Why why why do people have kids without marriage

Nope- I would be fucking embarrassed if the man who I loved and had children with had gone 26 years without wanting to buy me a lovely ring and tell the world that I am his wife, making us a legal family and giving me all of the protections of the law.

Unless there is a next of kin card being carried by the unconscious/incapacitated person, no hospital is going to go to a girlfriend for final decisions if there are living parents.

NOK cards and POW are not widely created, unless it’s a couple who have assets they both want to protect and no prenup. Or they are ideologically against marriage.

Your average Joe ‘marriage is just a piece of paper’ or Tim ‘weddings are a waste of money’ are not going to bother carrying a NOK to protect the decisions of the woman they apparently love.

*Reach 15 I meant to write

Why are people so anti-marriage, as if it's some kind of necessary evil?

Married people tend to be happier and tend to live longer. They have fewer heart attacks, a lower risk of depression, and better survival rates for cancer and major operations. Marriage is the best environment in which to raise children. 90% of parents who stay together until their children reach 19 are married. Children of married parents are more likely to go to university and less likely to receive government benefits. They have higher self-esteem and better mental health.

Marriage is not just about private relationships. It is about serving the public good by contributing to a stable society by providing a secure stable environment in which to raise children.

No apologies for stating this, no matter how "outdated" this sounds. Just because society "progresses", that doesn't mean that such progression is always for the better.

www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-7334313/amp/I-never-felt-marriage-important-day-Paolo-died.html

I think of scenarios like this.
The Nok thing I think of my mil denied access to her dying partner. This was recent in England. Covid limited visitors, his adult daughter was his nok and there was nothing mil could do but accept scraps of visits daughter allowed.
Even if hospitals here are usually accommodating people get ill or die abroad.

people going “don’t ya know there’s no such thing as common law spouse” are often the same people rambling on about next of kin - which has no real legal definition.

Marriage is one of those things that feels like no big deal as long as life is going okay. Unfortunately when shit hits the fan and illness or death or breaking up and dividing property and finances comes into play, that's when people realise it's far from just a piece of paper. The 'just a piece of paper' phrase really floors me, how anyone can believe that legally committing to someone in the eyes of the law and government is just a bit of paper is astonishing. Admittedly, the people I know who say that tend to be the ones who would love to get married but their partner won't or people who don't want to marry and want to diminish it to try and get their partner to be happy without it. It's a cope or a manipulation tactic.

Isn't being in a relationship for 26 years evidence enough of commitment? It's longer than a lot of marriages last.

Last time I checked it was £170 for everything to marry (same for civil partnership) - that was notice, weekday registry office and certificate.
To replicate some protections of marriage it will cost you more than that so usually people who ‘can’t afford’ to marry can’t afford wills etc.
I come on threads like this as my background is legal and despite posters saying no one is that clueless I’ve come across many real scenarios where women were worse off for not being married - often badly to their detriment.
My teen has had half of one phse lesson on subject. Marry or not it’s a personal decision but at least make an informed decision.
If someone says ‘it’s just a piece of paper’ I know they don’t understand differences. Again in my experience the ‘it’s just a piece of paper’ ones also haven’t sorted paperwork like nominating girlfriend for their pension or got life insurance to make up for fact gf won’t get widows allowance if they die.
Someone on a weddings thread the other day said they couldn’t be bothered with faff of a wedding and my thought was I couldn’t be bothered with faff if he died and we weren’t married but my head jumps to scenarios I know about.

Own property as joint tenants
All utilities in both names
Joint bank accounts (if you want)
Father listed on birth certificate
Ensure each other is nominated beneficiary on pension and death in service policies etc.

Cost of a basic will £20
Cost of lasting power of attorney £82

Done.

(with the exception you fall outside inheritance tax exemption - currently over £325k).

Idealistically I never wanted to marry as it's an outdated construct based on religion. AFAIC it serves no real purpose in a loving relationship and adds nothing. IMO having children is the ultimate commitment and means more than a certificate. Marriage isn't going to make me love my wife any more than I do already so there's no point from an emotional standpoint, which is what marriage is supposed to be about.

Really I think legal protections should be there without marriage but good luck with that change as it's never going to happen.

Yet I got married as it's the right thing to do to protect my wife and kids. That's so far removed from what marriage is supposed to be about but there you go!

All of that would have made a far more interesting and useful post.

It's pretty depressing that even now (some) women want a fairy tale day and a princess dress.

I don't find that depressing, only if people spend more than they can afford in so doing.

Because men are arseholes and divorce is expensive.

The argument still comes up that 'weddings are expensive' ... it's pretty depressing that even now (some) women want a fairy tale day and a princess dress. . I genuinely wonder how many men care about a big, show off day.

People don't like to think about death but, having supported friends who have lost their loved ones I am well
aware of the pitfalls caused if your partner dies and you are not married ... pension rights, NOK decisions in case of serious illness, insurance benefits, tax issues etc. All much, much harder to navigate if you are not married. To put it bluntly, it is much easier to sort these issues out if you had been married.

I think actually a lot of women want kids and a lot of men don't, or are ambivalent about it, or would want to wait until it might be too late to conceive for the woman. But then a lot of men seem to be lovely until they have kids or the woman is pregnant and then they change, even when the kids were very much wanted by both parties- according to Mumsnet anyway, we often only hear one side of the story and there is often a lot more to it. Like, I would suggest, the man not really being bothered about having kids in the first place. It's shitty to not take precautions then and not take responsibility when they do arrive.

I do think it's crazy to have kids with someone without knowing them very well or living with them, or having an intention to be committed or at least getting past the honeymoon phase where the shades have definitely falled from your eyes. Or not to know how you will manage financially afterwards. But I understand why people do and human beings make mistakes, we all do.

I think it's the wrong question though. Morals have changed (yaay for that) and it's no longer seen as awful to be unmarried (and/or single) with a child.

Agree very much with pp who have said that the right question is why do so many women, married or not, leave themselves [financially] vulnerable after having a child. The Gender Wage Gap is real (hint: it is not necessarily about your hourly rate) and pension poverty for women is even more real. So what women should be doing is educating themselves about how to be as sure as they can that if the worst happens (death, divorce, disability) they are not left financially stranded. (marriage as such is still really a financial transaction).

For all those who say "nah - cohabiting is fine": why do you think gays and lesbians fought so long and so hard to be allowed to marry? We heard a lot in before times about how a dying partner's family came in and sold a house from under a gay partner, took all the assets etc etc.
So of course one way around that is to be legally watertight with everything - wills, insurance policy, clear demarcations of ownership. Also if you do decide to SAHM (totally fine if that is what you want, totally not fine if it's because "i have a big man job that i can't possibly compromise by child sickness, school runs etc" and it is your only option) - make sure you have access to discretionary spending money, claim child benefit to get pension credit, and make sure that you have a life away from home/children. If it is financially possible, your partner's income should pay into a pension for you. etc etc

A marriage licence is 46 quid. I don't know if you have to pay for the registrar's time, but if that is the difference between legal security in case of death/divorce/disability - then it is 46 quid well invested. (and even then it is better to be legally watertight in terms of insurance, property, pensions etc etc. Belt and braces is never a bad idea). If you don't want to marry, or partner doesn't want to marry: "legally watertight" are the watchwords.

Quite, and those who struggle to find £400 arent necessarily going to have assetts or careers where their finances need the protection of marriage if the relationship breaks down.

This.

If you have the appropriate paperwork and know your rights and responsibilities then marriage becomes less important.

I totally agree - and I find it stunning that so many men have the same realisation that you do but then screw over their partners and children.

Rather than the obligation of marriage I'd sooner see men having it dinned into them that if they father a child then they are financially responsible for that child - 50:50 - no arguments, no excuses.

And I'd happily pay more tax for any and all loopholes of CSA to be closed so that there is no escape. No job? Litterpicking or similar then, and government money to go to the mother.

Women don't need men, they need money to bring up their children and they should have that.

@YetAnotherSpartacus So true. My husband gave up his career for our family as they weren't compatible and I am helping him find a new one but it was terrifying how easy it would have been to thoroughly screw him over because he trusted me and wanted the best for us. We need proper protection for people in couples AND we need to reinforce the importance of having your own security wherever possible.

It's not blaming women to say that if you know there's a risk something can happen, it's wise to protect yourself against it.

Bad drivers shouldn't swerve all over the show on the motorway and change lanes without indicating, but they do - so I'm not going to stop wearing my seatbelt or leaving a huge gap at a notoriously bad junction for last-minute-lane-changers because THEY should do better.

There's often an air of smugness at how the individual wasn't stupid enough to fall into that trap and how they bagged themselves a husband. Like you say, wide eyed faux naivety.

I was agreeing with AnyFucker's post about women-blaming. I meant to quote it.