary, she would have to pay ordinary income tax on the IRA proceeds.
  • Most companies' medical care leave does not extend to partners.
  • Under current laws, "partners" are excluded from the Federal Employees Health Benefit Program.
  • COBRA laws do not require employers to provide COBRA for partners.
  • Been a stay-at-home mom? If you split, you have no inherent right to temporary alimony to get you on your feet.
  • You cannot file a joint income tax return resulting in a tax penalty.
  • Estate planning benefits are lost on a partner.
  • Unless you have a healthcare power of attorney in place? You will, in most cases, be excluded from any decision-making in case of serious illness. You may find yourself on the outside looking in as family members step up.
  • There is absolutely no guarantee that, in the case of a split, you will get an equitable property division.
  • You have no right to sue a third person for the unlawful death of your partner. (You do if you are the spouse.)

One only has to look up the rights same-sex partnerships are fighting so hard for in order to realize the importance of "that piece of paper."

"We love each other!! We don't need no stinkin' piece of paper!!" Good luck with that.

That's true, and I'm aware of that. That's what I meant by fear. I don't see why we can't have common law marriage. You just prove that you've lived together for the required period of time.
 
I wonder what the statistics are for married versus just cohabitating couples as far as staying together after having a child.
 
That's true, and I'm aware of that. That's what I meant by fear. I don't see why we can't have common law marriage. You just prove that you've lived together for the required period of time.

Lordy, lordy. Thank goodness they don't recognize common law marriage in Illinois. That is the only reason Angel Boy Tommy is in my life. Because of all the legal rights he (and I) would have if we were legally married? We wouldn't be living together.

Of the 15 states that do recognize common law marriage, one of them only recognizes it after the death of a partner (and the Federal government, for all those protections, never recognizes a common law marriage.) Five of them only recognize CLM if the partnership was formed before 1996, 1997, 1998 and 2005 respectively. STATES THAT RECOGNIZE COMMON LAW MARRIAGE

If I were going to have children, there is no way under the sun I would have them with someone who wasn't married to me. No.Way. It's been my experience that men are generally the ones who talk about marriage only being a piece of paper. And too damned many women buy what they're selling.
 
Oh, an interesting tidbit is that you CAN be a beneficiary on your partner's life insurance policy even if you aren't married. Yet, you can't be covered under their healthcare insurance? Who comes up with these stupid rules anyway? :confused:
 
I'm fine with premarital casual sex and whatnot, but birth control should be used.

Do you know what the poverty rate in the US is for families that wait until marriage to have children and stay married? 2%.

The poverty rate for the general population is 13%, more than six times as high. Plus, children that grow up in single parent households are much more likely to end up involved in criminal activity.

I look down on people that have children outside of marriage. They are hurting their children, their families, themselves, and their country.

Also I'm an atheist so religion has nothing to do with why I believe this.

Ah sure.

Because magically - when you marry - you suddenly can do all that **** right.

LOL

That's a lie, actually . . . marriage doesn't offer much of anything in the way of ability to parent, raise, care, nurture . . . two people don't have to be married to manage. Heck - a lot of people manage just fine by theirselves.

It relies on so many other things, not necessarily your relationship.

*sigh* - says me . . . so now you see I can fantasize anyway.
 
Lordy, lordy. Thank goodness they don't recognize common law marriage in Illinois. That is the only reason Angel Boy Tommy is in my life. Because of all the legal rights he (and I) would have if we were legally married? We wouldn't be living together.

Of the 15 states that do recognize common law marriage, one of them only recognizes it after the death of a partner (and the Federal government, for all those protections, never recognizes a common law marriage.) Five of them only recognize CLM if the partnership was formed before 1996, 1997, 1998 and 2005 respectively. STATES THAT RECOGNIZE COMMON LAW MARRIAGE

If I were going to have children, there is no way under the sun I would have them with someone who wasn't married to me. No.Way. It's been my experience that men are generally the ones who talk about marriage only being a piece of paper. And too damned many women buy what they're selling.

Some women have no desire to get married. As long as my partner was legally responsible for my child (which by his name being on the birth certificate, he is), that would be all I really care about. :shrug:
 
This in no way means I'm planning on going out and having an illegitimate child. :lol: Just playing devil's advocate.
 
Some women have no desire to get married. As long as my partner was legally responsible for my child (which by his name being on the birth certificate, he is), that would be all I really care about. :shrug:

It's all about what someone's comfortable with, Chris. If it works for you (not sure if you're talking about you), then it doesn't matter what anyone else thinks. And, you're sure right. His name being on the birth certificate means that he's acknowledged paternity. And THAT brings its own list of responsibilities that fall on him. On you, too, of course; but you have the knowledge that he bears responsibility for your child(ren).

I'm kind of going by my own personal experience here. I lived with my first husband for two years before we got married. He always said, "It's only a piece of paper." It was more than that to me. He always said, "Don't ever give me an ultimatum." And I never did. I just told him I was leaving. Oops! Many happy years later as a married woman, I never regretted my decision -- or his. ;)
 
This in no way means I'm planning on going out and having an illegitimate child. :lol: Just playing devil's advocate.

Just interesting discussion. Illegitimate child. Poor lil' critter. Where'd we get THAT name?? Ha!
 
The couples that have kids before marriage but end up getting married later or at least stay together aren't the problem. I don't have any problem with that. But all too often, one parent (usually the father) leaves, and then the child is growing up in a single parent household. I've seen that happen too many times, and it breaks my heart every time.

sometimes families split up, and that sucks. however, it's still possible for single parents to do a good job. if i would have had a child with my fiancee years ago, my guess is that she still would have taken off. i would have done the best that i could. there are times when the other person just won't stay, and there's nothing you can do but to give it all that you can. a single parent household doesn't mean that you can't have a great kid who turns out well.
 
Back
Top Bottom