|
Post by jassy on May 14, 2016 12:19:03 GMT
I realize by writing this I may be opening a can of worms, and will probably sound like I'm 150 years old, but this is the place to discuss and get a variety of opinions and insight.
At least in my neck of the woods, there seems to be a trend of getting engaged, getting pregnant and then getting married at a later time. Actually, I feel like I've seen this a lot on various wedding shows and it's clearly been the celebrity way of doing things for a while.
I guess I just don't understand it. There's a declared intention of getting married first so it doesn't seem to be a matter of people not wanting to "get a piece of paper" It doesn't seem like all these situations can be "oopsie" situations either. IMO, having a baby together is a FAR bigger commitment than getting married in that your lives are bound together forever, so it can't be a fear of permanent commitment issue.
One mom soon-to-be-bride talked almost instantly upon getting pregnant that she was so excited to have a baby to dress up and participate in the wedding. I mean that's not the big reason right?
Practically speaking it seems like it would be easier/make more sense to get married first.
|
|
|
Post by anxiousmom on May 14, 2016 12:32:14 GMT
Here is my old lady personal opinion. I am almost 50 (so children wouldn't be in the equation for me) I wouldn't jump to getting married again. The relationship, the commitment, all of that? Sure, but getting married for the sake of the relationship wouldn't be something that I would have to have. I was married, I had children-but that 'piece of paper' didn't make the commitment stronger, we still ended up divorced. There were some legal protections for me, but as far as the children were concerned, their legal standing is pretty much a given.
I guess, and maybe this is the hippie dippie in me, but I don't think that getting married automatically makes the bond between two people stronger.
Now, as for young people having babies so they have living doll babies? That, I have trouble with and think it is serious maturity issue.
|
|
|
Post by freecharlie on May 14, 2016 12:47:02 GMT
Are you sure they weren't pregnant before being engaged?
I think sometimes people relax with the birth control after engagement
|
|
grinningcat
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,663
Jun 26, 2014 13:06:35 GMT
|
Post by grinningcat on May 14, 2016 12:48:03 GMT
I"m not sure I see the issue. Lots of people have babies and then get married. Some people get engaged and then find out their pregnant. Some people find out they are pregnant and never get married. I guess I don't understand why the order matters.
|
|
AnotherPea
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 2,968
Jan 4, 2015 1:47:52 GMT
|
Post by AnotherPea on May 14, 2016 12:55:01 GMT
I don't understand it either, but it isn't a new thing. Maybe it's that the demographics of the people choosing this have changed?
Waaaay back when I was engaged, I met two other young women that were seriously dating guys I knew. They both said that as soon as they got engaged, they were going to start trying for kids. I questioned them on it, and they looked at me like I was crazy to ask. Duh! if you want kids, you start as soon as possible for them. There was no shame in early pregnancy if you were already engaged! I didn't understand it then and I don't understand it now. Why not just go ahead and get married as soon as you're engaged? Because it takes time to plan a wedding, silly! These women were friends of my fiance's best friend. Neither of them graduated from high school, both of them were on public assistance, both of them had multiple half-siblings - not the typical nuclear family I knew. Meanwhile, my best friend accidentally gets pregnant while engaged and her family, ward and neighborhood shuns her. She was raised in that nuclear family where families were built in a certain order. Totally different upbringings. FWIW, one of the first women became a really good friend and her philosophy has radically changed as she's gotten older. She's commented on the same trend and we've seen it with a lot of people we know.
I personally think you're foolish to have a child without a husband. Those suckers can be exhausting! I need a partner in raising mine. I also believe that sharing a kid is a bigger commitment than sharing a last name. So I just don't get the reasoning.
|
|
|
Post by bostonmama on May 14, 2016 12:55:06 GMT
I'm old fashioned. I like seeing a pregnancy happen after the wedding. I don't judge when it happens in a different order, but I'm just being honest.
|
|
|
Post by jamielynn on May 14, 2016 13:15:04 GMT
I'm really old fashioned for being young and see this a lot or just babies even without engagement in my area.
I know if we were to have done this, financially we'd be far better off. I could qualify for childcare and child tax breaks on my own in my state but there is a max we hit as a married couple and don't qualify for either.
If I were to file taxes with just my child I'd get back equal to what we get as a couple with a child get back - but my husband on his own would get a whole lot more back filing single on his income too.
Sadly a few of the women I know of openly speak how they also qualify for state healthcare that is low/no cost for themselves and child/kids and the cost of having a baby on it is very low. They also talk about how in our state it provides them with car seats too so they don't have to buy those either. (We know the spouses well and buying a car seat wouldn't be a hardship).
It kind of disgusts me the financial penalties to being married and having a child in some cases. Then the women who are with partners for years, living together, staying home to raise kids (thus openly speaking of claiming no income) then getting social assistance programs and tons and tons and tons back on taxes from doing it "that way."
I say this as in passing they speak of it.
I think ultimately there can be a lot of financial benefits to couples going that route - and I wonder if celebrities have tax benefits to not being married.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 21, 2024 5:52:56 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on May 14, 2016 13:18:44 GMT
I'm old fashioned. I like seeing a pregnancy happen after the wedding. I don't judge when it happens in a different order, but I'm just being honest. This is me as well.
|
|
|
Post by kelbel827 on May 14, 2016 13:19:42 GMT
I don't see a big deal. I am a single mom. Never married. I have no plans to get married. If I were looking for a permanent relationship, what is more permanent than a biological bond. In my opinion that is way bigger than a legal document. As for needing a partner to raise a child. It's way over rated and I would do it alone in a heartbeat.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 21, 2024 5:52:56 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on May 14, 2016 13:31:57 GMT
I guess I don't understand why you need to understand it.
Being married is not the be all and end all in any situation, it doesn't protect you from anything. If people want to have babies then get married, have babies never get married or get married and never have babies what does it matter really?
|
|
|
Post by librarylady on May 14, 2016 13:37:05 GMT
I like the old order also (marriage, then baby)
My step son and his now wife had two children (and were living together) before marrying. He had goofy reasons why the were not getting married. Finally, when the oldest was 6, she told him to either marry her or move on down the road. So, within a week they were married.
Regarding: "It is just a paper, my commitment does not need a paper." That may be true, but the legal doors are shut unless there is marriage involved. Usually it is the woman who suffers when those legal papers are not there. Example: deeds to homes, legal decisions involving health care, property ownership etc.
I know of at least one case where the "wife" could not make the funeral arrangements because they were not legally married. His mother had to handle everything.
Old fashioned idea, I guess, but if you love her enough to want to have a baby with her, then give her the respect of legal documentation.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 21, 2024 5:52:56 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on May 14, 2016 13:38:17 GMT
I think sometimes people relax with the birth control after engagement I think this happens most of the time.
|
|
|
Post by librarylady on May 14, 2016 13:41:16 GMT
I guess I don't understand why you need to understand it. Being married is not the be all and end all in any situation, it doesn't protect you from anything. If people want to have babies then get married, have babies never get married or get married and never have babies what does it matter really? In states where the laws are "community property" it does matter. No marriage = "wife" has no claim to any property if the man passes. When my stepson and his now wife were just living together, he was in the military. He and the child could have health care coverage, the wife could not. Wife could not shop at the military store, nor take advantage of the things the military offered families. When he was in the hospital, she was not considered family for visiting etc.
|
|
|
Post by melanell on May 14, 2016 13:55:54 GMT
I agree with the comments about relaxing the birth control. Especially if they want to start a family right away. I think that with infertility and fertility issues being something that seems more an more prevalent, that some couples may automatically think that conceiving may take awhile, so they don't expect to become pregnant as soon as they stop using birth control.
And I think that many couples simply don't care if the baby comes before the wedding. They may view the engagement as equal to marriage in terms of commitment. Some weddings take a long time to save for or plan for, and they just don't want to wait for the other things they want, like the home, or the family.
I don't really care in what order other people live their lives. There are plenty of people who opt to have children without any plans of marriage at all. Marriage just isn't as pressing a matter for many people. So it doesn't matter if and when it happens.
|
|
scrappinmama
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,884
Jun 26, 2014 12:54:09 GMT
|
Post by scrappinmama on May 14, 2016 14:29:12 GMT
It doesn't bother me. I would hope that they are mature, financial stable and committed in a happy relationship. What I don't like is the whole "we're together, we're broken up, we're together" cycle. Why bring a baby into that mess?
|
|
gsquaredmom
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,078
Jun 26, 2014 17:43:22 GMT
|
Post by gsquaredmom on May 14, 2016 14:42:00 GMT
I won't comment on morality or whatever. People live their lives the way they choose. I am weird in my family in that I don't care.
I WILL say that there is generally more legal protection and precedent for status in various situations for married people in all kinds of things. I did marry first and waited a few years to have kids. I know people who did the same and I know people who had babies first or who never married. Those who are not married have usually drawn up all kinds of papers (medical POA, wills, etc) to accomplish the same thing as marriage. All good.
|
|
|
Post by padresfan619 on May 14, 2016 14:51:07 GMT
I have married friends who were together for years before they got pregnant. I'm talking they started dating at 15 and got pregnant at 30. Marriage was never a priority for them, they bought a house together and decided to start a family. It wasn't until after they got pregnant that they suddenly decided they should get married, but if they hadn't have gone through with it they would still be considered common law married since they had lived together for so long.
It doesn't matter to me what people do, if they want to go the traditional route or not. As long as they are happy and the child is in a safe and loving home a marriage license doesn't matter, to me.
|
|
|
Post by 5peanutsnana on May 14, 2016 15:02:49 GMT
You forgot the part about the dog or cat. It seems that is the first part of the equation after becoming a couple. At least that is the case with most young couples I know, and I know quite a few, including 20 nieces and nephews. Doesn't bother me at all what sequence the events occur. It was just much simpler back in the Dark Ages when I got married, 49 years ago.
|
|
GiantsFan
Prolific Pea
Posts: 8,295
Site Supporter
Jun 27, 2014 14:44:56 GMT
|
Post by GiantsFan on May 14, 2016 15:10:02 GMT
It doesn't matter to me what people do, if they want to go the traditional route or not. As long as they are happy and the child is in a safe and loving home a marriage license doesn't matter, to me.
|
|
|
Post by crazy4scraps on May 14, 2016 15:10:34 GMT
I'm somewhat old fashioned too. I have several nieces that had children before/without being married, one of them had two kids with the same guy and as far as I know they're not engaged and she has no intention of marrying him. Her reasoning was, "Well, if the relationship goes south I won't have to divorce him." Okay, fine, but then WHY have multiple children with this person if that's even a thought in your head? She had the first kid when she was about 23, so age wasn't a factor like it sometimes can be. By having his kids, she is already choosing to have this person in her life basically forever anyway so why not give herself that added bit of protection in the event that her partner dies unexpectedly, is hospitalized, she is hospitalized, etc.? He works in construction, so there is a slightly better than average risk that something could happen to him on the job compared to if he worked a desk job doing something. Even after the children are grown, that other person is going to be involved for graduations, weddings, grandchildren, etc. Basically any major event that happens in those kids' lives, she's going to have to deal with the other parent, so no matter what they're still going to be in and around her life so what's the difference? I can totally understand that being with someone and not being married makes it easier to part ways and walk away if you don't have kids together. But once there are kids in the mix, everything gets a whole lot more complicated. One of DD's little friends has 20-something parents who are not together now and have never been married. The little girl lives with her dad and his parents, the mom lives somewhere else and has moved several times in the past two years. It really has seemed to complicate things for their family a great deal, and that poor little girl caught in the middle has had some ongoing emotional issues as the result of all that turmoil.
|
|
|
Post by epeanymous on May 14, 2016 15:14:54 GMT
I have a lot of friends who have done this, mostly couples in their 30s. I can actually explain it to you pretty easily-- they were always planning to get married, at the point at which they planned to have kids, and announced an engagement when they stopped using birth control and started trying to get pregnant. In other words, they were committed to having a marriage and raising kids in it, but weren't that fixed on the timing -- many of them had medical histories that made them think pregnancy could take a while, or thought that because they were in their late 30s, e.g., that it might take a while due to age -- there are probably people you know who got married and got pregnant afterwards who were on this plan, but didn't get pregnant prior to the wedding.
Honestly, my feeling is that what is important is having a stable, healthy, secure home for kids where, if there are two adults in it, those two adults are committed to having a good relationship. Given how many households I know that are headed by a married couple that had babies after marriage where those adults do not have a healthy relationship, the marriage-pregnancy order doesn't register for me as an issue of anything other than traditional propriety.
|
|
|
Post by miominmio on May 14, 2016 15:43:59 GMT
I really couldn't care less if a couple get pregnant before they get married or if they don't get married at all (I know a couple who have been together for 25 years, four kids together and a grandkid). Marriage isn't that important neither socially nor legally here. If someone wants to get married, that's up to them, and very few people have any opinion on if marriage should come before kids or not. If you are living together with your child's other parent, you won't get any benefits as a single parent. (Norway was also the first country in Europe to give children born out of wedlock the same right to inherit as children born from married parents (1915)). And in the old farming culture, it was preferred that the women was pregnant before the marriage, so you knew that she could produce the necessary next generation (Norway still has laws regarding who can inherit a farm, dating back to pre-Christian times, so the continuation of the family has always been important).
|
|
|
Post by refugeepea on May 14, 2016 15:50:40 GMT
Here is my old lady personal opinion. I am almost 50 (so children wouldn't be in the equation for me) I wouldn't jump to getting married again. The relationship, the commitment, all of that? Sure, but getting married for the sake of the relationship wouldn't be something that I would have to have. And I was raised LDS and I obeyed the rules. Even waited until my wedding night. What was messed up was the very short dating and engagement time. All because you had to be chaste when you got married. If the marriage was outside of the temple, it was frowned upon and people talked. When what is really important is knowing your husband. REALLY knowing if you are compatible and not counting on the fact that just because you are married in the temple, your marriage will last longer. Yes, a building is supposed to make the difference.
|
|
|
Post by gar on May 14, 2016 15:52:54 GMT
OP, I'd suggest that you don't 'get it' because it's outside your norm. It's not what feels right - to you. Times change and the way of doing things in a different order isn't wrong, just different. A new norm, other people's norm.
|
|
georgiapea
Drama Llama
Posts: 6,846
Jun 27, 2014 18:02:10 GMT
|
Post by georgiapea on May 14, 2016 17:07:59 GMT
Well, it would be nice but in 3 generations of my family it hasn't worked out that way so I'm in no position to judge.
|
|
StephDRebel
Drama Llama
Posts: 6,666
Location: Ohio
Jul 5, 2014 1:53:49 GMT
|
Post by StephDRebel on May 14, 2016 17:18:26 GMT
I guess I don't understand why you need to understand it. Being married is not the be all and end all in any situation, it doesn't protect you from anything. If people want to have babies then get married, have babies never get married or get married and never have babies what does it matter really? In states where the laws are "community property" it does matter. No marriage = "wife" has no claim to any property if the man passes. When my stepson and his now wife were just living together, he was in the military. He and the child could have health care coverage, the wife could not. Wife could not shop at the military store, nor take advantage of the things the military offered families. When he was in the hospital, she was not considered family for visiting etc. The child has commissary privilege, I have it on behalf of my child and haven't been married to his father since 2000
|
|
anniebygaslight
Drama Llama
I'd love a cup of tea. #1966
Posts: 7,394
Location: Third Rock from the sun.
Jun 28, 2014 14:08:19 GMT
|
Post by anniebygaslight on May 14, 2016 17:34:09 GMT
No big deal to me.
|
|
|
Post by jeremysgirl on May 14, 2016 17:48:28 GMT
For the most part I don't care what people do. I think it's best for children to have intact families whenever possible. With that said I am divorced from my kids dad so I know there are perfectly valid reasons for not having an intact family. The only part that bothers me is when people live together instead of getting married so they can work the system. DH's ex wife is like this. She has been living with a man who completely takes care of her. She does not work. Yet she gets a bunch of government assistance because she is single without a job. It seems to me there should be better controls in place for people who milk the system.
|
|
|
Post by CarolT on May 14, 2016 18:06:00 GMT
I have no strong feelings about this, although I did follow the "traditional" route (engagement> marriage>children). Heck, I remember a time when people mentally started counting months when babies were born before the first anniversary.
It's interesting to me that this does seem to be happening more frequently, as there seem to be more and more over-the-top weddings.
|
|
|
Post by boatymcboatface on May 14, 2016 18:20:55 GMT
I think the biggest reason I would encourage my kids to wait a while to start having babies is because it was nice for my husband and me to have some time just us as a couple before we were parents too. people do this all different ways and that's okay even if I am a traditionalist and would rather my kids wait for marriage to have sex. It's not my job to judge, my life path has had enough challenges that I can't say to anyone else about what they do with their lives. Not like it was easier this way anyway, it just was nice to have those years together. We had something together before we were raising children and I hope we will have something after the nest is empty too.
|
|