Quote:
Originally Posted by aggie  i have been noticing that from celebrities on down to teens, at least in the usa...it is becoming more common place for people to have children without the benefit of marriage.
granted accidents happen and there are alternatives to marriage when necessary...but when people intentionally (or unplanned) happily have more than one....maybe two people don't need marriage for sex...but i am not sure about creating new life outside of its boundaries.
thoughts/opinions/experience? |
I agree with your thoughts. Usually live-in relationships are less stable than married relationships. So, in theory it's true that 2 people living together can be just as committed or more committed than 2 married people; in practice, it's usually the marriage relationship that is more stable.
Also, one can not ignore the legal/financial benefits of marriage. In general, there are benefits related to tax breaks, social security, property, etc. that you just won't get if you're living together unless you pay a lot of money to a lawyer to essentially draw up a similar contract that will still have less weight than the marriage contract. Maybe the government shouldn't recognize marriage in this way. But the reality is that it does.
In general, people who have kids out of wedlock are much more likely to experience financial and emotional distress. And their kids feel that distress, too.
By the way, a lot of the research is backing up this point of view. Read the following editorial from Slate magazine to see what I'm saying. (To the best of my knowledge Slate could not be characterized as a conservative mag....but some things you just can't get away from):
Forget Juno. Out-of-wedlock births are a national catastrophe. - By Emily Yoffe - Slate Magazine