If you are a father the family court will screw you

[jersey10]

I have heard people say they are willing to have kids but shy away from being married. I consider getting out of a marriage to be less messy than a relationship of any sort that has children. So I see marriage as an 'entry-level+ commitment. If being married is considered a life-long commitment & that is too much for a person then kids shouldn't even enter the picture. I guess it's a declaration. I can't see the logic that says "I can't commit marriage but will commit to kids".

This line of thinking seems very small-minded. What about people who are happier being unmarried and having children would make them very happy. Are you saying they should not have the right to have children? It is very logical to say "I can't commit to marriage but will commit to kids".

I'd say it rewards & promotes selfishness rather than community. And , married or not, couples don't seem to realise that each half has to give up some things & adapt to being with someone else. A sexual relationship is, to me, almost an oxymoron....

The line of reasoning that being married is an end in itself and therefore you should make sacrifices to maintain being married seems to be quite flawed. Marriage is a means to an end (happiness) and should never be treated as an end in itself. If it doesn't make you happy (for the right reasons [not conformity]) it is immoral and illogical to be married. This is why i never say congratulations to people who announce they are getting married. This is not an achievement. My response is "i am so happy you are so happy together - that is great".

If both partners had kept their hormones in-check a little more they wouldn't be in such a mess.

Can this and should this be consciously controlled?

 

[johenmo]

This line of thinking seems very small-minded. What about people who are happier being unmarried and having children would make them very happy. Are you saying they should not have the right to have children? It is very logical to say "I can't commit to marriage but will commit to kids".

I think it's not as logical because getting out of a relationship or marriage without kids is much easier than either with kids. Kids are not an item on a bucket list. Nor are they returnable. I don't infer that you believe this. There will be an example to support any side of a debate like this. It's a big call to have kids - the responsibility doesn't end when they turn 18. So to say it's logical to think "I can't commit to something that is easier from which to escape or annul but can commit to something that is everlasting (& marriage isn't always that way). I don't believe it's small minded - it's more along the lines of risk assessment and measurement of the consequences of the actions.

Marriage is an incredibly strong psychological thing - no kids: people who are married will stay together for the "sake of the marriage" whilst those who aren't can part because it's technically less messy. That btw is NOT a sound reason to be married. And it isn't a sound reason to stay together.

The line of reasoning that being married is an end in itself and therefore you should make sacrifices to maintain being married seems to be quite flawed. Marriage is a means to an end (happiness) and should never be treated as an end in itself. If it doesn't make you happy (for the right reasons [not conformity]) it is immoral and illogical to be married. This is why i never say congratulations to people who announce they are getting married. This is not an achievement. My response is "i am so happy you are so happy together - that is great".

It is illogical to be in a relationship if it doesn't make you happy. Any relationship, if it lasts, will go through periods where those in it aren't happy. Those in it, say 30 years later, aren't the same ppl who started out in it - married or not. It's not about making sacrifices because you're married, it's because you're in a relationship - sorry if that wasn't clear, for being married is not an end in itself - more a public declaration/vow of one's love/desire/belief in another. I haven't seen many, long-lasting relationships where it was all about one of the partners. If one believes that humans aren't monogamous & mate for life (like some creatures in the animal kingdom) then marriage and many other legal/traditional trappings will never be agreed with.

Can this and should this be consciously controlled?

Re hormones being kept in check. Long enough to make sure that kids won't be a result - risk management. As simple as "if it's not on, its not on". As a taxpayer, I would love the welfare bill to come down, so that having kids isn't seen as a way to boost income - and it happens.

Incidentally - because I'm too lazy to research this - if a relationship with kids falls apart, and it isn't amicable, then does it have to go through the family court? Or does one have to be legally married?

 

[Julia]

A touchy subject.

Is it though? I'm not sure I understand why. Can you say a bit more about this, Tink?

I dont agree with the second part of your post as it sounds so pessimistic.

No, it's not intended to be either optimistic or pessimistic.
What I'm trying to understand is what it is about the formal ritual of getting married that matters or does not matter to people.

There are plenty of marraiges that have worked out and are still going, thats a blow to the ones that have made it work.

Sure. There are marriages (and non-marriage relationships) where the people are genuinely happy to be with each other.
There are also the same where the partners stay together because it would be a financial disaster for them to split up. Or even sometimes because to separate would socially and career-wise disadvantage them (in their eyes).
So I don't think we can necessarily assume that all marriages sustained over time are necessarily just because of the joy in each other's company. Hopefully many are.

I agree with Johenmo, that having children should be marraige first, that will never happen though, sadly.
I still think its important for the children.

Yep, I'd always thought the marriage came first but it seems not. It's almost more common (anecdotally at least) to see couples having a couple of children and then later deciding to get married. I asked one such young woman about this who had got married a couple of years after producing the child and she offered the single reason that she was fed up with explaining to e.g. doctor's receptionists that as Ms XXXX she wanted an appointment for Kid ZZZ and that, yes, she did have a different name, but yes , she is the child's mother.

Seems a peculiar reason to get married to me, but there you go. She kept her own name after they married, but she uses her husband's name now when making appts for the child.

It's important for a lot of people, particularly females i think, because of the social construct of that is what you are supposed to do. Some younger females i have come across are that immoral and slaves to cliche and stereotype that they need to find a new boyfriend before they split up with their current boyfriend (who they don't want to be with) - pathetic.

Does that still really apply? I agree that it was certainly the case a couple of decades ago, but I'd had the impression young women are more capable of independent thought these days.

The line of reasoning that being married is an end in itself and therefore you should make sacrifices to maintain being married seems to be quite flawed. Marriage is a means to an end (happiness) and should never be treated as an end in itself. If it doesn't make you happy (for the right reasons [not conformity]) it is immoral and illogical to be married. This is why i never say congratulations to people who announce they are getting married. This is not an achievement. My response is "i am so happy you are so happy together - that is great".

You've expressed really well what I was trying to and probably failing. So agree with this paragraph.

As above, what I'd really like to get to is what exactly it is that people believe the actual act of getting married confers on a relationship? It just doesn't make sense to me for anyone to say that even though they are bitterly unhappy they are staying together 'for the sake of the marriage'. What is 'the marriage' actually in such a context.

I understand when someone says they are staying 'because of the children', even though this is usually a flawed concept unless they are amazingly good at hiding their true feelings from the kids and pretending affection.
My parents had a go at this but the consistent underlying tension was very perceptible.
To this day I'm still not sure whether it would have been better for them to separate.

 

[johenmo]

Julia & jersey10 - my original paragraph to which you felt that "The line of reasoning that being married is an end in itself and therefore you should make sacrifices to maintain being married seems to be quite flawed." stated "...And , married or not, couples don't seem to realise that each half has to give up some things & adapt to being with someone else. ..."

Note I said "married or not" about people having to change when in a relationship. Partners in a relationship make sacrifices, regardless of the status of their union. If they don't, it's one-sided and ends in the other half getting sick of that (speaking generally, not about exceptions to that). Moving from "me" to "us" for the most part. A healthy relationship will still allow each person to have their own aspect to their lives.

Being older now, I have seen singles meet, form a relationship & after the "honeymoon" wears off, regret the change in life & start to resent the other half quite a few times. Hence the need for people to adapt to living with someone else.

Again, I say it is illogical to be in a relationship if it doesn't make you happy. Regardless of the type of relationship.

 

[Tink]

Hi Julia, with touchy subject, I was referring to the thread title. I find some, male and female, can get so angry on these topics.
I usually dont comment but I did.

I was glad to see GG talking about the children.
Johenmo, I have really enjoyed your posts too, and agree

When you mentioned abolishing marraige, Julia, I thought why?
Alot are married and happy.
Marraige is a commitment for the couple and the children, as stated, Mum, dad, children.
I am big on ancestry and family trees, if that means anything.

Out of all our friends, we all got married and had children, none did it the other way.
Its just the way it is.

I am from the old school, I like things in order.: )

 

[jersey10]

Alot are married and happy.

They aren't happy because they are married though. They are happy because they enjoy each other's company, have a chemistry, are physically attracted to each other, etc. Perhaps this is what Julia is referring to. You don't need marriage to have what marriage supposedly signifies.

 

[Julia]

They aren't happy because they are married though. They are happy because they enjoy each other's company, have a chemistry, are physically attracted to each other, etc. Perhaps this is what Julia is referring to. You don't need marriage to have what marriage supposedly signifies.

Yes, that is what I was getting at.

 

[DocK]

I agree that one does not need the institution of "marriage" to maintain a long and mutually satisfying partnership with another, or that a legal marriage is necessary in order to raise children in a loving and supportive environment. It sometimes surprises me that in these modern times the marriage rate remains as high as it is - although the divorce rate has also risen over past decades.

I can only speak for myself. For some, religion or faith will be a factor in the decision to marry. Some religions and cultures do not approve of parners living together without the blessing of the church etc and this aspect will be important to some people. For my husband and I, I think it was mainly tradition, conforming with the expectations and standard practices of our families and community and a desire to "formalise" our decision to commit fully to each other and forsake all others etc etc. I don't really think being legally married has dictated the basis of our partnership, or been the glue to stick us together, but in some intangible way I do feel being married provides a formality or somehow mysteriously confers a "seriousness" or gravity to our union that may not otherwise exist if we simply chose to live together. Whether this makes it easier to work through the tough times or not will differ in each marriage of course, but my own impression from my 24 year marriage, that of my closest friends and family is that perhaps being "married" makes one think a little harder about leaving, and maybe try a little harder to work together to "make the marriage work". That's not to say that some/most couples wouldn't put just as much effort into making their relationship work without the benefit of a legal marriage - it's simply my impression that having stood up in front of your friends and family and/or church and made vows somehow imparts another layer of importance (not the word I'm really looking for, but can't put my finger on the right one). This may of course be purely imagined on my part - and as always the examples provided by one's own parents exert a strong influence. It has also been my observation that people who come from a background of stable marriages, where staying together is the norm and separation is rare, tend to gravitate toward the same path themselves. Every partnership evolves and grows/changes with the years. Those who expect to maintain a state of "married bliss" indefinately are kidding themselves - the question is whether being married helps a couple to stick through the not so great times in order to endure to enjoy the good times. Sort of like your favourite new shoes losing their initial sparke, starting to chafe a bit at times, but eventually being your really comfortable old favourites. Do you throw them away when they first start to pinch? Or keep them until you both conform to each other (assuming this is possible, of course)? Does being married make a difference or provide an extra incentive to try? I think it often does, but maybe it's often the presence of children in the relationship that provides the incentive instead.

Of course, it's all too likely that I'm just old-fashioned and outdated. I agree that the best interests of the children of any type of union should come first, before all else. It doesn't seem to me that whether their parents were married or not has much bearing on the fallout to the kids when family units dissolve. Some are handled very well, some abominably, and whether the parents were legally married or not doesn't seem to make any difference.

 

[Julia]

Dock, thank you for those comments.

You've probably articulated what many would like to but have difficulty explaining.

Despite being divorced for a pretty long time myself, I can still recall the sense of commitment when deciding to get married. I expect everyone who gets married feels similarly, unable to predict some of the insurmountable obstacles that can occur.

What started me thinking about the concept of marriage is the immense importance so many in same sex relationships seem to place on 'being married'. They have equal rights in terms of Super, and other legal stuff as heterosexual couples, so I'm trying to understand what benefit actually having the ceremony confers on the relationship.

Heavens, I can remember couples 'having to get married', i.e. a pregnancy happened and it was socially quite a disgrace for a young woman to be an unmarried mother. Now, the children seem to often come before the marriage.
Maybe it's a reflection of the reduced expectations we have regarding most aspects of our lives, or am I just turning into a complete cynic?

 

[DocK]

I'm not gay so can only hypothesise - however I think some same-sex couples feel that being denied the same right to be married as heterosexual couples is akin to being told their union is less legitimate. Or that their commitment to each other is not worthy of society's acknowledgement or approval. I do wonder sometimes if simply being told you can't do something is enough to make some people want it more If one of my children had a same-sex partner and was told he couldn't be married I'd struggle to understand why. It's a bit of a non-issue to me - I can't really see what would alter greatly if it were allowed and it seems to be just another political hot potato. I must admit I struggle to understand what the debate is really about - gay couples already are able to enter into a civil union, and enjoy the same legal rights as hetero couples, I can't see why denying them the right to be married is so important to some. It seems a bit silly to me to claim that because "marriage" has always been between a man and a woman in the past, that it necessarily must always be thus - there was a time when only men voted and pubs shut at 6pm etc - why should this one aspect of society be immune to progressive change? I'd assume that just as some hetero couples feel no desire or need to be married, neither would some same-sex couples - but just as some of us like the tradition, social standing, security or whatever benefits we think being married gives us - intangible though they may be - it seems unnecessarily cruel to me to withhold them from a segment of society due to personal religious beliefs or a misplaced belief that the traditions of marriage are cast in stone.

There was a time when marriage was used mainly as a device to protect wealth or form allegiances between powerful families etc - love had very little to do with marriage. I wonder if in another century people will either wonder what all the fuss was about (and find it as difficult to understand withholding marriage from homosexuals as I find it difficult to understand why the vote was withheld from women, for example) or whether they'll wonder why people used to do something as quaint as getting married....

 

[Calliope]

The idea of a monogamous relationships, or any relationship at all except for copulation, is fast disappearing. Black Americans are at the forefront of this social evolution. The tendency is for the roving promiscuous black male is to sire as many children as he can.

Today the overall American illegitimacy rate is about 33 percent (26 percent for whites). For blacks, it hovers at near 70 percent””approximately three times the level of black illegitimacy that existed when the War on Poverty began in 1964.

Illegitimacy is an important issue because it has a great influence on all statistical indicators of a population group’s progress or decline. In 1987, for the first time in the history of any American racial or ethnic group, the birth rate for unmarried black women surpassed that for married black women, and that trend continued uninterrupted until the passage of welfare reform. The black out-of-wedlock birth rates in some inner cities now exceed 80 percent, and most of those mothers are teens. Because unmarried teenage mothers””whatever their race””typically have no steady employment, nearly 80 percent of them apply for welfare benefits within five years after giving birth to their first child. No group can withstand such a wholesale collapse of its family structure without experiencing devastating social consequences.

In addition, growing up without a father is a far better forecaster of a boy’s future criminality than either race or poverty. Regardless of race, 70 percent of all young people in state reform institutions were raised in fatherless homes, as were 60 percent of rapists, 72 percent of adolescent murderers, and 70 percent of long-term prison inmates

(My bolds)

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=1261

 

[johenmo]

Dock - nicely put.

In addition, growing up without a father is a far better forecaster of a boy’s future criminality than either race or poverty.

Interesting point re father figures for boys. You may be interested in Celia Lashlie's books - "He'll be OK" is particularly about boys. Celia worked in the NZ prison system for 14 years in both male & female prisons. Having a father figure is very important for boys and so is being raised in a community/environment that values people and respect for others.

 

[Calliope]

I'm not gay so can only hypothesise - however I think so I wonder if in another century people will either wonder what all the fuss was about (and find it as difficult to understand withholding marriage from homosexuals as I find it difficult to understand why the vote was withheld from women, for example) or whether they'll wonder why people used to do something as quaint as getting married....

Indeed they will. The scenario I posted above shows that society is trending away from marriage between men and women. So the next century will probable see that gay marriages are the norm and that heterosexual marriages are, well, queer.

That will solve the child custody problem. And it wiil ensure that our social system will disintegrate as society will not be able to cope with the nanny state having to assume all the responsibilities that fathers do now.

 

[Tink]

Great post DocK, regarding marraige.
As Julia has said, you have pretty much summed up what I was trying to say.

I dont agree with gays using the word marraige though
Some things should be left as is
https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3680

Agree with your post too Julia, how acceptable all of a sudden it is, that women have children whenever.
I dont think its been good for society, as the pendulum has swung too far for this independance.
Men shirking responsibilities and women now doing the same,
Now its opened a whole new can of worms with, we dont need one or the other.

Men can raise babies
Women can raise babies.
What a load of rubbish - babies/children need both.