HOLLYWOOD STARLETS Making Babies Before Marriage

If you are committed enough to get married then you are not committed enough to have a child. It is common sense and whether society backs that up or not is irrelevant. The only reason you do not get married is because you are not sure you want to have that kind of legal hassle if you want to leave. If you have that kind of doubts then do not have a kid.

 

Individual people don't have to get married, but marriage is critical generally to a society because family units need to be stable and long-term in order for that population to thrive. Divorce rates are already hurting societies in that respect, and "just living together" makes the situation even worse. You're thinking of this on a selfish, "I will do what I want" level, whereas I'm thinking about it on a macro-level where the important thing is the prevailing structure of a country.

And there you would be completely wrong, although I'm quite sure you wouldn't be surprised about that. You're attempting to make rationalizations for something you know isn't true because you don't want to accept reality. People don't avoid marriage because they're protesting or because they believe that it's obsolete. They generally do it either because they don't want to make the formal commitment or because they've already been burned once and don't want to make themselves that vulnerable again.

Sure, and a woman can be taller than a man, but on average men are significantly taller than women. Similarly, marriages are going to last a lot longer on average than "just living together," and those bonds are important for the stability of society.

The self-involved liberalism that Hollywood represents has everything to do with your beliefs. And yes, I say that it's inferior. Moreover, everyone knows that it's inferior. Again, the whole reason that people "just live together" is because it's not as concrete a commitment as legal marriage. They don't want to make that level of commitment, and they appreciate the inferiority of the arrangement. That's the whole point.

Some people can't be convinced that we did land on the moon or that Bush wasn't behind 9/11. What you can or can't be convinced of really isn't the point. Moreover, you're still using extremes as your justification. Sure, some people can raise a child perfectly well without a marriage, but in general for the society at large, that is not a good strategy. As an individual, you can make your own decisions, but for a country it is necessary to evaluate not what is possible but rather what is most likely. And in this case, marriage is unquestionably a benefit in maintaining social bonds and providing social units for the rearing of children. If anything, more of an effort should be made to help people sustain marriages rather than encouraging the idea that you can or should forgo them altogether.

Not "society," research. I'm educated regarding the social sciences and the societal impact of bonds like marriage because that's what I studied for my degrees. For you this is simply a personal issue, which brings in all sorts of reasoning that is emotional rather than rational. And that's 100% fine for making your own decisions about marriage in your own life, but not particularly useful for discussing the significance and usefulness of marriage as a concept for the population at large.

 

Leeked...you are just wong. I'm betting you have a kid out of wedlock and are justifying your choice in life.

If you are NOT solid enough in your relationship to get married...you should NOT have a child.

 

In general it's not a good idea, but he is correct that having a kid out of wedlock doesn't automatically condemn them to a horrible childhood. Kids can grow up in non-married households even better than married ones, because it still depends on the environment and the people involved, but in general terms you're certainly right that marriage is superior.

 

I disagree with this part on living together first. I think living together first before a marriage is a great way to "test the waters" , to see if you are actually compatible, before you make the marriage step. I don't care how long you date someone, you won't know all until you're under that one roof. This saves many fucked up marriages from even beginning. It also saves many people from STAYING in fucked up marriages, due to religious or other beliefs.

As far as having the kid, I personally wouldn't dream of fathering one without a stable wife, but that's just me. I know there are lots of strong fathers and mothers out there that can do just fine on their own.

 

I'm not going to have a pissing contest with you Collin. Show me a happily married couple that fit your mold of the perfect society and I'll show you 50 married couples who hate each other. Although it is wonderful to live in a fantasy world where people get married and have children and live happily ever after - this is where your reality is skewed.

I do not oppose marriage. Marriage is great. It is the perfect way to SHOW your commitment to someone else. But that is all it is. It is a status. It does not equal a commitment. And that was the point I was trying to make. Marriage or not - a TRUE loving relationship/commitment will prevail. And having a baby before or after this "bond" makes no difference. The outcome will be the same.

 

The only reason NOT to get married is because you still have some doubt about the relationship. Sure, you can get a divorce, but it's a hell of a lot harder to walk when you're married. The "marriage" will cause a couple to be more likely to work things out instead of just moving on.

If you don't have 100% confidence in your relationship, why in hell would you have a kid?

 

You're blanket statement does not apply to all situations. Not getting married to someone does not mean you have doubt about the relationship.

If you have to be forced to stay together by law to "work things out" then you shouldn't be married in the first place.

The fact that it is hard to "walk" once your married is not a valid reason to stay together with someone, child or not. Everyone in that relationship would be miserable - children included.

"Ah, I really hate this person, but it's a pain in the ass to get a divorce - so I'll stick around for 5-10 more years and then we can end this thing violently."

 

If you won't even commit to putting something in place to insure you are 100% into the relationship (marriage being the insurance), then why in HELL should you be allowed to have children with this person?

I know. That way you can fuck around all you want. Find a new person? Just pack your bags and go. Go look at your local government subsidized housing project. That sort of lifestyle really works!

 

You're immaturity is causing you to miss the point. If your plans are to pack your bags and go, then you aren't fully committed to the relationship - and I agree that you should not have children.

My point was that if two people are committed to each other, love each other, and have no plans on bailing - marriage is just a status, and won't change the outcome of the relationship or the children in question.