Children outside of marriage

I am not looking for any personal experience here but this is a completely theoretical discussion. My opinion is that having a child outside of marriage is looked down upon by society is because the idea that legitimate children still remains. While it is not mentioned directly by people when they state their displeasure that a child is born out of wedlock, it is the idea that they are holding on to in their mind.

It seems to me that in these peoples mind marriage is the proper method for rearing children and thereforeeee the only legitimate way to do it. It seems to me that this is a very superficial view because it only requires marriage it does not require two loving parents or even a stable family structure. It seems to me that marriage presupposes many things such as stability, loving parents, financial security and emotional support. In my mind these presuppositions should be examined independently of the construct of marriage to see if the parents meet these requirements.

What are your thoughts?

Gay, straight, married, divorced or single, a good parent, is a good parent, and good parenting is all that matters, and should thereforeeee be considered, when judging effective child rearing methods.

P.S. I was born out of wedlock, and I turned out fine.

Marriage can be a poor atmosphere for raising a child, but it's pretty common, so we accept it. Many children deserve more than the perfunctory treatment they receive from bickering parents.

In Sweden there is no stigma whatsoever associated with unmarried parents having children.

On the contrary, a person who speaks of "children out of wedlock" is looked upon the same way as someone who advocates the concept of paying a dowry.

In other words, mention "children out of wedlock" and your career path is quickly reduced to lightning candles in a deserted church.

So is it unhealthy for the children if the parents are not married?

As far as I know, there are no reports yet of more crazy people in Sweden than any other country.

Take care

Since my friends are at the age where they are having children and getting married I seem to hear this notion that a child can only be legitimized by marriage. It has just been something that I have been hearing lately and it has bothered me. Perhaps I am thinking too much in a secular fashion but I see no stigma attached to having a child out of marriage, but that does not seem to be the norm.

I think it can depend on one's generation. (Sorry, I'm going to give personal experience here...) I feel like people at my work feel sorry for me, since I am unmarried and pregnant. I can see it in the way they talk to me. These people are around 45-65 years old. However, when I talk to friends my age, it seems like a non-issue. They completely accept and support the fact that I'm having a kid. But when I was talking about getting married, they cringed and said they wouldn't touch marriage with a ten foot pole.

I personally feel that the ideal situation is one in which both the biological mother and father are dedicated and loving parents. Marriage is less important, and divorce is terribly destructive for a child (who almost always blames himself).

Really?

I'd think older folks would be more tolerant after seeing enough married-but-inept parents.

Really?

I'd think older folks would be more tolerant after seeing enough married-but-inept parents.

I'm stealing this from you, awesome!!!!

Hm, I don't feel like there is a huge stigma against children of unmarried parents. I mean, I don't ask people in everyday life if their parents are married. It's not their fault if their parents didn't marry before they were born.

Hm, I don't feel like there is a huge stigma against children of unmarried parents. I mean, I don't ask people in everyday life if their parents are married. It's not their fault if their parents didn't marry before they were born.

You are right I dont believe that there is a huge stigma against the children but I do believe that the stigma is associated with the parents. I believe that the perception is that the parents should have worked things out and should have went the marriage route. Although I do not believe this is appropriate, that is nonetheless what society seems to expect from the parents of a child.

I'd like to be married before I have children, but I don't think it's wrong to have children out of wedlock. If I became pregnant, I wouldn't be insistant on marriage before the child was born.

You are right I dont believe that there is a huge stigma against the children but I do believe that the stigma is associated with the parents.

Good point, annie24 and Day_Walker.

So what I meant to say in my previous post is this:

Where I live there is no stigma on the unmarried parents.

This is not surprising considering that there is no stigma here for a couple to be living together, never marrying; "Just" dating, as they put it in the US.

Here people do not judge the depth of their relationship by their martial status.

I agree that it is unfair to bring a child into an unstable marriage - the fact that they are married has little relevance. In my country, I believe that the opinion is that it is better if the parents are married because then it is easier to insure financial support for the child or children. Sure, there are paternity tests and required child support but that takes a lot more time and effort.

It would be interesting to see statistics on whether the families on welfare where there are two parents are mostly married couples or living together. My guess is that there are more single mothers on welfare who were never married to the father than who were married to the father. My guess is that there are far more single mothers on welfare than single fathers who have sole custody of the children.

I don't look down on unmarried couples having children - I do have concerns that the children are not getting the proper role models of having two parents who are legally committed to each other and I worry that the children have a greater risk of being in a financially unstable situation where there are no legal ties between the parents.

I do not myself think of the children as "illegitimate" and I am not so sure I agree that society still views it that way as opposed to the more practical or statistical views discussed above.

Glad to see your take on it, Batya, and everyone else.

Me waving my hand in the air... Me, me, me! I have an answer to this.

Both of my children were born out of wedlock and without strong relationships. Oh, of course I had plans with their fathers and hopes of having the perfect little happy family... Both times.

Now, at an older and wiser age, and as a single mother of a 3.5 year old and 6.5 year old, I have wished many a times I would have done it differently. I am thankful that I did not - my children are angels. But if I would have used better judgement, found someone and carefully determined that he was someone I could marry and live happily with and that he would be wonderful with my children, life would be much smoother.

Children need two parents in the same home. Parents need another parent to count on. There's not a day that goes by that I don't wish I could offer my children more. More normalcy, more financially, more, more, more.

With that said, I must say - my children are very well rounded, intelligent, happy, loving, caring, and happy children. Successful single parenting can be done but it's certainly not the ideal way to raise a child.

So, to answer your question. For people that are able to make a true committment to a relationship and their child without marriage, more power to them. But to have a child within a shaky or uncommitted marriage speaks a million words. For me to hear that two people live together and are expecting but not planning on marriage, I automatically assume the child will eventually be in a single family home.. eventually. Why not get married? Why not have a committed marriage to offer a "family" to your child?

I don't look down on unmarried couples having children - I do have concerns that the children are not getting the proper role models of having two parents who are legally committed to each other and I worry that the children have a greater risk of being in a financially unstable situation where there are no legal ties between the parents.

I believe that the problem with this issue is that we can argue the ideal where you have two loving parents at home in a financially stable household. I believe that children can still have a "normal" childhood without having both parents and living in a financially unstable home. Now I am sure that everyone wants more for their child but, it just doesnt work out that way. Every parent will say that they want more for their child because it is a relative issue. I believe that the time is past where people should shelter their kids from the harshness and creulties of what life actually is and can be. I will be so bold as to say that having a single parent on welfare might be the perfect role model for a child because they realize that they want more out of life than that.

So' date=' to answer your question. For people that are able to make a true committment to a relationship and their child without marriage, more power to them. But to have a child within a shaky or uncommitted marriage speaks a million words. For me to hear that two people live together and are expecting but not planning on marriage, I automatically assume the child will eventually be in a single family home.. eventually. Why not get married? Why not have a committed marriage to offer a "family" to your child?[/quote']

 

I believe that you should NEVER get marry for your children. That is the perfect disaster because you are not marrying the person for your own well being, you are doing it for a third party. If you want to live an unhappy marriage then you should marry for the sake of your children. Couples should get married because they want to be committed to eachother and that is the only reason.

I believe that the problem with this issue is that we can argue the ideal where you have two loving parents at home in a financially stable household. I believe that children can still have a "normal" childhood without having both parents and living in a financially unstable home. Now I am sure that everyone wants more for their child but, it just doesnt work out that way. Every parent will say that they want more for their child because it is a relative issue. I believe that the time is past where people should shelter their kids from the harshness and creulties of what life actually is and can be. I will be so bold as to say that having a single parent on welfare might be the perfect role model for a child because they realize that they want more out of life than that.

I don't see it as an ideal but the minimum requirements if all possible. Sometimes it is not possible - i.e. in Imthatgirl's case. But given the choice, I believe that a child deserves at minimum, at the starting gate, to be raised by a married mother and father in a stable environment.

I do not agree that it is a good role model for a child to be raised by a single mother on welfare - they might realize they want more out of life but that presumes that the single parent -- or the community -- can provide the resources, education and knowledge to help the child realize that goal. I work with children of mothers on welfare - have for 5 years - and I have worked with their mothers in connection with job training. Often they have no knowledge of the basics - how to get a job, how to put together a resume, how to read - and no knowledge of where to go to get these things - and they unfortunately can't pass on much to their children because they are so exhausted either looking for work, a place to live, etc.

If you notice, the adults who manage to get themselves educated and financially stable after being raised in that environment typically make the newspapers and media because of how unusual it is.

A child can learn about all different kinds of lifestyles and life situations by going to school, by having parents dedicated to exposing the child to all sorts of life experiences- they do not and should not have to endure being homeless, having insufficient nutrition and insufficient opportunities to learn, go to museums, play with other children, etc because they are living in a homeless shelter (which is where I have volunteered for the last 5 years) and moving around from place to place.

Just wanted to clarify that I am not talking about the ceiling but the floor - I do not support people who choose to bring children into this world (i.e. who deliberately get pregnant) outside of a stable committed relationship (i.e. gay people cannot get legally married in most places) involving two parents. Accidents happen, and things happen after birth - divorce, death, financial instability, etc. but where there is a choice I believe the child deserves at minimum the two parent stable home.

I believe that you should NEVER get marry for your children. That is the perfect disaster because you are not marrying the person for your own well being, you are doing it for a third party. If you want to live an unhappy marriage then you should marry for the sake of your children. Couples should get married because they want to be committed to eachother and that is the only reason.

Thanks for commenting on that.

My questions:

Why not get married? Why not have a committed marriage to offer a "family" to your child?

I was not saying that people should just go ahead and get married because they are expecting a child.

My point was: If their relationship is actually stable, I don't see why they would not get married before having a child. The fact they are not getting married or are not already married, for me, points to the possibility that they are not planning on a lifelong commitment together which means a rocky road for their children.

If I had to do it all over, I would certainly not "hope" for a happy ending. I'd make different moves which would include marriage before planning on children.

(The exclusion I suppose would be the people that are actually capable of commiting to one another without marriage. If they are truly commited.)

Yes, we all want MORE for our children. But, I'd love to be able to think at the end of the day "My children have two loving parents that have plenty of resources to provide more than the minimum at the end of the day."

Yes, children learn to appreciate more when they constantly have to settle for less. But that also teaches them to "expect less" and "accept less." Those are the two things I try to make sure my children learn (among everything else.) That they should never expect or accept less. That the sky is their limit and my expectations for them are very high.

I just need to add in one other thing.

Obviously myself and each of my children, we all have different last names. That is very uncomfortable for me.

At some point, even a committed but non-married couple would have to deal with that. I guess they could hyphenate their last names. But, it just seems right and comfortable to raise children with one last name and knowing that their mommy and daddy are married.

I do not agree that it is a good role model for a child to be raised by a single mother on welfare - they might realize they want more out of life but that presumes that the single parent -- or the community -- can provide the resources, education and knowledge to help the child realize that goal. I work with children of mothers on welfare - have for 5 years - and I have worked with their mothers in connection with job training. Often they have no knowledge of the basics - how to get a job, how to put together a resume, how to read - and no knowledge of where to go to get these things - and they unfortunately can't pass on much to their children because they are so exhausted either looking for work, a place to live, etc.

I was raised by a single mother on social assistance. She was not illiterate. In fact, she had a university teaching degree. My father passed away, leaving her with 3 children all aged 5 and under. She chose to stay at home and raise us instead of working full-time.

I can't imagine and better role model than my strong and intelligent mother. I can't imagine a better childhood. I grew up in a stable family - my mother still lives in the same house that I was raised in. We rarely fought. We visited museums, believe it or not. We even travelled to other countries and attended symphonies, operas and plays. My sibling and I always had the top marks in our class. I have a masters degree and my siblings also have very successful careers. We weren't nearly as screwed up as most of our friends who came from 2-parent homes with high incomes.

You work with children who come from broken homes. That means they have likely been through hell by the time they get to you. Please don't assume that most single-parent families, or most families on social assistance are illiterate deadbeats. You have a biased perspective, based on where you work. Please realise that. A single mother on social assistance can most certainly be an excellent role model.

(Sorry Day Walker - I know you didn't ask for personal examples. I just couldn't resist!)

I cannot speak for others but in my mind if I have no intentions of marrying a woman then her having my child is not going to change that fact. I would consider the relationships that I have had to be productive, yet I knew for various reasons that I was not going to marry the them. The relationships were not volitile and were stable yet, I did not want to commit to this woman. Now lets just say that when I was involved in one of those relationships the girl got pregnant, I would stand firm on my already made decision that I was not going to marry her.

Now if there is a situation where people are just wasting time being in a relationship and marriage is a possibility then I believe that is a different story. The way I see it all comes down to what you believe, I would not marry a girl for having my child and I believe that the child would turn out fine. I cannot say that I agree with Batya's minimum requirements but to each their own.

In my opinion if a man is not willing to father a woman's child and support that child emotionally and financially then he should not have sex with the woman unless she has a hysterectomy or is otherwise completely sterile. I say this as a gender-based statement because the man has no say in whether a woman decides to have a child or to abort. All birth control has a failure rate. I won't go so far as to say he has to be willing to marry her because that takes two to make that decision. I would prefer that the man be willing to marry the woman and I also realize that that is "unrealistic" in today's world.

You seem to have this habit of twisting my words. I ask you to please avoid doing that in the future, thanks. I made no assumptions in my post - I simply stated my personal opinion based on my personal experiences. I have met single mothers who are good role models, married mothers who are bad role models, single mothers who are literate and educated and married mothers who are not. It's all over the map.

I am glad you had a good childhood and a good experience. I was not speaking to your experience whatsoever. A single mother can be an excellent role model just as a married mother can be. In my personal opinion if there is a choice between being a single mother and a married mother in a stable relationship then a child deserves to be in the latter situation. Sometimes there is no choice - as with the situation in which you were raised - but I do not support a woman choosing to get pregnant (to have her own child, not as a surrogate for another couple) in a situation where she is not in a committed relationship such that the child would be, at the starting gate, in an environment with two committed parents (even if both are of the same gender). That is all I speak of - just voicing my personal opinion.

And, daywalker was talking about how it might be beneficial for a child to be raised by a single mother on welfare. Yes, it might have some benefits - in my personal opinion the disadvantages far outweigh any benefits. If asked, I would not approve of a woman on welfare who deliberately got pregnant and chose to have a child on her own. It just would not be fair to that child, in my opinion either financially or emotionally/psychologically, or fair to the community. In that case I would support abortion or giving the child up for adoption to a stable, two parent home. Frankly, in that case I would probably feel the same if the pregnancy was accidental or resulted from rape but I wouldn't feel as strongly if the woman hadn't deliberately chosen to conceive.

I think it has a lot to do with the assumption that people who are married are financially secure, mature, committed, in love, etc. So obviously, if you are married you posess all of the qualities a good parent should posess. As soon as people look at marriage and relationships more realistically, they'll see that the pretty dress and big party have absolutely nothing to do with being a parent. As long as someone can provide for, care for, nuture, love, and educate their child they are a perfectly capable parent.

Batya, I didn't need to twist your words. Your statement was clear:

"I do not agree that it is a good role model for a child to be raised by a single mother on welfare"

I simply disagree with you. I think a single mother on welfare can be an excellent role model, and I think that can be an ideal situation...

Just as a 2-parent family can be ideal. Just as parents with a low education can be ideal. There is not a unique formula for an ideal family setting.

I completely support the right of a single, low-income mother to choose to have children.