More Unmarried, Cohabiting Couples Having Babies Together: OK or Put a Ring On It?

by SodaHead Living Posted 2012/04/12 18:29:05

Related Topics: Lifestyle, Cohabiting Couples, Marriage, Relationships, Tradition, Unmarried, Living Together, babies, Kids, College, Family, Baby, Government, Older, News, Carriage, 20s, Bad, Survey

Read More

453 votes
Read all 401 opinions
Lightning Report View Results and Demographics + View Demographics

Loading Demographics... Click an icon to see demographic results Display unknown and private
	OK	259 votes	57%
	Put a ring on it first!	194 votes	43%

First came love, then came ... shacking up ... then came a baby in the baby carriage. The number of U.S. women age 15-44 giving birth for the first time while living with a partner to whom they are not married has risen from 12 percent of first births in 2002 to 22 percent of first births between 2006 and 2010, a new government report says, according to WebMD.

Want some more interesting stats from the survey? The average age for a woman to give birth to her first child is 23; for men, it's 25. Also, half of women's first births took place in their 20s; two-thirds of first births were fathered by men in their 20s.

And what about women who were married and women who were college-educated? They were more likely to have a first birth at age 30 or older, compared with women who were not married or who were less educated. So, do you think it's OK for cohabiting couples to start reproducing? Or should he put a ring on it first?

+20

Add a comment above

katy.isodo 2012/04/12 18:48:18

OK

+18
I think there are just as many married couples living unhealthy lives.. simply having 'legal binding documents' doesn't create a more healthy environment for a child. Plenty of non married people make great parents.
>> See Replies

More polls by SodaHead Living

Flamingolady 2012/04/13 12:28:32

Put a ring on it first!

Call me old fashioned! My best friend's son and his girlfriend are having a baby today, actually, and they are waiting until October to get married. I guess she will have time to get her figure back by then.

reply
rebecca to Flaming... 2012/04/13 12:58:42

congratulaions on both

reply
rebecca to rebecca 2012/04/13 13:02:43

how old are they

reply
rebecca to rebecca 2012/04/13 13:03:20

and also is it a girl or boy

reply
Flaming... to rebecca 2012/04/15 20:54:41

They are both 35, and they had a sweet baby girl. She is beautiful, and the parents are both really nice looking.

reply
Swartzy 2012/04/13 12:24:17

OK

+1
I feel like marriage is a dying tradition.

reply
mackenzie 2012/04/13 12:17:32

Put a ring on it first!

if you like it then put a ring on it

reply
tredzwater 2012/04/13 11:46:46

Put a ring on it first!

+1
It's not good for children to grow up in an unstable environment. No matter how bad the current laws about marriage and divorce may be, they are better than no law at all.

If a couple want to live together without a legal contract, I have no problem with that but, please, keep the kids out of it.

reply
Yuki ~ ... to tredzwater 2012/04/13 12:53:26

+2
Uhm.

How does being unmarried create an unstable environment?

Or more to say, how does lacking that little bit of legal paper make it unstable?

reply
tredzwater to Yuki ~ ... 2012/04/13 13:18:05

Simple. While both married and unmarried relationships can be unstable, when one has that "little bit of legal paper" one is legally entitled to assets of the partnership. Without it...not so much.

IMNSHO, a contract is always better than a handshake.

reply
Yuki ~ ... to tredzwater 2012/04/13 13:21:31

+2
I don't think keeping each others' balls in a vise is a good basis for having a relationship with a child in it... and that basically sounds like the bottom-line reason for getting married with a kid.

reply
tredzwater to Yuki ~ ... 2012/04/13 15:55:40

Yuki, we'll have to disagree. I don't see it as "balls in a vise". I see it as a sensible way to manage familial assets and protect everyone involved.

If a couple can't commit to each other enough to write their names on a legal document then there simply is no committment.

reply
mr kalada 2012/04/13 11:43:41

OK

+2
i dont think it should be a 'law' that a couple should be married before they can have kids, i mean contracting marriage is just agreeing a certain set of terms and conditions, which one can really agree on without having to sign any documents. i think its okay as long as people feel and understand the responsibility.

reply
tredzwater to mr kalada 2012/04/13 11:50:05

People change. Without a legal agreement, one partner can walk away from a relationship with no repercussions and no responsibilities. Marriage doesn't change that people may learn to hate each other but it does change what either party can do about that.

reply
caroline to tredzwater 2012/04/13 12:45:24

+2
with all due respect not all married couples provide a stable environment for children and it is so easy to walk away from marriage these days.

reply
tredzwater to caroline 2012/04/13 13:19:47

But not to walk away from the assets. With a marriage contract, both parties are legally entitled to assets of the relationship. And, the children are legally entitled to inherit.

reply
caroline to tredzwater 2012/04/15 17:04:15

law is different here,children are given the same legal standing whether from married or unmarried parents.

reply
tredzwater to caroline 2012/04/15 17:49:49

That's a good law. The UK used to be not so helpful to children born out of wedlock.

It seems to me that if a child is the direct offspring of one person or another, any benefits that person has should go to the survivors, regardless of marriage or cohabitation. I have no ethical view of people living together. I'm just really focused on my own security and I must admit that I see a man unwilling to commit, on paper, as not a good prospect for a long and happy relationship.

In some US states there are still laws on the books regarding "common law" spouses.

Easy to understand version: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

More in-depth: http://www.ncsl.org/issues-re...

And, from this site: http://www.expertlaw.com/libr...

the quote, "While in one state, a common law spouse might be entitled to a share of the marital estate and even to spousal support, in a state which does not recognize common law marriage that person may not be able to lay claim to jointly acquired assets titled in their partner's name and won't be eligible for alimony or "palimony".

and "You should also recall that if your common law spouse becomes disabled or dies, it will be up to you to prove the validity of your marriage if your spouse's family excludes you from medical decision-making or tries t...

That's a good law. The UK used to be not so helpful to children born out of wedlock.

It seems to me that if a child is the direct offspring of one person or another, any benefits that person has should go to the survivors, regardless of marriage or cohabitation. I have no ethical view of people living together. I'm just really focused on my own security and I must admit that I see a man unwilling to commit, on paper, as not a good prospect for a long and happy relationship.

In some US states there are still laws on the books regarding "common law" spouses.

Easy to understand version: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

More in-depth: http://www.ncsl.org/issues-re...

And, from this site: http://www.expertlaw.com/libr...

the quote, "While in one state, a common law spouse might be entitled to a share of the marital estate and even to spousal support, in a state which does not recognize common law marriage that person may not be able to lay claim to jointly acquired assets titled in their partner's name and won't be eligible for alimony or "palimony".

and "You should also recall that if your common law spouse becomes disabled or dies, it will be up to you to prove the validity of your marriage if your spouse's family excludes you from medical decision-making or tries to exclude you from inheriting property."

Note that there is usually legal mention of probate in these discussions. This means that whether or not you inherit is, indeed, influenced by marriage...common-law or contractual.

Not good enough for me...not by a long shot.
(more)

reply
Yuki ~ ... to tredzwater 2012/04/13 12:54:54

+1
It's easy to walk away from a marriage anyway. It doesn't really change what either party can do, either. It's better to have loving parents than married one, if they must be mutually exclusive. Marriage isn't for everyone.

reply
tredzwater to Yuki ~ ... 2012/04/13 13:23:52

+2
Why is marriage "not for everyone"? If a person is not willing to commit, legally, to a relationship, just how "committed" is that person? And, why would you want children, who require 18 years of support, with a person unable to sign his/her name to a legal document guaranteeing that support?

The fact that marriages end in divorce, that people welsh on child support, that those who claim to love each other often end up despising each other means nothing.

It's all about the contract...and how you enforce it.

reply
Yuki ~ ... to tredzwater 2012/04/13 13:33:24 (edited)
tredzwater to Yuki ~ ... 2012/04/13 15:56:46

And, then you take them to court. If the other person reneges and you have no contract, you're royally screwed.

reply
Yuki ~ ... to tredzwater 2012/04/13 16:09:59

Without a contract, there is nothing for them to renege on. I simply take what's mine if they're unwilling to discuss or compromise, and separate.

reply
tredzwater to Yuki ~ ... 2012/04/13 18:28:51

And, what if they don't agree on what's yours? Or, what if they consider the children as "yours"?

What's interesting is that I just got off the phone with my best friend. Her son was living with a "lovely girl". This "lovely girl" just cleaned out his bank account of over $10,000 and trashed him all over Facebook.

According to my friend, there was no warning and a friend of the couple said that the "lovely girl" bragged that she had been intending to do it for weeks. She had met another guy...

Appropos, no?

reply
Yuki ~ ... to tredzwater 2012/04/13 23:11:15

+1
I would consider things I paid for to be "mine". If it came to a custody battle over the children, I would prove that I'm the better caretaker, and courts usually choose the mother over the father. I'd take them without protest.

O____O' Is he able to get his money back? She did steal it, he has her identification...

"Lovely girl" indeed. Still, I'll take my chances. Be glad he didn't marry her. o.o

reply
tredzwater to Yuki ~ ... 2012/04/14 00:18:59

+1
My friend said that the guy she left him for dumped her and all the money is gone. Now she wants him to take her back. My friend isn't sure what he'll do...he says it's over.

reply
Yuki ~ ... to tredzwater 2012/04/14 03:21:57

+1
Any reasonable person thinking with their head and not their heart will say, "It's over, and you stole my money, so you'd better start paying me back or else."

A person thinking with their heart or their loins... >.>

I'd personally play hardball. But dammit, someone needs to smack a bitch.

reply
tredzwater to Yuki ~ ... 2012/04/14 03:49:42

+1
I absolutely agree! I'd love to turn my tongue on her. The old-time Chinese had something called the Death of a Thousand Cuts. My tongue can do one thousand and one.

And, my friend's son is the dearest, sweetest man I've ever known. I've known him since he was 15 and I've never once seen him angry or heard a harsh word from him. Truly. And, honest? Once, my friend and I took him and a guy friend to the movies (he was too young to drive) and I slipped him a $20. Turns out that the movie was closed and he tapped me on the shoulder and put the $20 into my hand.

I hope he gets over this. It has him very depressed.

reply
Yuki ~ ... to tredzwater 2012/04/14 04:51:07

+1
He sounds like my father and my brother all in one. D: My father, who I think I've only ever seen truly angry a handful of times; and my brother, when a relationship of his went south and he didn't get out of bed for months. Nearly.

Hope your friend's son recovers quicker than my brother. He sounds like a wonderful person, and doesn't deserve this. I hope he doesn't take that "lovely girl" back.

reply
mr kalada to tredzwater 2012/04/13 14:13:36

+1
r u trying to say one can compel the other to pay for the care of the child if there is a validly contracted marriage? yeah maybe you have a point but i think rather than pushing for marriage and then later getting the contract enforced by claiming for the care of child, it would be a good idea to take a good hard look at the laws regulating children. maybe USA can have a law that would compel the walking away partner to pay for the care of the child or at least share expenses. i dont know if such laws exist already, but sure as hell they should be well on their way to the statute books.

reply
tredzwater to mr kalada 2012/04/13 16:05:03 (edited)

+1
They exist for the married. For the unmarried...not so much. Child protection laws do exist, regardless of the status of the parents, but they are badly enforced. Simply starving a child by not paying support is often not enough to be punished. You have to torture the child...or kill it.

At least with a contract, of whatever sort, you can sue the non-paying partner. Without a contract, you don't have much to go on. And, in western countries, there is still a stigma, among the conservative (which usually describes judges and lawmakers) that a woman who gives birth outside of marriage is unworthy of the law's protection.

Being a free spirit is all well and good but, for me, my children's welfare would be my first consideration. IMNSHO, men don't get to scatter their seed like dandelion fluff and get away with it. And, women don't get to drop babies like a stray cat and expect my taxes to pay for them.

A contract may not generate a sense of responsibility but it goes a long way toward dinging the pockets of the irresponsible.

reply
Fenabarb 2012/04/13 10:39:43

OK

+3
I'm not married and I am a great parent

reply
tredzwater to Fenabarb 2012/04/13 11:52:35

You probably are, Fen, but what do you think makes a great parent? And, what will you do if your SO decides you should be the ONLY parent and walks out?

reply
Yuki ~ ... to tredzwater 2012/04/13 12:55:55

Happened to someone I know. Solution? He won custody of his daughter from her neglectful mother, and now takes care of her on his own. They go fishing every Saturday. :)

reply
tredzwater to Yuki ~ ... 2012/04/13 13:31:34

Yuki, anecdotal stories mean nothing. There are undoubtedly many unmarried couples who stayed together for life and many who divorced the morning after the wedding. None of that means a thing.

What's important is what you are entitled to...by law. I would never give my life into the hands of a man who was unable, or unwilling, to put his name on a contract. I'm not stupid and I'm VERY interested in my own security. "Why buy a cow when the milk is free?" is nasty and vulgar but the man who buys the cow has an investment in taking care of her.

If he just slides in with a bucket every morning, he can decide there isn't enough cream in the milk and walk away.

reply
Yuki ~ ... to tredzwater 2012/04/13 15:03:31 (edited)

+1
I see where you're coming from. I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree, since I have a very different view. I personally just don't feel like getting the law involved, because I feel like if I'm involved with someone, it should be someone adult enough to sit down and discuss things if the relationship goes south romantically. My parents managed to do it, and their focus was on making it as easy as possible for my brother and I. They were no longer in love after 25 years, and wanted to separate and later divorce, and there was no messy fighting screaming match or shouting. They didn't have to dig into the pocket of the law to gain any sort of upperhand, because their focus was on the best interest of their kids. They separated like mature adults, and remain good friends. They still share the care in my upbringing and my brother's.

I sort of feel like my security isn't dependent upon a husband. If I no longer have them, I'm able to provide for myself-- I know that if I separated from a man who wanted nothing to do with his child, I'd let him go. I probably wouldn't even bother with child support-- it's his loss. I'd have my brother, my family, my step-family, and my extended family to give me support and advice and a shoulder if I need it. I don't have to tie myself down to s...

I see where you're coming from. I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree, since I have a very different view. I personally just don't feel like getting the law involved, because I feel like if I'm involved with someone, it should be someone adult enough to sit down and discuss things if the relationship goes south romantically. My parents managed to do it, and their focus was on making it as easy as possible for my brother and I. They were no longer in love after 25 years, and wanted to separate and later divorce, and there was no messy fighting screaming match or shouting. They didn't have to dig into the pocket of the law to gain any sort of upperhand, because their focus was on the best interest of their kids. They separated like mature adults, and remain good friends. They still share the care in my upbringing and my brother's.

I sort of feel like my security isn't dependent upon a husband. If I no longer have them, I'm able to provide for myself-- I know that if I separated from a man who wanted nothing to do with his child, I'd let him go. I probably wouldn't even bother with child support-- it's his loss. I'd have my brother, my family, my step-family, and my extended family to give me support and advice and a shoulder if I need it. I don't have to tie myself down to someone in order to get a bit of security. I know not everyone has that, but I do, so if I were ever in that position, I wouldn't need marriage. We'd discuss things fairly, depending on how much he still wants to be a part of his child's life, and work from there.

I wouldn't need marriage, and I just wouldn't bother with it.
(more)

reply
tredzwater to Yuki ~ ... 2012/04/13 16:11:26

+2
It's a very nice attitude, Yuki, and I do hope it works out for you. I hope it doesn't come back to bite you in the...ahem...fundament, one day.

I'm a whole lot older than you are and I'm much more cynical. I want it in writing.

reply
Fenabarb to tredzwater 2012/04/14 10:01:55

she has-lol

reply
hari 2012/04/13 10:13:46

OK

ok

reply
Tentimesinfinity 2012/04/13 10:09:13

Put a ring on it first!

They're not thinking of how the child is gonna feel, plus if they're married theyll both probably share the child's care.

reply