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.

no sorry DP, no gay bashing allowed - else i'll kick yer arse and tell everyone about our secret affair

but anyway, my experience doesn't count because im not married?? lmao

Noddy - why are only your vows meaningful? Why can't people read vows written by someone else not have the same effect?

Personally we added to ours, they weren't completly individual but they still meant a lot.

guys guys!!! dont be dissing each others vows - go and have a cup of tea!! come on

This is all a complete nonsense though - what matters is the quality of the parenting and the relationships generally - whether people are married, unmarried, gay, blended families whatever...

gah [hides thread]

domesticextremist - the voice of reason!! Not bad for an extremist loving that nickname - wanders off muttering why can i never think of a clever user name

Daftpunkslesbianlover....?

Cory - Agree. The political parties are dealing only with the symptoms of the problem, not the problem itself.

The problem is this:

When a cohabitee relationship breaks down, v often a woman and children are left in poverty. The state ends up picking up the pieces whilst the man remains largely unaffected and certainly NOT in poverty. His net monthly position is probably much improved as a result of the split in fact.

only joking dude.....hope you're ok...

Before I joined this site I was blissfully ignorant about the amount of people out there that must look down their noses at me because I co-habit and have children.
I honestly didnt believe that anyone would give a toss about my domestic set up!

for certain bigots, please listen well

Yes. This isn't about marriage/cohabiting/lone parents/any other sort of permutation of living.

It's to do with poverty and social inequality, as usual. That's what all the problems in our society boil down to but of course no-one can really come out with it so groups of people have to be blamed - single mothers, black youths, white "chavs" etc etc etc etc

I don't think people look down on people that cohabit. I cohabited until 4 days before my fourth child, but I had been engaged and was willing to marry since I was pg with the first.

lol - thinking of a namechange man!

My vows would only be meaningful to me thats what I meant.I don't agree with one size fits all.If the trad vows are appropriate for you then thats great but just not for me

i have been married 21 years, so obviously it works for me(chep wedding so no big deal) and i think it works form many, I have never understood why people can make the massive commitment to have children, but not to get married, but that is just me.
I find it interesting to read what other people say about it(did aggree with dp once on this thread then she got childish)

Noddy love your take on it all.

My new vow -

I hearby do solemly declare that I will never again post a thread without properly discerning wether anything I talk about has been quoted in the Daily Mail.

Having been a co-habitee and a married ladiee I can honestly say both are fine by me.

i lived in sin, I think that sounds so much more fun than cohabitee(and easier to spell)

I an'tremember my vows

I found some in a book I liked sowesnaffledthem, but ten yeras on not a memory. Something about valuing each others dreams as much asour own.
Nope,no idea what else.Think its written down in a photo book upstairs though.

Doesn't seem to matter though.

Does whether or not cohabitees with kids stay together relate to how much money the couple has?

At first glance looks like it does have something to do with married couples - once universal across income groups, getting married at all is now increasingly an option only the middle class/employed choose.

Or could it be a case of social group values - say class or ethnicity rather than income. For instance, the divorce rate of people from Asian families is very low, but although they're a notably successful/educated/employed group, they, like most ex-immigrant groups, aren't that well off on the whole.

I'm confused.

And awaiting someone who's had a moany morning with whingeing nippers venting their spleen on me.

I think jimmy, the reason is, that for some people, being married isn;t that big a deal. Its just not and in that case, to get married just to have kids? That would be wrong no?

If for instance, marriage was a big deal to me before having a family, and i had a family before i was married then that would be a bit rubbish, because as you say, the commitment wouldnt be there - however, for someone like me who doesn't think commitment necessarily = marriage, then no - being unmarried is no big deal. Does that make any sense?

FWIW i know loads of people who have lived together for a long time and then got married, their marriages have broken down relatively quickly afterwards. I wonder what the stats say about that? Or is it just me?

This isn't about anything other than the findings that married parents stay together longer than unmarried. This is true across the socio economic board. You can manipulate the findings to make them prejudiced I'm sure.

Like most government statistics they are coming at the whole thing from an arse about face angle. It is not that unmarried, co-habiting, deeply committed long-term couples who plan their families and take financial responsibility for them for them are any more likely to split than married couples who do the same. It is that these days people feel entitled to enter parenthood with little planning or forethought, or without being in a long-term co-habiting, deeply committed relationship in the first place, married or otherwise. Rewarding parents for being married won't change a thing.