having kids before marriage

Post Reply New Topic

are you the type of person who wants to get married before having kids or do you think if you're with someone for a number of years before marriage and kids just happened, do you think marriage would be the next step or do you think because you already been together for so long without thinking/talking about marriage, you would be ok with just being common law and not husband and wife?

I have grown to believe that it's better for kids if their parents are married.

I don't have a real moral objection to common-law marriages, though.

i fail to see what difference legal marriage makes, versus unmarried but cohabiting and filling all the same "roles". is that what "common law" is?


i'd like to get established in a home with my lover before we have a kid (if ever), for a few years at least, but the actual "husband and wife" stuff isn't exciting me. the prospect of papers scares me, halfway because i don't even know what it entails becaue i'm dumb/20 and i don't want to become trapped should anything go south.

of course it depends how long you're with the person before tying the knot.

i'd never date someone already with kids.

I have quite a big extended family, where I could see different approaches to having kids: married couples, single moms, pregnant-then-marry-then-divorce, stable informal relationship... and about the age of 12 I decided I'm definitely not a material for a single mom. Couldn't bear it emotionally.

But the original question was about legalised / not legalised stable relationship.
That may be culture influenced - Poles are very serious about marriage. If you get married, it is considered you mean to be together for life. You make the decision and announce it to the whole community.
So remaining in an informal relationship is seen as postponing the decision. Like "now it's ok, so we remain together but if anything goes wrong we have the options open". Kids in such a situation are at much higher risk to end up with a single parent (probably the mother).
On the other hand, at least in big cities, the "husband and wife things" are flexible. Not really different from cohabitating share of duties.

But I believe it is all about the local culture.

Well usually when I've thought of myself and my life ten or a bit more years to the future I've seen myself married and with a kid or two... or three. So yeah, I would rather be married to the father of my children before said children are made, but if I happened to get pregnant by accident I wouldn't make an abortion just because I'm not married.

I don't know where you're from and what kind of laws you have there, but in my country there are some very clear differences between the two in the eyes of the law:
1. If a couple is married and another one of them dies the widow can get part of the dead partner's property easier than if they aren't married.
2. If a couple that has been living together for many years breaks up and everything is under another person's name, the one who has nothing in their name has higher chances of getting something if the pair is married. This is especially good for those who have been housewives (or housedads) since while they might put a lot of effort in to taking care of their partner's property, none of it is actually theirs.
3. If a couple isn't married, the father has to officially make a claim that the children that are born are indeed his. If a couple that hasn't been married have a child together and they break up right before the child is born it's far easier for the mother to claim that the man she broke up with isn't the father. In other words, in this case, marriage protects the man's right to be a father.
4. On negative side: if you're married you're more likely to end up responsible for your partner's debts if he/she can't pay them than you would if you were just living together.

Note that I haven't really studied law; these are things I have learned from relatives that have been in certain situations so some of these could be wrong or outdated. Also, these things might not be true where you're from even if they're accurate here.

You do come out better legally if you’re married. Legal marriage offers more protection in the event of a split than shacking up does. No fighting over who gets the Jumbotron. Sell it and split the proceeds. You could conceivably do that without being married. It’s just you don’t have a judge or court order behind it to give it any strength. If she paid 60% and you paid 40% and you split the sale price for it down that line, a court order will enforce it.

I don't have any moral objection whatsoever to people who have kids without being married. It doesn't bother me or make me think less of them.

But I have to say, it baffles me as to why they don't just get married. Kids are even more of a forever-tie than marriage!

So people who say they don't want the "tying down" of marriage, yet they have kids together -- that logic baffles me because no legal marriage is actually as truly, deeply binding the two of you together than procreating together and those kids being part of both of you for the rest of your lives.

It doesn't get more complicated legally than that. So you might as well be married too.

I just don't understand all this cart before the horse stuff. EVERYONE these days is having kids first then getting married when the kids are 10. If you didn't feel sure about committing to each other when you had a KID together, it's never going to get firmer than that.

I just don't understand the screwy logic. Oh we don't feel sure of marrying each other but yeah we'll put our genes together for LIFE where for the rest of our existence we and even our families will be bound together even into the future of every descendant, and we will have to make serious decisions together about that offspring even if we aren't together anymore.

Marriages are easy to dissolve. Kids FOREVER bind you together.

I would NOT have a kid with a man who was fine with having a kid with me but not fine about marrying me. WHAT? f**k off.