Marriage without children?....And divorce

[xxThe_Lebowskixx]

marriage - a life long commitment to another person

Besides tax and legal stuff, is there any reason to get married if you aren't going to have the children? What purpose does it serve? It seems like some subconscious hope that by signing a piece of paper, your feelings for each other will not change.

What are your feelings about getting divorced when you already have children? When I was a little kid, I remember how much my parents fighting bothered me. They were never divorced, but I think it would have destroyed me. I can sympathize with the argument that its better to get divorced than for the home life to be miserable, but I think people who get divorced are weak and shallow for not sucking it up and keeping it together.

[amplify]

Insurance.

[Blarg]

I don't agree. It makes a presupposition that I don't think anybody can make, and that's that a married household will always be better than one where the parents have separated. This also writes off the idea that partners who go their separate ways might not construct a healthier, happier married household by finding new partners. That just seems to be the easy way out when it comes to thinking about this kind of thing, and clings too rigidly to ideas that aren't as solid as I think everyone would probably like them to be.

It also supports the idea very strongly that divorce is a somewhat isolated event in the family history, and that if you can prevent the event, you have prevented the problems. I'd argue that it's very common for problems to take a long time to build up, and that what happens as a family works its way towards the parents getting divorced is something people can feel and suffer from for a long time. And it will continue, if not worsen, if the couple decides to stay together despite things finally reaching the situation wherein one or both partners emotionally vacates their partner. Not divorcing, in that case, prevents only one small part of the continuum of family pain, but may result in a much greater sum total of pain. It doesn't neatly cut out a tumor from otherwise healthy tissue that will regenerate good as new.

I've known people who have made each other miserable, and even some who have been vengeful towards each other. These people were not healthy together, and it wasn't healthy for the kid. The trauma to the kid is inevitable in divorce. On the other hand, it's not unlikely the kid will be spared trauma if the parents stay together. So who's the winner here? That the kid wins is iffy at best, and the parents are worse off.

I've known people who had very good relationships with both parents after the parents divorced. It just takes more willpower on the part of the parents. The man, for instance, can't just slough off taking part in the kid's life to the wife. And the wife can't take out anger and disappointment on the father, and treat the kid like a pawn. At least not successfully forever. It is possible for kids to be secure in the love of both parents, and given the time and attention of them, whether the parents are together or not.

Also, I don't think parents owe their children a duty to deny the happiness of their own lives. Not on such a basic level as who you are going to come home to every day and whether you will find love of your own. Many parents are self-centered and emotionally greedy, but being with the right partners is a happiness everyone on the planet deserves to pursue. Is it right to want your parents to be unhappy for years, maybe decades, just so you don't have to deal with your own bad feelings about them separating? On the whole, I think most people would want their parents happy, too, even if they had to be apart to be happy.

Having our parents apart can be an odd way of thinking about the relationships and how they should work, but lots of life is like that, about opening up to new possibilities we may not like at all and may be uncomfortable with, and that make us feel we deserve more than we're getting. But lots of times life doesn't, and can't, work the way we think it does or should. And then we have to adapt with whatever goodwill and inner strength we can muster, and put one foot in front of the other. Which has an element of sucking. But you can't make the world what it's not. Life just isn't some as secure as we'd like it to be. You have to make allowances for that, have a little forgiveness, and keep going.

[NT!]

i plan to get married but part of my plan is to have children, so take that FWIW.

the main reason to get married but not have children is the improved legal status that comes from it. taxes, health care issues, managing assets, etc is all simplified or improved.

the other reason is that it is a tradition, a meaningful ceremony that people participate in, much like people wear robes and walk across a stage to finish college, or bury their dead in a meaningful place and gather to commemorate their life. basically you are saying that this particular tradition is not meaningful to you, but to a lot of people it is still important.

it is also an excuse to throw an awesome party.

[Fedorfan]

[ QUOTE ]

the main reason to get married but not have children is the improved legal status that comes from it. taxes, health care issues, managing assets, etc is all simplified or improved.

the other reason is that it is a tradition, a meaningful ceremony that people participate in, much like people wear robes and walk across a stage to finish college, or bury their dead in a meaningful place and gather to commemorate their life. basically you are saying that this particular tradition is not meaningful to you, but to a lot of people it is still important.

it is also an excuse to throw an awesome party.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with the whole traditional aspect of getting married even if you and your partner don't want kids, however, couldn't you still have the whole traditional ceremony without actually getting the government involved to certify your union? Get married in costa rica or something, throw a big party, keep the government out of your private life, set up trusts and other legal financial agreements with your gf/wife, and the only real difference here is if it doesn't work out you avoid any potential nasty drawn out divorce, fighting over assets and paying lawyers lots of money.

Also as far as tax and health care benefits, i would imagine that the benefits of these for the guy, are insignificant to what on average a guy will likely have to give up if a divorce happens, and considering the divorce rates, i think it's fair to factor this in vs the benefits.

[Blarg]

I doubt that would work, especially in places where you can have common law marriages. Live with your wife for seven years and have her produce a marriage certificate from another country, and she can have the traditional her "share"/whatever she wants.

[Fedorfan]

you could be right, i haven't really looked into the legal aspects of common law marriages. I was having a conversation about this with my buddy last night over a few beers. He's in his mid twenty's like myself, only that he's been married and divorced and got burned pretty hard. Basically, even though he was the bread winner in household he gave his wife practically everything in terms of assets just to get it all over with, and be done with her.

Out of 100k in assets or so that they had in equity in their house and bank accounts, all he took was 2k to get him started in a new apartment, because he realized what a pain it would be to go threw a drawn out nasty divorce with this bitch, and he'd rather end it quickly with his sanity still somewhat intact and get a fresh start.

[Fast Food Knight]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree with the whole traditional aspect of getting married even if you and your partner don't want kids, however, couldn't you still have the whole traditional ceremony without actually getting the government involved to certify your union?

[/ QUOTE ]

But then doesn't this mean you can't reap the insurance and tax benefits?

[Lottery Larry]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I agree with the whole traditional aspect of getting married even if you and your partner don't want kids, however, couldn't you still have the whole traditional ceremony without actually getting the government involved to certify your union?

[/ QUOTE ]

But then doesn't this mean you can't reap the insurance and tax benefits?

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed- why pass up on the "benefits" that you'd get from doing so?

[slim]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't agree. It makes a presupposition that I don't think anybody can make, and that's that a married household will always be better than one where the parents have separated. This also writes off the idea that partners who go their separate ways might not construct a healthier, happier married household by finding new partners. That just seems to be the easy way out when it comes to thinking about this kind of thing, and clings too rigidly to ideas that aren't as solid as I think everyone would probably like them to be.

It also supports the idea very strongly that divorce is a somewhat isolated event in the family history, and that if you can prevent the event, you have prevented the problems. I'd argue that it's very common for problems to take a long time to build up, and that what happens as a family works its way towards the parents getting divorced is something people can feel and suffer from for a long time. And it will continue, if not worsen, if the couple decides to stay together despite things finally reaching the situation wherein one or both partners emotionally vacates their partner. Not divorcing, in that case, prevents only one small part of the continuum of family pain, but may result in a much greater sum total of pain. It doesn't neatly cut out a tumor from otherwise healthy tissue that will regenerate good as new.

I've known people who have made each other miserable, and even some who have been vengeful towards each other. These people were not healthy together, and it wasn't healthy for the kid. The trauma to the kid is inevitable in divorce. On the other hand, it's not unlikely the kid will be spared trauma if the parents stay together. So who's the winner here? That the kid wins is iffy at best, and the parents are worse off.

I've known people who had very good relationships with both parents after the parents divorced. It just takes more willpower on the part of the parents. The man, for instance, can't just slough off taking part in the kid's life to the wife. And the wife can't take out anger and disappointment on the father, and treat the kid like a pawn. At least not successfully forever. It is possible for kids to be secure in the love of both parents, and given the time and attention of them, whether the parents are together or not.

Also, I don't think parents owe their children a duty to deny the happiness of their own lives. Not on such a basic level as who you are going to come home to every day and whether you will find love of your own. Many parents are self-centered and emotionally greedy, but being with the right partners is a happiness everyone on the planet deserves to pursue. Is it right to want your parents to be unhappy for years, maybe decades, just so you don't have to deal with your own bad feelings about them separating? On the whole, I think most people would want their parents happy, too, even if they had to be apart to be happy.

Having our parents apart can be an odd way of thinking about the relationships and how they should work, but lots of life is like that, about opening up to new possibilities we may not like at all and may be uncomfortable with, and that make us feel we deserve more than we're getting. But lots of times life doesn't, and can't, work the way we think it does or should. And then we have to adapt with whatever goodwill and inner strength we can muster, and put one foot in front of the other. Which has an element of sucking. But you can't make the world what it's not. Life just isn't some as secure as we'd like it to be. You have to make allowances for that, have a little forgiveness, and keep going.

[/ QUOTE ]

1)other than if there is some kind of abuse, it is almost always better to stick it out
2)The mistake that most people make is that they think that their own happiness is dependent on finding that special someone. You can only truly be happy if you are happy yourself. If you are not, no matter who you are with will not bring happiness in the long run. Parents fight not bc they are not meant to be together, it's a lack of skill in communication and conflict resolution.

Please read below:

Myths Surrounding Children And Divorce
From Cathy Meyer,
Your Guide to Divorce Support.
FREE Newsletter. Sign Up Now!
Myths About the Effects of Divorce on Children:
In the early 1970’s, Judith Wallerstein, began to study the effects of divorce on children. She studied a group of 131 children and their families who were going through the divorce process over a period of 25 years. In her book, The Unexpected Legacy of Divorce: A 25 Year Landmark Study, published in 2000, we learn that children really aren’t “resilient” and that divorce leaves children to struggle for a life-time with the residue of a decision their parents made.
According to Ms. Wallerstein, “If the truth be told, and if we are able to face it, the history of divorce in our society is replete with unwarranted assumptions that adults have made about children simply because such assumptions are congenial to adult needs and wishes. The myths that continue to guide our divorce policies and politics today stem from these direct attitudes.”
In other words we have become a society of adults who put their own needs and happiness before the emotional well-being of their children and justify it all by buying into the myth that children are resilient or time heals all wounds.
Sponsored Links
Stop Your DivorceFix Your Marriage. Get Free Advice Immediately.MarriageMax.com
ADHD InformationFind tools, support & more for parents of children living w/ ADHDwww.adhd.ca
Child Behaviour Problems?The fastest and easiest way to get your children to listen and behave.Good-Child-Guide.com
Myth #1: If Parents Are Happy Their Children Will be Happy Also :
I’m sure you have heard someone say that if they divorce and are able to lead a happier life that their children will be happier also. The idea behind this myth is that a happy mom or dad automatically means happy children.
People who use this justification are projecting their own feelings onto their children. They are objectifying their children out of a need to find happiness for themselves without having to feel responsible for causing their children emotional pain. They are failing to understand that, though they may be unhappy, their children are probably quite content and don’t care if their parents don’t get along as long as their family is together.
When you introduce a child to the world of divorce, you are altering every aspect of their life. That kind of change is hard to adjust to for adults. Imagine what it must be like for children who are not old enough to reason and intellectualize the situation?
Fact:
Children of divorce are more aggressive toward their parents and teachers. They experience more depression, more learning difficulties and problems getting along with their peers. They are three times more likely to be referred for psychological help. They become sexually active earlier, they are more likely to produce children out of wedlock and they are three times as likely to divorce themselves or to never marry.
A child’s happiness is not dependent on their parent’s happiness. A child’s happiness stems from routine, having a home, two parents, friends to play with, school activities to be involved in and being able to count on those things being constant day in and day out.
Myth #2: The Less Animosity And Bitterness The Less Trauma :
It is true that fighting and conflict exacerbate the trauma but there are those who believe that if they are able to get along then there children will suffer no lasting negative effects from the divorce. There seems to be a universal belief that the children will end up happy and content with their new life as long as the parents aren’t fighting.
Because of this belief, we focus on the process and not the aftermath of the process. We feel that our energy should be put toward making sure things run smoothly for the children during the process and once we are beyond that we don’t have to worry about any possible negative effects on our children.
Fact:
This misguided belief is not only harmful to our children but to the adults involved in the divorce process also. Divorce, at it’s best cannot be considered an amicable process. No matter how hard we try there will be bad feelings. Most divorces are not unilateral. One or the other parent is going to feel betrayed and hurt. Those feelings will trickle down to the children no matter how hard you try to conceal them. To think that all will be fine as long as the divorce process goes off without a hitch is unwise for all involved.
According to Ms. Wallerstein,”the parent’s anger at the time of the breakup is not what matters most. Unless there was violence or abuse or high conflict, a child has dim memories of what transpired during this supposedly critical period.” What was most painful and caused the most long-term negative effects for children is the sadness of their family breaking up, the anger they were not able to express, having to adjust to one parent no longer living in the home. The loss of control over activities because of forced visitation, the loss of two full-time parents in their lives, the sadness they feel around friends from intact families. The change in the economic status that all children experience when their parent’s divorce.
It is the aftermath of divorce, not the process of divorce that does our children the most harm. Don’t buy into the belief that once the process is over all will find a happy ending. Focus not only on the process but on what needs to be done after the process to help the children and adults move forward with as little emotional harm as possible.