Marriage without children?....And divorce

[Lottery Larry]

[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

All things being equal, and not screwed up, then I would say that kids do better with two caring adults rather than just one, to raise the kids.

[ QUOTE ]
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

[/ QUOTE ]

To some extent, I agree. However, parents have to realize that the priority has to change, from themselves to their kids. Not 100% change, but maybe kids become 60% priority.

[Lottery Larry]

[ QUOTE ]
and am trying to figure out some way to openly discuss our disagreement without sounding like a jerk. It's hard though and I probably won't be too successful at it. My apologies, if so.

[/ QUOTE ]

I say, you can always apologize if you've come across as a jerk. let the words flow so things don't get left out and fix the holes as it goes.

[Lottery Larry]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You have to throw an expensive event which will leave you in debt for years unless you already have a sweet gig.

[/ QUOTE ]

Says who? YOU don't make your own decisions?


[/ QUOTE ]

My folks have been married for over 30 years and they just got it done in front of a judge in less than half an hour. There was no rush, they could afford better. It just seemed like a better idea to keep it easy and modest. If people can easily afford a fancy wedding, that's one thing, but it looks like they've become the norm rather than the exception. Super bad societal trend that is very financially damaging.

[/ QUOTE ]

Definately agree. Some might say that planning/managing the wedding and its afteraffects might be a good early test for how a marriage might be expected to succeed, no?



[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'd actually like to continue having sex, which the majority of my friends have said has gone down the drain after marriage.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then it sounds as if their relationship needs work, right? How does marriage have anything to do with that?

[/ QUOTE ]

Human nature. Agreed that a relationship might need work, but we might as well admit we are working against the current here. A lot about marriage is like that, but this is probably one of those things that is the most clearly biological. Even people who love each other and get along great can get tired of each other after a while. It doesn't have to be intentional or the result of ill will.

Also, having kids is a pretty severe difference in a relationship. Roles change, as well as bodies. Men sometimes have a harder time wanting to screw a "mommy" than a wife, because the roles are so different, and one of them is asexual at the very best. Women sometimes get into the role of mommy much more than they ever were into the role of wife, and some stay that way for the rest of the relationship. There are a lot of psychological adjustments both partners have to go through. And there's not as much time or freedom to keep things romantic anymore, or even sleep to refresh yourself. It's pretty natural that a couple's sex life could be derailed for quite a while after childbirth and have a hard time coming back to what they used to consider normal.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not sure if you were making a counter argument or just a statement here.


[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What we really need is a comparison of sex in marriage vs. sex in long-term relationships... for older people (as in, above 25+). Otherwise, you're probably talking apples/oranges

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
People shouldn't have to give reasons why they shouldn't get married, it's the other way around.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why? Because marriage is not something you're supposed to "want" to do? You have to be forced to do it?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, you are not being fair at all with some of your responses, and I think if you stepped back and looked at them again, you wouldn't respond like that.

[/ QUOTE ]

One, who gives a [censored] about "fair" when asking a question? Two, I intentionally phrased it that way, given the absolute nature of the "give reasons to be married" line quoted.
I'm certainly not arguing that marriage is perfect, nor that one extreme or the other is correct or realistic. I just thought the point needed to be countered a bit



[ QUOTE ]
It's because marriage is, of course, a huge commitment, even one intended to be lifelong, and can affect not just the parties but can result in children who can also be affected by how smart a decision it was between two particular people to undertake marriage. You should always have very well-considered reasons to do something of anything near that kind of importance.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course I agree here. My questions are:

1) Doesn't a long-term relationship that is NOT going to be turned into a marriage take the same careful thought (maybe even more so)?

2) There seems to be an idea the marriage is the same thing as a prison sentence, one that no man would enter into voluntarily. My rejoining question would be "If you are involved with someone, more than casually, and you would never get married, shouldn't you be required to give reasons why?"

As reasons such as "I might get divorced" or "It might cost me money" are so pathetic as to be rejected outright, imo.

Complicating this is the whole "kids without marriage" fact that, with certain caveats, men in general have a much easier time washing their hands of a relationship and their kids than women do.

Primarily, until we legally require men to be a parent, rather than a sperm and money donor, for a kid's developmental period, I'm less willing to listen to men whine about marriage being a raw deal.

[RoundGuy]

[ QUOTE ]
- I wouldn't have married my wife, except she and I wanted kids and it was necessary, in my opinion to get married to do so.

[/ QUOTE ]
This, as rewritten, is absolutely correct. Without kids, I believe living together is the more logical option than marriage.

[ QUOTE ]
- I wouldn't get married at all, if I wasn't continuing my biological line

[/ QUOTE ]
This makes the most sense to me, for purely rational reasons.

[ QUOTE ]
- If, for some reason, my biological line couldn't be consummated in this marriage, we'd possibly divorce if it became clear that our diverse interests in life conflicted with the marriage, and prevented us from being truly happy

[/ QUOTE ]
Problems with this, as rewritten?

[ QUOTE ]
- If my kids would die, I would just as likely get divorced as not...meaning, my relationship with my wife over 23 years may not be enough to keep us together. Without kids, we might make the mutual decision to move on.

[/ QUOTE ]
Correct, as rewritten.

[ QUOTE ]
Props to you for being honest and open...

[/ QUOTE ]
I appreciate that. I just wish I could write things in a way that doesn't come off as being a cold-hearted dick.

[Blarg]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why would you even dream about getting married then?

[/ QUOTE ]
We wanted to start a family. We dated for four years. The fruits of true love were in place, we enjoyed each others company, and we knew that kids were an intregal part of the picture. My wife was not pregnant when we married. Our first child came 4 years later.

I don't get what you're not understanding here. Feel free to ask more questions. I respect your views and opinions, and I am not averse to the idea that my thinking is questionable. Enlighten me. [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

I was with Blarg here- I figured I had to be misinterpreting what you were trying to say, because of the medium, because it came across as very cold.

But, your followup here translates, to me, as the following:

- I wouldn't have married my wife, except she and I wanted kids and it was convenient to get married to do so.

- I wouldn't get married at all, if I wasn't continuing my biological line

- If, for some reason, my biological line couldn't be consummated in this marriage, I'd most likely divorce my wife (adoption, other options are not options)

- If my kids would die, I would just as likely get divorced as not...meaning, my relationship with my wife over 23 years isn't keeping us together. Without kids, I'd probably move on.


You're not a Vulcan, are you? :P

Props to you for being honest and open on this board... I'm just a little confused/stunned about your evaluation.

not saying that you are unique or anything, just that few people are willing to put this so baldly... usually I'm the one getting grief for that

[/ QUOTE ]

What he said.

[Blarg]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

All things being equal, and not screwed up, then I would say that kids do better with two caring adults rather than just one, to raise the kids.

[ QUOTE ]
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

[/ QUOTE ]

To some extent, I agree. However, parents have to realize that the priority has to change, from themselves to their kids. Not 100% change, but maybe kids become 60% priority.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can still have them as a priority without having a very particular way of raising them be an absolute.

That goes with the idea that caring about your kids is enough to provide them a good environment. I think it's nowhere close.

[Blarg]

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
It's because marriage is, of course, a huge commitment, even one intended to be lifelong, and can affect not just the parties but can result in children who can also be affected by how smart a decision it was between two particular people to undertake marriage. You should always have very well-considered reasons to do something of anything near that kind of importance.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course I agree here. My questions are:

1) Doesn't a long-term relationship that is NOT going to be turned into a marriage take the same careful thought (maybe even more so)?


[/ QUOTE ]

Of course. One would hope reason is brought to bear on as many life decisions as possible.

[ QUOTE ]
2) There seems to be an idea the marriage is the same thing as a prison sentence, one that no man would enter into voluntarily. My rejoining question would be "If you are involved with someone, more than casually, and you would never get married, shouldn't you be required to give reasons why?"


[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed, for reason noted above.

[ QUOTE ]
As reasons such as "I might get divorced" or "It might cost me money" are so pathetic as to be rejected outright, imo.


[/ QUOTE ]

Don't agree. Losing half your stuff is one thing. If you're a kid or 30, it's a lot easier financially than if you're 40 or 50, especially if you've already been through that once.
I think prenups are often a great idea.

On the "I might get divorced," everyone should consider that going in, it seems to me. It's not like divorce is uncommon. This is why I think no woman who marries should let her career options or aspirations completely die out. Your husband could get hit by a bus, or he could divorce you, or you could divorce him, or it could be mutual. Who knows what is going to happen in this life? A woman coming out of a divorce at 40 with job skills 15 or 20 years outdated is in a tough place, especially if she has children to take care of.

Worse in some ways, not having job skills makes a woman very vulnerable to a man. She is far more likely to stay with an abusive man or in a loveless relationship when it's the only sensible economic alternative. I don't feel women should give up that much power in their lives. Life is too long for that. There's too much time for things to go wrong, and too much time to get older while your skills get out of date or go undeveloped.

Also, another scary thing is that it's much harder to learn new things at 40 and 50 than it is in your 20's.

If I had a daughter, I would hopefully find a good way to tell her, "Being dependent on a man puts you in a tough spot. Try to stay active and always be able to take care of yourself in case one day he's gone."

[ QUOTE ]
Complicating this is the whole "kids without marriage" fact that, with certain caveats, men in general have a much easier time washing their hands of a relationship and their kids than women do.

Primarily, until we legally require men to be a parent, rather than a sperm and money donor, for a kid's developmental period, I'm less willing to listen to men whine about marriage being a raw deal.

[/ QUOTE ]

This sounds a bit like the archaic days when divorce was illegal. And it sounds like you're dividing people into saints and sinners. Many men find they have little choice when it comes to remaining emotionally attached, because of the vindictiveness of their partner and of the manipulation of their children that characterize so very many divorces.

[Blarg]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
- I wouldn't have married my wife, except she and I wanted kids and it was necessary, in my opinion to get married to do so.

[/ QUOTE ]
This, as rewritten, is absolutely correct. Without kids, I believe living together is the more logical option than marriage.


[/ QUOTE ]

I just don't see why you would marry someone you said you only had puppy love for at the time, when it sounded like that was apparent to you at the time. I don't understand marrying someone just to have children, that you don't really have a deep relationship with.

Correction -- I can see doing it if you are trying to keep an inheritance from being taken away or something. Even so, it may be vastly closer to the norm for people in that peculiar situation, but is hardly a situation that would be workable or wise for others, who just want to give their kids the best chance of growing up in a stable and loving household.

[RoundGuy]

[ QUOTE ]
I just don't see why you would marry someone you said you only had puppy love for at the time, when it sounded like that was apparent to you at the time. I don't understand marrying someone just to have children, that you don't really have a deep relationship with.

[/ QUOTE ]
Hmmm. We may be getting somewhere here. I think our definitions of "love" (true, deep, abiding love) and "deep relationship" may be quite different.

I dated my wife for four years before we were married, and I still called it "puppy-love". Why? Because we had never spent 24-hours / 7-days a week together. I think we went on one family vacation together where she spent as much time with my sister as she did me. How can you possibly know you have an abiding love under these circumstances? How can you develop a deep relationship with someone without living with them 24/7? Do you really understand someone, completely, even after four years of dating?

My wife and I love each other deeply, but it didn't happen overnight. Any couple who thinks they are truly in love after a year or so of dating are fooling themselves. It may happen, but it isn't the norm. Divorce rates prove that.

How long do you think it takes to develop a true, deep, abiding love for another person (other than immediate family)? If you say less than 5 years of almost constant contact, then I can understand why we are having trouble communicating.

[iambusto]

I still am confused about issue of some posters saying "marriage is primarily about having children"..how so? Children are benefited by having them in a marriage. True. But marriage is about you and your partner. Children come later.

I am going to be married to my fiancee in 2 months. We dont want to have any kids, ever. Still my fiancee wants to get married. Not because of a lavish ceremony. She is one of the most frugal person I have known (i mean she wants to do bare minimum things for the marriage since we are going to be paying for it).

Now before someone says, well maybe because she wants to feel financially secure when we are married. Somewhat true. Now we already have signed our prenup and she waived her rights to my house, my retirement plans, my roth IRA and my salary during our marriage. that means even after marriage whatever i contribute to any of the previous assets she wont have any claim in that despite the laws of california that creates a community property share by virtue of marriage.

so back to the original issue. some women just want to get married. it has nothing to do with kids. maybe its social conditioning, maybe its romantic notion about marriage whatever. I could stay with her without marrying her but i am marrying her because I love her and respect her wishes/desire to be married.