Married before having a baby?

I'm male, that's what the blue symbol is for!

First of all, I'd like to say that I don't disagree with what you're saying, but I'd like to raise a few points:

I think the point of the study was to show that children born into a family with married parents, were more likely to find the situation more comfortable and stable, than if the parents weren't married. It may not seem like a massive difference to you and me, as it's just a 'piece of paper' as you put it. (I disagree, but that's another debate entirely ). But having a common surname and all the other seemingly insignificant differences, for whatever reason, is likely to make a difference to a child's development. This is of course, assuming that the study wasn't complete rubbish.

I'd liken whether or not parents are married to other things that define a family's situation, for example living in a large house instead of a cramped flat. A family living in a large house are in a better situation to raise children than if they were living in a small flat, since they have extra space for beds, toys and to just generally explore, it helps the child's development. The same, in my view applies to marriage.

Something else that I think it's important to consider is; what makes one couple better parents than another? One would argue that it is how much they are willing to sacrifice to give their children the best possible start in life, and to prepare them for the future.

Say you have two unmarried, heterosexual couples: couple A and couple B. Both couples are very happy together and know they want to have children together at some point in the future, so they start looking into various statistics, advice, etc. and they both stumble upon the study I mentioned earlier. After reading the study, couple A make the decision to get married, reasoning that their child would be more likely to have a good start in life. Couple B however, decide to stick with being unmarried, ignoring the statistics thinking it wouldn't make any difference. Does that make couple A the better parents because they made a change in their lives that could potentially help their children?



That's what simple logic and common sense would have you believe, and honestly I think that too, I don't believe marriage would have any effect on the ability of parents. But this study provides information that could lead you to believing otherwise. Assuming this study is accurate and that our common sense is also correct, there must be some other reason they achieved this result. Maybe people who are likely to be good parents, are also likely to want to get married? Your guess is as good as mine.

I want to be married first. I don't see it as a big step forward in commitment, or a chance to have a big day with loads of attention. I want a small family wedding. My parents are traditional Catholics as regards this, it makes it easier all round to be married first. You also get tax breaks and I don't want a different surname to my children
Children also I think feel more secure if their parents are married, it gives them a sense of the family being a permanent unit.

I want to be married first. I don't see it as a big step forward in commitment, or a chance to have a big day with loads of attention. I want a small family wedding. My parents are traditional Catholics as regards this, it makes it easier all round to be married first. You also get tax breaks and I don't want a different surname to my children
Children also I think feel more secure if their parents are married, it gives them a sense of the family being a permanent unit.

I don't think children feel more secure because their parents are married I can't even count the number of times during my childhood my friends would be upset thinking that their parents were going to get divorced - or that their parents actually were getting divorced. yet my parents aren't married and I've never once felt that they were anything other than a permanent base for our family or that they were going to split up I couldn't picture them not together

Who thinks that this should always be the primary aim?

I personally dont believe in people having children if not married.

why is the only options married or not married why isn't there an either way is fine option

I am not saying that it is the right perception for them to have, or that families where the parents aren't married are not a permanent unit but the fact that a parent in the latter situation can walk away easily filters down to children, they understand that a marriage is much harder and takes much longer to wreck than a relationship, no matter how longlasting or committed. When I was that age it would have been rare enough that someone whose parents weren't married would have been picked on to some extent. This still clearly is the case, I watched a programme about large families where the children in one were slagged for this and wished their parents were married. When they announced their wedding the children were literally crying with happiness. Maybe we shouldn't pander to society's 'normal' but I do feel that marriage is worth doing alone to bypass the potential of children being picked on or not feeling as secure etc. Maybe it depends on how traditional the society is. I live in Ireland, having a baby outside of wedlock only became normal in the last two decades. Five decades ago these women were locked up in convent laundries and had their babies forcibly adopted.

because hes a two red gem troll spouting the sanctity of the secular married unit, whilst having a picture of a porn star as his signiture

because hes a two red gem troll spouting the sanctity of the secular married unit, whilst having a picture of a porn star as his signiture

you make a good point

I should probably be more attentive

I haven't read the study, so I don't know if it was any good or not. I see your point with things that seem insignificant maybe being significant (and yeah, let's leave the 'piece of paper' argument alone, that's another debate entirely) but as far as I can tell from the cases of my two cousins (see above if you need a recap ) the fact that cousin 1 is married doesn't make her a better parent than cousin 2. Their relationships are different in that the people who are in them are different, but they are both still in stable relationships, just cousin 1 had a wedding, wears a ring on her finger and has a different surname. Cousin 2's baby has a double barrelled surname anyway.

I'd say that sometimes this is true. Married people with children are in general more likely to be in houses etc. but that doesn't mean that unmarried people with children aren't. Again with my cousins, cousin 2 lives in a 2 bedroomed house in North London with her long-term boyfriend and their baby. If you were living in a house with someone and had a baby, the fact that you were married would only affect her surname (assuming she changed it) and potentially inheritance issues - but that's what wills are for.

I don't think it does make couple A better parents, just different.
For arguments sake would you mind me altering your analogy a little? If both women and both men involved in the couples were identical twins who had been raised together, therefore they would be more likely to have similar parenting styles so we can compare them more directly. We could also say that they have the same jobs and financial resources, the same sizes houses, no non-genetic illnesses affecting their abilities to look after children. I'm simply trying to remove extraneous variables, hope you don't mind.
Couple A and Couple B are going to have roughly the same parenting ability, the same amount of time, money and energy to spend looking after their children etc. I don't think the fact that couple A are married will make a difference here.

I think - and like I said, I haven't read the study, so I'm not sure - that the results obtained would likely be due to the fact that children who's parents are unmarried often means that they're not together anymore. Children from single parent families are more likely to be involved in crime etc. Couple A and Couple B, who in my slight change of your analogy are only different in that one is married and one isn't, shouldn't show any differences in parenting ability. If the study were to be run on examples purely like Couple A and Couple B, controlling for any and all extraneous variables that could affect parenting, still showed the same results; then I would change my mind.

No worries.



I've tried to find the study, but I can't even remember the title of it so it's difficult to find something based upon small memories from a long time ago. To reiterate, the point the study was showing was that in terms of likelihood of a child developing well and staying out of trouble; the traditional married parents type of family trumps all the other types of family, including parents who are traditional in every sense except for being married - even if the difference isn't as much as if a child was raised by a single parent.

I'm sure your cousins are good parents, but statistically speaking, your cousins' cases are irrelevant. It's the bigger picture which is important.

Moving away from actual parenting ability for a second, perhaps this study is finding that couples who are married are not inherently better parents, but actually children born to married parents feel more comfortable and happy with their family life in general. Bringing it back to couple A and couple B (yes, I should have made this clearer, the two couples were intended to be identical for all intents and purposes). Both couples have a child a couple of years down the line, the child of couple A has the same surname as his/her parents and knows that they have entered into an agreement that to an extent keeps them together, thus feeling more like a secure family. The child of couple B, on the other hand, despite his/her parents showing the exact same affection and commitment, doesn't have the same sense of security as their parents do not share a surname, and have not entered a formal agreement. It may seem totally irrelevant and a non-issue to you and me, but a child may not see it the same way.



Woah, italics.

I am of course assuming that this study was a reliable and accurate piece of work, in which case it would probably be worth taking note of. I agree that it shouldn't be a major reason for getting married, but if it helps a couple make the decision whether or not to get married, that seems perfectly fine. A good parent would want to care for and help their child, and caring for a child involves making huge sacrifices so I would argue they are the same thing. Getting married, to help provide a stable and secure environment for a child to grow up in, is a way of helping a child.

Yes, I do think parents should follow their instincts to an extent. But parents looking at reliable, accurate and reputable scientific studies (I'm not saying the study I'm talking about is necessarily any of those things) when finding the best way to raise and care for their child, I think are doing the right thing.

I do think that's a different debate though, so I'll leave it at that.

So because I think a girl is hot it means I dont believe that people should always be married before having a child?

Also, far more people give me +rep than -rep, just the liberal suck ups with 1000 green gems take loads of me.