Are you against having kids before marriage?

[mellsoll01]

Against it

I don't mind

[nightdrot]

It is a two part answer. In terms of the data, it is a very bad idea. However, having said that, my girlfriend and I have lived together for 11 years and have three children together. They bring me more happiness and love than I ever imagined possible and in that sense I had to vote "no."

In terms of the former, and as a guy who works in politics, the data are not in doubt. Children raised in a home where both parents are present and in a loving relationship tend to thrive. Their grades are better. They are far less likely to get in trouble in school or with the law. They are more likely to finish high school and college and get good jobs. In turn, they are more likely to form stable relationships and be good parents themselves. (Also, they will be more likely to wait till after marriage to have sex and start a family.)

That is why the collapse of the traditional family has been such a problem. An eye popping 40% of all children - that is ALL children, not just minorities or other such demographic groups that might be disadvantaged - are born out of wedlock. Suffice to say, the long term implications of that for society are grim.

In the past, at least, there was a network of community, civic, charitable and church groups that could at least help to fill in the gap to some degree. However, these too, in what is something of a "chicken or the egg" phenomenon, are in decline. Government, while it is good at writing checks and thereby alleviating some of the economic effects of out of wedlock births, is awful at substituting for a traditional family.

So the net result is grim and apt to be grimmer still as time wears on. The idea had caught on in the 1960s and 70s that the traditional family was oppressive to the individual - especially women - and that men were not that important to the raising of children. Turns out that evolution and historical experience knew better and now the society is left to try to put Humpty-Dumpty back together again.

Having said all that, my girlfriend and I have lived together for over a decade. We have three children, the first two were unplanned pregnancies. The third - my little princess - was planned. They are the center of my universe and we are a happy healthy little family - although my oldest does seem to live by the motto, "Why walk around obstacles when you can just walk through them?" (We are pretty sure he was the first second grader to join the Marines.)

That said, we are pretty much the traditional family in every respect save the wedding ring. My girlfriend and I are both college educated with good jobs. We also are lucky in that we can work from home when needed and thus provide parental guidance pretty much around the clock. (Save of course when my oldest goes on deployment, but hey, it's his patriotic duty. Yes, that was a joke. He's a good little guy and loves his younger brother and sister.)

In the case of my girlfriend and I, we just decided that we did not want to be married. It was odd given that we are both pretty traditional but somehow, when we talked about it, the idea of a pricey ring, an elaborate ceremony and a permission slip from the state would diminish made what my girlfriend share. (As to the religious aspect - we are Catholic - I have to admit that we have never fully reconciled that in our minds.)

Also, truth in advertising, before I met my girlfriend I got two other women pregnant. One never told me after having a miscarriage and I only found out literally years later. The other had an abortion without telling me. It remains the single most painful thing in my life and I miss and love so much that baby I never knew.

CONT.

[nightdrot]

So, a checkered past for me and - brutal honesty - it is not impossible that I might have another child out there of which I am unaware. All I can say is that if I do, and ever found out, I would love and care for that child as much as I do my other three. Going back to when I was 16 and thought I might have gotten my then girlfriend pregnant - I hadn't - I always thought that if I fathered a child, I would step up to the plate.

At 16 that was my instinct. Now it is a firm conviction and I trust I have lived that conviction. My girlfriend tells me that I am a good father. All I can say is that I love my girlfriend and my children more than anything and I would give my life to protect them if it came to that.

So, to some degree, I am the statistical blip in the curve, so to speak. If that could be made to work reliably and consistently, society would not have a problem. However, society has developed institutions like marriage for a reason, They are not mere affectations and ornaments, but are critical to maintaining stability and protecting children and we tear them down at our peril - individual and collective.

So, my own actions notwithstanding, put me down for a "No." There are exceptions to the rule, but we make the rules by the norm and not by the exception to the norm.

[nightdrot]

P. S. Quick clarification - I misread your poll slightly. Voted "No." but that was to the idea of having children before marriage. Technically, as you wrote the question, I would have voted "Yes." Very sorry. My mistake.

That said, given how my life has worked out, in terms of the question as posed, "No" was the answer that works for me personally.

[OlderAndWiser]

Marriage does not guarantee the stability of a relationship but when a partner is wiling to commit themselves to marriage, it tells me that they feel committed to staying together and making the relationship work. Children should have a stable home with a father and a mother. Again, there are no guarantees, but I think that being born into a stable marriage gives a child the best chance for success. Under the usual circumstances, couples should wait at least two years after their marriage to have children. That will give them time to become accustomed to each other and the marital relationship, and they will have a good idea whether their relationship has a good chance of being permanent. Finally, they should never have a child for the purpose of trying to hold together a bad relationship; that almost never works and is very unfair to the child.

[MsElizabeth96]

I Think you've explained it pretty well here

[xkildy]

I agree 💯 well said , nothing is a sure thing. But if your married them and you waited for at least 2 years before putting a baby in there then your chances are a lot higher then others. Cause at this point your marriage is more solid you have nearly worked out all the kinks and your happy with each other (still) so many people think get pregnant on wedding night but that's never once been a good idea so what is your married.. we have lived together for years now it's official they say I knew of 2 couples that had kids together and then got married and it failed within months now the kids are in a mixed home both farther and mother sperated.

[OlderAndWiser]

Thanks for MHO!

[Anonymous]

I was against it before but not so much now. What I think is better though is the couple having the baby be in a stable good relationship whether they be married or not. . I don't want to go back to the old days were women felt it was better to hide their pregnancy or go to shady abortion clinics that could be life threatening.

I'm for using double birth control to protect against unwanted pregnancies and the man needs to be an active participant in that even if he has to carry around a condom and spermicide and not depend on the woman to be diligent about birth control.

[AuroraRoseat]

Lol. Personally? I'm not having kids ever so yes.

For others? Marriage isn't for everyone and can sometimes make relationships worse. I'm not going to judge people who want to have babies whenever. It's not my life. I feel like a lot of people shouldn't have them (my step-sister for instance because she is completely stupid. She is the epitome of the retarded judgmental liberal and I'm liberal myself) but it's not my place to tell them or try to restrict them. It's an opinion.

[Holy_Ghost_Fire]

You might. You never know what the future holds.

[AuroraRoseat]

I really hope not but you’re right. It could change.

[Holy_Ghost_Fire]

That or you could have them against your will and be in a year long coma and give birth and not be aware if it.

A good question that I can ask g@g is if coma patients have pregnancies where birth comes during their coma. Like giving birth during a coma.

[Emmalouise03]

I mean I'm not against it... But it's not like that's the ideal for me? I would like to get married then have kids of course... But it doesn't have to be that way though, I don't know why but I'd feel safer if I had kids before marriage because I don't want to feel trapped in case he's a bad guy anyway.. I don't know it's scary

[CherryRoseChampange]

I'm not against it, I feel like I may not always want to get married and it's not a guaranteed thing. I rather worry about having a family when I'm financially able and in a good romantic situation.

[Apple1996]

No, I did it and it worked out

[MoAli]

do you live with him or you are a single mom?

[Apple1996]

@MoAli I married him and now we have two kids

[SongBird3]

But it worked out because you ended up getting married. What if you guys broke up?

[Apple1996]

@SongBird3 I still would have been happy, I love my son and I can't imagine life without him

[abc3643]

Absolutely against it and it has nothing to do with religious grounds.

It has to do with maturity and taking personal responsibility.

If you don't have the maturity and fortitude to take on the commitment of marriage then you don't have the necessary maturity and fortitude to take on being a parent which is considerably harder and permanent.

A man needs to prove that he will be there for the mother and child and he does that by getting married to the mother - preferrably BEFORE the child is born. The mother should hold him to that BEFORE she has his child.

Look at the countless "I fucked up my life because my baby daddies keep moving on. What should I do?'

KEEP YOUR FUCKING LEGS CLOSED NOW AND GET MARRIED FIRST.

Women should married to and have children with MEN, NOT BOYS. Men are willing to put their money where their mouth is, so to speak. Men get married. Men understand what it's like to be a boy - the reckless selfish behavior especially when it comes to insecure young women craving love and attention. This is why men (and fathers and brothers) are protective of the women in their family and would prefer their females to marry men - not boys - and have children in the security of marriage.

[art84]

My brother had two kids with his ex girlfriend and they had lots of problems with consistent arguing and fighting. If they had gotten married which they came close to, they probably would have gotten divorced. With his new girlfriend he didn't get married until after he had a daughter and another on the way. My parents forced him as it didn't look right to be living with someone. Now he's happily married with his wife and 2 boys from a previous relationship and two girls from his new one.

I myself wouldn't have children before marriage. I would get married first then have children later.

[GuidoThePizzaMaker]

A child needs 2 parents to have the best life possible
Marriage ensures that both parents around, thats why it was created, and thats why it is a useful institution
Now only if people werent so quick to divorce. And realized marriage is about doing things for other people.

[Kunxter]

I have never really understood that kids-after-marriage thing. Why would you wait if you want kids? What changes after marriage? You're both still the same people with the same personalities and everything as you were before marriage. For me, it's just a "paper". Plus the annoying ring on your finger all the time.
And in case you both start being annoyed by each other over time, it's easier to just break up than to divorce.
I know it's all traditional and required by some societies and everything, but I say, if you want to have kids, have them when you want to and not when the society wants you to have them.

[MsElizabeth96]

The reason is because it's easier to raise kids as a couple than as a single parent. Why make the commitment of having kids when you're not even willing to commit to the person you're having them with?

[Kunxter]

Yeah, I agree with you but you're ralking about whether to have children as a single parent or as a couple.
I didn't say "be a single parent". I just said I considered MARRIAGE unnecessary. People can live together and raise children as a couple even when they are not married. When two people are not married that doesn't mean they are not willing to make a commitment, don't love each other, or can't live together and have children.
My mention of a divorce and a break-up was just an example of why I find it easier to be unmarried (NOT SINGLE). 🙂

[MsElizabeth96]

Yes, but an unmarried couple is more likely to split than an unmarried couple

Making huge commitments (Such as a child) with someone who isn't willing to commit to you, is just asking for trouble

[Kunxter]

This might, and might not be true. I don't know, I am not an expert at this area and I don't know what the stats say. I just know there are tons of married couples that divorce even after a few years of marriage. And there is always more and more of them. At least that's what I have noticed around me.

Again, I agree with your second statement, but it deals with a little different topic. When someone doesn't want to marry it doesn't mean they are unwilling or unable to commit.

[Gavyn]

That is exactly what it means lol.

[MsElizabeth96]

Sometimes married couples do split, but unmarried couples split even more often.

As to your second point, I suppose that's a matter of opinion and varies from individual to individual. Personally, if a man told me he was commuted to me but didn't want to marry, I wouldn't believe him. I'm Always kinda suspicious of people who claim they're committed yet don't want to marry, it's like they want an escape route

[Kunxter]

Yeah it varies. Everyone's different. OK, for you, marriage is the guarantee of a real commitment. So it is for many many other people, I guess. I respect that. But for me, it's just a paper and a ring. I think when two people love each other they don't need marriage to... let's say... underline that love. But as you said, it is a matter of opinion. If people wanna marry, then let them marry, I have no objections, it's everyone's choice.
I haven't been married and I am not planning to.

[Anonymous]

What I’m against is *deciding* to get pregnant and have a kid when you’re not married. That makes no sense to me. Look at Kate Hudson - the woman has three baby daddies and has only married one of them. I try not to judge, but come on... that doesn’t sound like a recipe for happy, well-adjusted kids. It sounds like a recipe for a confusing home life and a messy legal situation.

Accidents do happen, but protecting yourself against pregnancy isn’t rocket science. You can get free condoms at many clinics, and if you’re old enough to be having sex, you should be able to afford them and/or female birth control anyway.

[NatashaJ]

I don't mind but I still think it's a bad idea lol, most of the women I know who doing that tend to not stay with the baby daddy anyway. Doing birth control and condoms and wait to have kids after you marry someone is probably a better option (unless you marry a abuser or a loser).

[fashionguy17]

I'm not against it. However, I'm not getting married. I'm sick of people putting so much emphasis on marriage. Marriage doesn't guarantee anything and the divorce rate is through the roof. I don't know why people push marriage so much. Nothing changes in your relationship when you are married. Personally... I'd rather have a life partner and not even worry about marriage. Anywho...

My whole philosophy on kids is not to have them until you are financially stable and you are with someone you truly appreciate. Ideally in your 30s when you have your life figured out.

[MsElizabeth96]

When you get married you move in together and start being more intimate, plus on top of that you're stuck together and can't break up.

That seems like a pretty big change to me...

[fashionguy17]

@MsElizabeth96 You said:

"When you get married you move in together"

People do that without even being married. You don't need to be married to move in together.

"start being more intimate"

When you move in together, of course you're going to start being more intimate. You don't need marriage to be even more intimate.

"plus on top of that you're stuck together and can't break up."

Ummm... you can break up when you're married. It's called separation and divorce.

[Hispanic-Cool-Guy]

Yes. Having children out wedlock tends to create broken and dysfunctional homes which leads to affecting the children being raised in an unhealthy environment.

Having children after marriage, gives children a more stable, safe and secure environment with their biological mom and dad which contributes to the overall well being of the child.

[Anonymous]

I am against having children out of wedlock because there is a far greater risk the child will end up being raised without its father, which exposes it to FAR greater risk of all kinds of issues. At the micro level it is obviously very harmful to the child, and at the macro level very harmful to society.

www.liveabout.com/fatherless-children-in-america-statistics-1270392

[ninjaykie]

Kids before marriage doesn't give the security that they're gonna have both parents rearing them. Although single parenthood is a trend now, there will always be some sort of psychological effect to the kid if he/she lacks a maternal/paternal support. The family is the foundation of the nation and therefore people should think more about being careful. Always have protected sex.

[Gabbers4482]

No I'm not. Kids dont keep marriages together, the people in it do. And you can choose to have kids outside of marriage and still raise them just as well. It's about the commitment that the two parents have to do right by the kids. And sometimes that means not being together.

[jouqiytrwzpoin]

٣😂😂😂😍😍😎

[jouqiytrwzpoin]

مرحبا

[worldscolide]

very against it. From a legal standpoint a father of a child out side of marriage has no rights to his child, but the mother has the right to take nearly 50% of his money in child support with no visitation provided. Sorry no way am i going to allow my self to be a father to a child where i get no rights, and have to fight to prove my self a parent to that child in the circus that is family court.

[OlderAndWiser]

Your understanding of the law of paternity is seriously flawed. You should not be giving legal advice on this subject because what you have said is wrong. Once a father establishes that he is the father of the child, he has the same rights as the divorced father of a child. He can establish visitation tights and he can seek primary custody if he is the better parent for the child.

I don't know what state you live in and the law does vary from state to state. I practice law in Florida, that is the law here, and it is the law in most states.

[worldscolide]

Here in kansas it's similar.. Yet different, in family court once paternity is established rights are not automatically granted, the father must then go to court and prove he is a good father. I've been there, with my best friend, at best he was given 4 hours per month, and placed on child support which was nearly 75% of his earnings. This was only after 10 years of legal battles.

You might practice law, but you should spend time in TFRM and really talk to those people, the family court system is heavily skewed in favor of women against men.. Lawyers actually coach their female clients to use what we refer to as the silver bullet defense.. To make false claims of child abuse and physical abuse. And because of the low standards of evidence in family court, I can't remember what it's called but it's less than what's required in criminal cases, the man once that defense is used, no matter the evidence to the contrary, always loses. I've seen it first hand through hundreds of cases. And the person that makes the claims if proven lying, never goes to jail for purjury.

Additionally once court is all over. You have court ordered visitation, the mother can withhold it consequence free, sure the father can charge her for contempt of a court order, but the judge nearly always throws it out, because she is the primary caretaker of the children.

Again please read the statistics when it comes to child custody.. And read title IVD you will find that family court is designed to keep the father paying extremely high rates of child support, because for every dollar of child support collected, the state earns 2 from the federal government.

Please before you discount my words read about what I have said, go to TFRM and read about all of the f
Good dads that are fighting just to be a father, read about all of the dads that have killed them selves because of the family court system.

Please do this as a legal professional and as a man.

[worldscolide]

Additionally there are some states where paternity can only be proven via a DNA test, and some states like Missouri the mother can refuse it..

[worldscolide]

also sorry about the typeos I was on my phone, and check sections 403 and 418 for title iv-d They call it incentive funds. https://www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/ssact/title04/0418.htm

en.wikipedia.org/.../Child_support_in_the_United_States

[worldscolide]

something else to check out.

www.petition2congress.com/.../family-court-corruption-to-abolish-title-iv-d-funding-from-states

The Family Court disregards Constituional Law and should be held accountable
Title IV_D funding has caused great grief to those families trying to get a "fair hearing" in family court. The Family Court Judges, attorney ad litems, psychologist benefit from Title IV-D funding. The funds are given to the states on collection of child support. There is no incentive to grant the "best parent" custody - but to examine which parent can pay child support. This is important as every dollar of child support collected is matched by Title IV-D funding. The funding going to the States are not used to enforce visitation rights of the non-custodial parent, but going into areas of the State that are not accounted for.

This is an outrage, as nobody has to account for these funds and how they are spent. Second, there are numerous accounts from all over the United States about CPS taking children into custody and adopting them out for the incentive funds which range from $4,000 to $8,000 a child.

This is important to you as it will not matter how much you spend on legal fees or the quality of your attorney. This is about federal funding going to each State - not to benefit our children, but for increase revenue.

The civil rights of families and children have been denied due process. Unless we have accountability for the Family Court actions and where the money is being spent, this will get worse.

Please take the time to review these concerns. Families all over the America are being harmed and you could be next.

[MoonlightShadow1111]

I don't think it really matters, just as long as the couples are healthy and stable for the children. Sometimes marriage can be a disadvantage, and lots of people rush into it just because they got pregnant or think they "found the one" after a little amount of time dating. Both weddings and divorces are really costly, so it's best to think before you decide to put a ring on someone's finger.

[EpicDweeb]

Yep, if for no other reason it has been shown to lead to terrible financial instability and often poverty. You don't have to do much to stay out of poverty. There's a list of like 3 things that have been shown to almost always keep you out of poverty if you do them all and if I remember correctly, getting married early and/or having a kid out of wedlock was one of the big three.

[BobSansMal]

I think it's a bad idea. Kids are SO stressful, it really helps to have the social support that marriage brings to keep a couple together.
However... It's not the worst thing in the world. I think families with married parents are closer to ideal, but all families are beautiful things.

[VikingBlood86]

Am I specifically against it? No.
But I do recognize the obvious benefits of children being raised in a two parent family situation? Absolutely yes. It's objectively better statistically. Obviously there are exceptions but those are mostly decisions that should have been made before the pregnancy ever happened.

[Hamsteroids]

Yes! Absolutely I’m against it. It’s like, how are you gonna commit to this child when you have yet made a commitment to me? That’s just not right to me 🤔

[Annie12234]

I am aganist kids after marriage because I wouldn’t want to have a kid before either at least get engaged or married. It’s about taking responsibility and has to do with maturity. It’s a lots of work. What if it’s not work out then not good to have a kid without a father to have relationship.

[ThisGuyDucks]

What the fuck kind of crack do you smoke?
As a kid the best chance if survival and healthy upbringing is if you have two married loving parents.

Your logic is severely unhealthy, please don't ever have kids, especially not a boy.