AIBU to be very shocked only 3% of unmarried parents stay together until child is 16!

[littlemoominmamma]

3% is nothing!!! It is soooo sad. 1 out of every 3 couples have seperated before the child is 5yrs old

I am now glad that the tories are going to give married couples help.

at drosophila!

I'm off for tonigh, hope whoever stays on has a nice further discussion.

Oh and thanks fembear .

I will take away principle and replace it with principal assumption, which is what I originally intended. If you seek to explain something, then you assume it to be the case.

Is it a finding, or isn't it? As either a finding OR an assumption, a lot of people on this thread would take issue with that. But I don't think they realised it was contained in your post.

Whichever what way, it IS assumed that non-married couples are not married because their relationships are unstable (on average, largely, heavily qualified etc etc).

In fact many people have vigorously and robustly denied that unmarried = unstable but still seem to be using your argument to support their case. It's just so full of syllogism it is doing my head in.

but no upandrunning, MOST people don't assume that unmarried relationships are unstable! where did you dredge that up?

Shirley - yes, thats what has been argued here, but certain posters dont seem to want to accept thjat!!

Er.. it's from Meita's post. Have a look at it properly. If you read our conversation with some attention you will notice I have said it is "patently untrue" that unmarried = instability.

upandrunning, may i refer you back to my 16:38 Post!!!!!

i dont know who im agreeing with or disagreeing with anymore - is it wine o clock yet?

Here you go: we have a choice, according to Meita. Either we believe that marriage is a stability-inducing factor, or we believe that stable couples are more likely to get married.

"Many here have argued that getting married will not change the likelihood of splitting. Those couples that work will most likely work with or without marriage certificate, those that don't work won't work either way. That is an excellent point and one which cannot be emphasized enough. It is the same as saying that although there is a correlation between marriage and relationship stability (which the figures seem to imply), that doesn't mean that there is causality, i.e. that one causes the other. The alternative explanation for the correlation is the selection argument: If married couples are statistically more stable than unmarried couples, then this can just as well be down to stable couples being more likely to get married than unstable couples. Ergo, marriage does not cause stability, but rather, stability means people select marriage (on average). Choose for yourself which sounds more plausible."

This too, from someone else disagreeing with me but unintentionally implying that couples who get married are more stable:

"upandrunning you've got it wrong - married people are not more likely to stay together just by the simple fact that they haev got married. They are more likely to stay together because they have CHOSEN to get married, they have CHOSEN to stay together."

ho ho lem

It's just.. it's as if people don't understand what they are saying.

"Of course marriages aren't more stable: marriage can't make a relationship more stable, more stable relationships make marriage."

Well QUITE.

It's not even me contradicting people, it's people contradicting themselves. It's people saying THEMSELVES that marriages are more stable than cohabitation while at the same time disagreeing with me.

Curiouser and curiouser.

so can you state categorically for me (me being a bit on the thick side obviously) where you stand on this?

I mean, when do we include an non married relationship in the stats? Is that when they have children? When they move in together?

Only, my DD lives with her BF but niether of them are actually commited to spend their lives together right now - but for now, it works for them. I would hope that before they have children that they consider whether or not they will stay together - however, i dont think they need to get married to prove it.

Slight rewind:

"Whichever what way, it IS assumed that non-married couples are not married because their relationships are unstable (on average, largely, heavily qualified etc etc)."

Should read: "it IS assumed OR found that non-married couples are less stable."

Either because of non-marriage or the reason for non- marriage, as Meita says.

So long as they have a commitment to stay together if they have children it's all the same to me. But being unmarried (statistically ibid: Meita) implies they don't.

I'd like to see public commitment before children as an aspiration, meringue or no meringue.

My upandrunning you won't let it lie!Wonder why you are so agitated about this if you are happily married and see it as the 'best' way.You protest too much.

I find it frustrating that so many posters LillanGish being the latest I think, can't seem to respect my choice not to get married and imply that by going to the trouble of 'sorting' our financial and other issues DP and I may as well just get married (it was no trouble in our situation).

I have my own reasons for being very uncomfortable with the idea of marriage, its not something I want to do ever. But thats my choice isn't it??

Is it really so hard to respect the fact that I (and others) feel this way? Yes, I accept that there may be financial and other (eg next-of-kin) implications to not being married, but in our situation we have ensured that things are in place to get round this. This was not difficult.

We are all different here, with different beliefs and attitudes. I am respectful of other peoples choices- except when they choose to believe that it their way or the high way.......That I cannot stand!!!

wheresmypaddle, if you have taken the necessary legal and financial steps to protect yourself and your dcs, then power to your elbow that you would rather do that than get married.

However, seeing how so few people (married or not) who do not even have a will in place, I fear you and your partner are in the extreme minority of co-habitees who have seen a solicitor to sort your affairs out and I assume update from time to time.

who do not even have

Thank you blueshoes for saying that, I feel less of an outcast now!!

I agree, that DP and I are most likely in the minority in protecting ourselves. I can also see that for some couples its not so easy to protect each other as for us as I am not finaacially dependant on DP- despite working PT. I personally, would feel uncomfortable relying financially on DP and do not plan to do so,(that's just ME though, I don't expect others to feel the same).

I thought everyone knew that, from a child's point of view, you are far more likely to have parents who are still together if they are married.
I think this probability is even higher if they were married before you were born.

However, this is as others have stated quite logical.
For example 2 people, committed to each other, choose to get married, have child/ren after marriage. versus:
2 people, single, meet, get pregnant by accident, find this out as things are beginning to go wrong. Of course they are far more likely to seperate.

Of course there are lots of exceptions-naturally and I really don't care whether someone is married or not.
But I am still shocked that the vast majority of kids will have broken homes-however you try and colour the facts.

My unmarried brother has been with his partner for 25 years this year and they have two kids (young adults). I have been married 18 years this year (with one gorgeous talented son); 3 years short of my sister (still happily married, 3 kids) and 7 years short of another brother (still happily married, 3 kids). I have a brother- and sister-in-law who will celebrate their 36th anniversary this year - with three grandchildren - who are the most youthful retirees I have ever known, plus several others too numerous to mention - enormous family! I have several nieces and nephews in their twenties/early thirties who have married and have had children in the last five or so years who are very happy together. Marriage is not dead yet.

As an aside, I remember a woman (in her twenties) I once worked with in the early 1990s - she was engaged to be married to a man she was not quite sure about. She said, and I quote directly "well, I can always get divorced!"!

Dp and I have 3 dc and have been together for 20 years, rarely meet married couples who have been together as long.

However my concern is any couple staying together who really shouldn't. Not all couples should be together for 20 years like we have. Finding somebody who you are going to get on with for the rest of your life is bloody hard. This rather crucial point always gets overlooked on these pro marriage threads.

If a couple hate each other,are miserable,always arguing,not living life to the full why on earth should they stay together married or not? What good is that going to do for a child. I hate this term"broken home" which is always aimed at couples who have split up. A lot of homes are "broken"even if the parents haven't split.

Also encouraging couples to get married inferring the act of marriage will serve as some kind of miracle glue is so wrong, actually it's also so foolish it's laughable.

It's luck meeting the right person pure and simple, you can work as hard as you like at a relationship but if it aint right it aint right. Yes couples can go through difficult times and need to ride the storms(we certainly have)but not all couples are meant to do that successfully,even though many will. There are sooooo many married couples who really shouldn't be together let alone put their dc through the ordeal of their crappy relationship.

I also know couples who do a damn fine job of raising their dc single handedly far better than many married couples.

The world is changing,couples don't have to stay together anymore. The challenge and effort needs to go into helping couples who seperate raise their dc together successfully but separately. I don't buy this out dated you must raise your dc together or they're doomed it's tosh. Nasty fighting over every little detail of a split and using kids as pawns screws kids up not the splitting in mvho.

We'll get married if this tory thing goes through and so I get widows benefit if needs be-not exactly a great reason for getting married and it won't make one iota of difference as regards dp and I staying together.

Noddy that's pathetic. Really pathetic.

Add message | Report | Contact poster By upandrunning Fri 22-Jan-10 04:20:26
"I was brought up by an unmarried couple (mother and step father), my married parents having split well before my 5th birthday. Perhaps this is why marriage feels meaningless to me?"

This is it, really. Staying together may mean nothing for the child either. So it's a culture of single parenthood with general approval and often, of course, universal costs.

All those awful Daily Mail readers, those dreadful, smug, well heeled middle class people, are probably paying for a lot of it too. Bastards.

• What culture of single parenthood are you talking about? What universal costs? I clearly stated I was brought up by two parents. They just weren't married.

Should probably not enter the fray but don't think the "life support" argument is relevant. Even if there was a legally defined next of kin they do not in law have the power to decide on medical decisions. Unless that is they hold a lasting power of attorney for welfare decisions where you can elect someone (anyone you choose) to make decisions related to care and treatment on your behalf should you be unable to. If there is none then the ultimate decision rests with medics but with a responsibility to consider pts best interests in light of info on knowledge of persons beliefs and wishes from those who know them best. Marriage makes no difference.