Should people wait until marriage to have children?

MaggieD said:

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.

Click to expand...

Lol! I KNEW you were a girl who wouldn't take any tish!

I really don't have a desire to be married. I was probably one of the only little girls who DIDN'T have dreams of white picket fences and a bunch of kids. I wanted to be a professional and live in a penthouse apartment in NY City and be a single fun-loving girl when I was younger. Yeah right! :lamo

Both yes and no for me. If it weren't for sex without marriage, I wouldn't be here to post this. I guess the correct question would be "should people have a litter of kids if they work at McDonald's?"

On a related note, I just wish people would put two ounces of thought into screwing before they do so. This is one of many cases where people don't think about risk versus reward worth a darn, thus a significant number of children are born to parents who aren't financially ready or aren't mature enough.

MaggieD said:

Just interesting discussion. Illegitimate child. Poor lil' critter. Where'd we get THAT name?? Ha!

Click to expand...

I'm sure it probably comes from one of the religions.

Interesting story. When I was born the Catholic church refused to baptize me because my parents weren't married when I was conceived, so my mother (who was brought up Catholic ALL the way) took me over to the Protestant church and had me baptized as Protestant. My parents DID get married before I was born though.

ChrisL said:

Interesting story. When I was born the Catholic church refused to baptize me because my parents weren't married when I was conceived, so my mother (who was brought up Catholic ALL the way) took me over to the Protestant church and had me baptized as Protestant. My parents DID get married before I was born though.

Click to expand...

I'm not a fan of the Catholic Church. In fact, "not a fan" is way too kind.

Mathematician said:

On a related note, I just wish people would put two ounces of thought into screwing before they do so. This is one of many cases where people don't think about risk versus reward worth a darn, thus a significant number of children are born to parents who aren't financially ready or aren't mature enough.

Click to expand...

I think it was supposed to be that way. Otherwise, no one would have kids because they would be TOO smart. :mrgreen:

MaggieD said:

I'm not a fan of the Catholic Church. In fact, "not a fan" is way too kind.

Click to expand...

Me neither. Not only was my mom a Catholic school student, but we used to live right across the street from a church. Some of the rudest people I've ever seen coming and going from that place.

Oh, and that's another VERY interesting story, guess which church it was? It was St. Mary's Church in North Attleboro, MA. I don't want to say anymore and derail the thread though. Google if you're curious though.

Sorry, I don't mean to diss anyone's religion. I know there are a LOT of good Catholics out there, my aunt is one of them. But you guys have a lot of posers too.

ChrisL said:

I think it was supposed to be that way. Otherwise, no one would have kids because they would be TOO smart. :mrgreen:

Click to expand...

Think of how much better life in society would be if only independent and responsible people had kids. Waiting until my 30's for marriage and kids paid off big time.

This all depends on the couple. My sister, for example, doesn't believe in marriage for a variety of reasons but has two kids and has been with her significant other for nearly 10 years now. I don't think of it in the terms of marriage but if you are ready to have kids.

Your birth control stat is a little biased though, generally middle class and college going girls use birth control and thus don't have kids until after marriage. On the other hand, I completely believe that this is the way it should be

Mathematician said:

Think of how much better life in society would be if only independent and responsible people had kids. Waiting until my 30's for marriage and kids paid off big time.

Click to expand...

Of course it would.

We were engaged, and planned to have a big wedding but a little over a year after our daughter was born we married. Doesn't matter as long as your adults about it. I strongly believe you need two parents though.

MaggieD said:

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.)

Click to expand...

That's all true, however unwed stay-at-home moms can collect food stamps, discounted or free school lunches, Medicaid, free babysitting services, section 8 housing vouchers and cash assistance that they wouldn't get if they were legally married to their baby daddy and had his name on the birth certificate.

Muhammed said:

That's all true, however unwed stay-at-home moms can collect food stamps, discounted or free school lunches, Medicaid, free babysitting services, section 8 housing vouchers and cash assistance that they wouldn't get if they were legally married to their baby daddy and had his name on the birth certificate.

Click to expand...

Great. If you think there are many women happy who live off the meager allowance that welfare brings them, I don't know what to tell ya'. Poverty sucks.

MaggieD said:

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.

Click to expand...

Lots of good points in your post, this is what I think

1-A divorce agreement should be drawn up before the marriage takes place
2- A marriage licence should be renewed every four years or the divorce agreement should be automatically be enforced.

To many marriages end up in divorce exposing children to their parents fighting like cats and dogs over the silverware, get it done before it happens and avoid the long drawn out battle.

If couples knew that either one could just walk away after 4 years they would try a little harder to make their partner happy, taking your partners love for granted is the best way I know to be disappointed.

Pretty much agree with the OP 100%.

MaggieD said:

Great. If you think there are many women happy who live off the meager allowance that welfare brings them, I don't know what to tell ya'.

Click to expand...

I don't think that at all.

Just pointing out the fact that for some mothers that IRA tax shelter, that social security survivors benefits and that COBRA stuff is nonexistent and therefore amounts to absolutely nothing. It's totally irrelevant to them.

If baby daddy works on cars for cash and maybe sells a bit of marijuana or slings some 'caine on the side for extra cash none of that means a thing.

ChrisL said:

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?

Click to expand...

well, there is mountains of evidence that demonstrates that it is better for the children involved - not least because marriage requires and implies a commitment that comes with (among other things) a higher level of difficulty in breaking.

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.

Click to expand...

:shrug: well, them's the stats.


of course, that's in the UK, where there are cultural differences. But it's the same in the United States:

MaggieD said:

Great. If you think there are many women happy who live off the meager allowance that welfare brings them, I don't know what to tell ya'.

Click to expand...

I have literally watched that happen in my family. My wife's sister got pregnant at 16. It was the classic tale - young minority female, daughter of a single mother, pregnant out of wedlock. We are in Okinawa, but we offered to take them in - to get her out of a losing situation where the odds were against her. She would live with us, with the baby, we would help her with baby, help her get her GED, start taking college classes, and get a job. We were going to cash in the savings we had been building to one day buy a house in order to move her over, and help her set up. But there would be no more party life, and she would go to school, and she would get a job.

She was down with it, and excited about the opportunity to turn her life around.... until the checks came in. Then she realized she would lose the money she was getting, and (and I suppose the contrast hit her), she would have to work at our house. Suddenly she preferred to stay where she was at, and we had to understand, she would have lost the money, and she was sure she could do some good stuff where she was at, anywho......

....and now her facebook posts vary between happy stuff about her baby, laughing posts about drinking, and those random little one-liners I hate when people talk to one individual by posting and blasting it out on FB (you know, when someone's status is "You know who you are and screw you!" :roll: ). She's thinking about getting a job, and is going to get one Any Day Now, but doesn't like it when you ask her how the job search is going.

Stupid decision. Her story would end better had had she come with us. But that money is a drug. It dulls the pain of poverty and by making the initial attempt to improve ones' life more painful, discourages people from ever taking it.

It's always better that way more often than not. Having children out of wedlock can make for a mess more likely than in marriage.

StillBallin75 said:

People should wait until they're ready to have children, to have children.

Click to expand...

While on it's face, that sounds reasonable, the relationship changes after a child is born.
I'd rather folks be married before they have children, so they don't jump to separate, during that stressful period.

Not to mention all the dishonest tactics people use, while in relationships like that, where the tax payer ends up footing a lot of the bills.

MaggieD said:

Great. If you think there are many women happy who live off the meager allowance that welfare brings them, I don't know what to tell ya'. Poverty sucks.

Click to expand...

Not that, you still have your SO live with you, you just report it otherwise.
That way you get the dual benefit of an income and full state aid.

There are a lot of people who do this.

Yes they should. Of course the law makes it so easy to divorce now it's almost ridicules to get married. When my wife and I got married we made an agreement that divorce for other than adultery (and even then maybe) was out of the question. We have had to work very hard at our marriage. I think this is part of the problem. People seem to think you fall in love get married and live happily ever after. What a load of poop.

Marriage and child rearing are hard work. It is something you have to be willing to work at. Something you are willing to give concessions and also cooperate with. Children make it even harder.

It is sad people today get married for the wrong reasons and have no clue what they are getting into.

This is all anecdotal on my part, but I have been married a long time and have grandchildren. I am still happily married and my kids are doing great. I had to have done something right.

I wish the OP posted a link or something to backup the poverty percentages stated. I've never heard the 2% number before and I'm interested in learning more!

I know that the state provides incentives to people to use marriage as the gateway to reproduction, such as a different set of rights and material rewards; but for the sake of argument, let's put all that aside. I want to know why some people think that the title of "married" is somehow a greater guarantee that a couple will stay together for the sake of the child? Likewise, I would like to know how absence of material poverty automatically means that a child grew up in a healthy household free of dysfunction? Of the married homes where poverty is absent, how many parents are staying together "for the child" which could actually be damaging to the growth of a child?

I put forth these examples because I don't think you can judge just from statistics that a marriage license eliminates those possibilities. Isn't it more accurate to say that people shouldn't have children until they are in a committed relationship where a supportive desire to have children is mutual? Because you can have that with or without marriage. With a divorce rate of 50% there are not just a lot of single parents out there, but also step-parents raising children. How does the philosophy of marriage before having children factor them in, considering it's a second marriage?

Marriage has a lot of benefits to society and I support them. I just think it's a little trite and convenient to boil down successfully raising a child to whether or not you're married. Being raised in heaven or hell could happen for a child under many different circumstances.