kids or marriage first ??

[POTTSY52]

I'm in a bit of a moral dilemma, my mum believes I should get married before having children, however nowadays more people seem to get married after having children which makes more financial sense to me as buying a house at the moment.... a lot of people I ask believe marriage should come first and that having children at your own wedding is 'awful'! (I don't think this) what do people think? whats acceptable nowadays??

[nfn]

Pottsy I think it is no-one's business but your own and your partner's. If you feel that having children before marriage is the best thing for both of you then that is what you should do. If you would prefer to be married first, then do that. I have a gorgeous 5 year old son and am not married. In fact I'm a single parent and the father has never seen my son, he left whilst I was pregnant. Maybe I'm not exactly the best person to give you advice but I just think it's up to you two and no-one else. Good luck

[dothawkes]

i would say, Lottery win, marriage, children. A better combination.

[funkychicken]

marriage first

[simsfreq]

I'd say it's to do with your religion, your views and what you and your partner want. There's no real reason to get married any more except for better rights regarding kids and houses and money if you do split up

[Booldawg]

what's acceptable is being part of a strong family unit, and working together to raise children to be good, decent people. Getting married first is no guarantor that this will happen. I'd sooner see a loving family 'living in sin' (as Queen Victoria would've put it) than an unhappy family who have done things 'the right way' by getting married first etc.

[kick3m0n]

It's totally up to you and your partner.  If you feel marriage is important, then do that first.  What children need is a strong, committed, respectful family atmosphere to grow up in.....they don't care whether their parents have a marriage certificate or not, they just want to be loved, cherished and feel safe.  What's acceptable or not really doesn't come into it....only what you and your partner find acceptable. 

My partner and I were together for 13 years before we had our first child.  We've never even considered getting married.  Marriage seems as relevant to us and our lives as religion does (ie totally irrelevant) and we both know that no piece of paper or ceremony is going to change what we have.  As someone once said, "I've never yet come across a bit of paper that can change how two people feel about each other".

I do find it  patronising and slightly offensive that some still think children should only be borne in wedlock.....like that's some sort of guarantee and the only way of "doing things properly".   It'd be funny if it wasn't so tragically deluded.

[Dark Angel]

Marriage first, followed by children- for some reason it seems more correct.

Don't ask me why!!

[smudge]

It's entirely up to you & your partner as to what sequence you decide - but IMHO, I believe in marriage first, then children.

[CiderMonkey]

I think it is completely up to you. Me and my man are planning to get a house together, then have kids and get married at some point after that. I understand that some people think that is the wrong order but i can't see a good reason for having to get married first. It doesn't make you more likely to stay together or make you a better parent.

[webby27]

 I live with my partner and our two kids and we are happy, they are happy. At some point in the future we would like to be married of cause but whether it will be in one year or twenty years i don't know because we are all happy and fine the way we are at the moment. Infact most of the people i know aren't married yet just living together with children and happy so i think it all depends on what the person and there partner wants. I know a woman who was with her partner for ten years before they married,marraige only lasted 7 months tho.Eventully i want to marry my partner but at the moment theres no reason to rush it. We both love each other and we both know it and our children know it and know we love them dearly and they are our world. so it's up to you however i personly believe marraige doesn't have to come first. Just go with what feels right to you and your partner point two fingers to what anyone else thinks

[maggie01]

I think its a personal thing these days. I personally think marriage should come first. For one thing you and your partner and children would all have the same name which I feel is a proper family unit. just my opinion

[woofgang]

If you are going to be together long term and are so sure of this that you are ready to have children on that basis, then why would you want to get married at all?

Once you have really decided and agreed on why it is that you would want to get married, then you both can decide whether you should do it before or after you have children.

Getting married isn't an expensive thing to do. It doesn't require fabbo dress, expensive reception, exotic honeymoon. You are right, (if I have correctly understood your reason for wanting to delay) you can do/have those things at any point and it may indeed be sensible to delay them until you can afford it BUT those things are nothing at all to do with what it means to be married.

[kick3m0n]

woofgang...here here!! Don't think we'll ever get married....just do not see the point.  if name is all that's important Maggie (seems a weird reason to marry!!)......you could change surname to that of your partner.  But why bother?

[maggie01]

No it was not just marrying to change your name. Its just that I come from the generation where it was not very acceptable to have children and not be married. There were not very many single mums about either. I realise this is the new generation my own daughter is not married but she has children. It's just a bit diffucult to move with the times on some subjects but as you say its all up to the individuals. It was interesting reading other peoples thoughts

[pamnez]

I would be looking at the security angle of a woman living with her man and having children.  There is no such thing as a common-law-wife.  Unless you have your name on the mortgage, if you split up, you get zilch.  The only thing that you can expect is maintenance for your children.  That is, if your man will pay up. 

[POTTSY52]

thanks for all your feedback, I think you're all right in some way or another and like you all say its up 'us' not anyone else! parents will always have their views on whatever their children do I guess but my major problem is that my mum is religious and I am not! oh well will have to like whatever I do or lump it!

thanks again- keep the debate going :)

[woofgang]

I come from the same generation as Maggie. For me marriage is about making a public committment to my partner, kids or not.

I think that it is really important to think hard about whether or not you are going to stay together before you have kids together. That in no way is to diss single parents, and things sometimes don't work out according to plan, but they do have a harder job and if there is a nasty split as well, custody arrangements etcet, then IMHO that cannot be what is best for kids regardless of how carefully it is handled.

Having said that, I have knowm 3 couples close to me, who have kids, split up, 2 were married and one was not!.....incidentally all the men had jobs where they spent long periods away from home abroad..........

[Hermia]

I think you should do whatever feels right. If a man seemed very reluctant to marry I'd want to know why before getting saddled with a baby though!