We're still nibbling away at the religionists.

[Aruntraveller]

hmm .. because love and marriage are two entirely different things?

No they're not - they go together like a horse and carriage ;-)

Sorry - I'll get my coat.....

[ProfessorDavey]

Even if only one couple gets married with the intent of having children, it is 'part of the whole package', O.  That is precisely why I used that form of words.

Only if that particular version of marriage has a focus on children - in other words religious marriage.

In civil marriage it is no more 'part of the whole package' than buying a house together if that's what the newly weds plan to do, or perhaps spending Christmas together.

You still seem fixated in the mindset that marriage and children are somehow inextricably linked - outside of the religious, they aren't.

So to go into anecdote overdrive - I'm now in that 'gap' period of my life where I don't actually go to that many weddings (unlike in my late 20s and 30s when they came thick and fast. So over the last couple of years I've been invited to 6 weddings (unfortunately one I couldn't actually attend). They involved:

1. A couple who had been together for 20 years and decided they'd like to get married - they have no kids and have no intention of having them and are probably too old.

2. Parents of one of my 8-year old daughter's school friends. They already had 2 kids, with no intent of having more when they decided to get married.

3. A gay couple who were previously in a civil partnership but decided to get married under the new law.

4. A cousin - second marriage - already had a young child with his spouse at the time of the wedding.

5. Another cousin - no kids when married - had a child shortly after.

6. A couple who are evangelical christians - first child born 6 months after they were married.

Four of the six were civil ceremonies - wonder if you can pick to 2 church weddings?

Point being that the old-fashioned notion that if you get married you are expected thereafter to have kids and you are expected to be married if you have kids is long gone.

[Shaker]

Definitely no sproglets in prospect for this happy couple:

http://goo.gl/MtpPYT

[Hope]

Only if that particular version of marriage has a focus on children - in other words religious marriage.

I know of several non-religious couples who had non-religious ceremonies who had their focus on children and wrote that into the service.

[floo]

When one of my sisters a 'born again', and her equally very religious husband, married, if the procreation of children was mentioned once by the idiot pastor who married them, he must have mentioned it about 20 times in his overlong and boring sermon! Funnily enough they only had two kids, whereas I had three birth children, and then went onto adopt two more, another sister of mine had four children. My youngest sister, an Anglican priest, never wanted kids, nor did her husband, so they successfully ensured none were born to them.

[ProfessorDavey]

I know of several non-religious couples who had non-religious ceremonies who had their focus on children and wrote that into the service.

But that is an optional addition specific for that couple, rather than something that is in any way necessary.

We wrote into our service the importance of tolerance and respect and also the importance of the example set by our own parents - completely optional - important to us, but not necessary and in many cases not appropriate.

I've been to plenty of civil weddings and I don't think 'potential' children have ever been mentioned - the only cases where children have been mentioned was where couples were marrying who already had kids and, of course, those kids were a key part of the ceremony.

[Hope]

I've been to plenty of civil weddings and I don't think 'potential' children have ever been mentioned ...

And with the exception of a prayer that can be included but doesn't have to be, the only mention in the whole of the Anglican Marriage Service is this (or comparable words depending on the version):

The gift of marriage brings husband and wife together
in the delight and tenderness of sexual union
and joyful commitment to the end of their lives.
It is given as the foundation of family life
in which children are [born and] nurtured
and in which each member of the family,in good times and in bad,
may find strength, companionship and comfort,
and grow to maturity in love.

Interestingly, marriage is referred to as the foundation of family life - and the mention of children isn't one of compulsion but of general reality - the majority of marriages result in a new generation of people.

[Bubbles]

When one of my sisters a 'born again', and her equally very religious husband, married, if the procreation of children was mentioned once by the idiot pastor who married them, he must have mentioned it about 20 times in his overlong and boring sermon! Funnily enough they only had two kids, whereas I had three birth children, and then went onto adopt two more, another sister of mine had four children. My youngest sister, an Anglican priest, never wanted kids, nor did her husband, so they successfully ensured none were born to them.

My mother who isn't particularly religious always told me marriage was to protect the children, which given the treatment given to children born outside marriage, in the past,  it could well be.

She takes the veiw that children want to know who their dad is it gives them a sense of identity.

The thing is, I feel the whole discussion on marriage now takes on a whole new meaning, given the gay debate and gay marriage.

Lots of people feel marriage exists to protect children. Two people committing to each other publicly sets out responsibilities.

Rather than pooh pooing the idea, you could extend it to gay couples, in that it's a declaration of commitment to the idea of family and any children they may choose to adopt.

The trouble is people use the idea of marriage to protect the family as an excuse  against gay couples who cannot bear children naturally.

However, it can still be something they commit to, and a public declaration to commitment to their family

I suppose I was just brought up with the idea marriage was to protect children.

It isn't a comment on those who can't or don't want to  have children.

Some people I know, have children and don't agree with marriage, they are as entitled to their POV as I am.

But to me it's a commitment to a family unit, it could apply as much to a gay couple adopting as a hetrosexual couple adopting.

Some children do want to know who their dad is though, and I think people need to keep sight of that 🌹

[ippy]

My mother who isn't particularly religious always told me marriage was to protect the children, which given the treatment given to children born outside marriage, in the past,  it could well be.

She takes the veiw that children want to know who their dad is it gives them a sense of identity.

The thing is, I feel the whole discussion on marriage now takes on a whole new meaning, given the gay debate and gay marriage.

Lots of people feel marriage exists to protect children. Two people committing to each other publicly sets out responsibilities.

Rather than pooh pooing the idea, you could extend it to gay couples, in that it's a declaration of commitment to the idea of family and any children they may choose to adopt.

The trouble is people use the idea of marriage to protect the family as an excuse  against gay couples who cannot bear children naturally.

However, it can still be something they commit to, and a public declaration to commitment to their family

I suppose I was just brought up with the idea marriage was to protect children.

It isn't a comment on those who can't or don't want to  have children.

Some people I know, have children and don't agree with marriage, they are as entitled to their POV as I am.

But to me it's a commitment to a family unit, it could apply as much to a gay couple adopting as a hetrosexual couple adopting.

Some children do want to know who their dad is though, and I think people need to keep sight of that 🌹

I'm inclined to think that there is no formula, I can see your point of view and I have a lot of sympathy with it.

All differing types of family units no matter what, some fail some are extraordinarily successful and most of the various shades of success and failure in between. 

ippy

[ProfessorDavey]

the majority of marriages result in a new generation of people.

Do they? Evidence please.

You may be correct but it isn't self evident. Interestingly the biggest increase in marriages by age band is for people aged 60-69, and I doubt many of these couples are likely to be having children.

Also there is a trend towards couples coming together in stable relationships, having children and then getting married so your claim that 'the majority of marriages result in a new generation of people' would not apply to them as they would have already produced a new generation of people before getting married.

Also consider second and third etc marriages - in many cases the couple will have kids from earlier marriages (or relationships) but may not have children in this new relationship.

So you might be right but without evidence I don't think you can assume this - and that you appear to be assuming it suggests you are somewhat blinded by your marriage equals kids type mentality, which isn't the same for many, many people who see marriage equals two people committing to each other and kids equals a decision (or not, but lets not get into unplanned pregnancies) by a couple to have a child - those two not being necessarily related at all.

[Hope]

    the majority of marriages result in a new generation of people.

Do they? Evidence please.

You may be correct but it isn't self evident. Interestingly the biggest increase in marriages by age band is for people aged 60-69, and I doubt many of these couples are likely to be having children.

Hi PD, I remembered my post later in the evening and realised that I ought to have used the term 'couples' or something similar.  I'm not talking about the couples who have children before marriage.

[ProfessorDavey]

Do they? Evidence please.

You may be correct but it isn't self evident. Interestingly the biggest increase in marriages by age band is for people aged 60-69, and I doubt many of these couples are likely to be having children.Hi PD, I remembered my post later in the evening and realised that I ought to have used the term 'couples' or something similar.  I'm not talking about the couples who have children before marriage.

So what are you talking about.

You claimed that 'the majority of marriages result in a new generation of people.' and I am asking you for the evidence for this.

I suspect your rather narrow view on marriage and its relation to having children leads you to assume this statement must be true. It may be true but there is no reason to suppose somehow it must be true and if you make a clime of that nature you need to provide evidence to back it up.

[Hope]

So what are you talking about.

You claimed that 'the majority of marriages result in a new generation of people.' and I am asking you for the evidence for this.

As I said, I should have used a term such as 'partnerships' as opposed to marriages, but the figures on births and new claim for child benefit payments, etc. suggest that most people who choose to live together are also looking to have children.  Of course there will be exceptions - those who loose a partner and/or (re)marry late in life, those who, for whatever reason decide not to have children. 

I suspect your rather narrow view on marriage and its relation to having children leads you to assume this statement must be true.

Oddly enough, my view on marriage is and has always been broader than many of the people I've associated/worked with - that it is first and foremost something to do with companionship, and being a foundation for a family - whether that is a single generation family of two, or a family that caters for 2 or more generations.  I've never really thought about where that understanding has come from, but I  suppose its as a result of the teaching I have had in school, church and, probably above all, from my Christian parents.

OK, I'll agree that my family may have been slightly out of the run of the mill - whenever Dad was at home of a weekend (his work as the 'CEO' of the Church of England's youth work nationally meant that he was often away on official business of a weekend) we would have a discussion, sometimes heated, about just about anything under the sun over Sunday lunch.  Sometimes, it would occur fairly naturally, sometimes it would come from a comment that Dad would make from a 'Devil's Advocate' pov.  Talking to other people, religious or not, I've come across very few people who had this kind of preparation in their youth.

[ProfessorDavey]

As I said, I should have used a term such as 'partnerships' as opposed to marriages, but the figures on births and new claim for child benefit payments, etc. suggest that most people who choose to live together are also looking to have children.  Of course there will be exceptions - those who loose a partner and/or (re)marry late in life, those who, for whatever reason decide not to have children.

Clearly having children is typically associated with some form of partnership, whether very formal/stable through to a one-night stand. Sure there are some women who have children without a partner but that is, of course, rare.

But again I'd challenge you on the assertion that 'most people who choose to live together are also looking to have children' - I don't think you can justify that claim. There are countless couples who move in together for all sorts of reasons that are nothing to do with a desire to have kids. Most notably, simply to want to live together - to be able to share all those lovely, yet often mundane things, to be able to wake up together without one of them being in the other's place etc.

Then there are those who are kind of 'test driving' the seriousness of their relationship - so at that point (moving in) they want to see whether they are compatible - if so, perhaps marriage or children or both might be on the agenda, but neither are at the point of moving in.

Then there are couples who recognise that living together makes economic (as well as emotional) sense. In our crazy property world if you are a couple a one bed flat makes a lot more sense financially than 2 one bed flats, or bedsits.

So I think you are getting you argument the wrong way up. Sure I imagine most couples who have kids have (at some earlier point) moved in together. But that isn't the same as claiming that most couples move in together because they want to have kids.

[ProfessorDavey]

Worth noting too that nearly 50% of children born in the UK currently are born to parents who aren't married. And of course that is way beyond the levels of 'Daily Mail-type rant' unplanned teenage pregnancies. Very many of these will be completely planned and to stable couples, but couples who have made the decision not to get married, although from my experience a fair few of these couples may choose to get married years later.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Worth noting too that nearly 50% of children born in the UK currently are born to parents who aren't married. And of course that is way beyond the levels of 'Daily Mail-type rant' unplanned teenage pregnancies. Very many of these will be completely planned and to stable couples, but couples who have made the decision not to get married, although from my experience a fair few of these couples may choose to get married years later.

I don't think middle class professional people are that qualified to be talking about any aspect of the population in general since most of them abandoned the masses after secondary school and have not had much to do with them subsequently only viewing them through the debased lens of the media (run by professional middle class).

Only people who have been in the public services have any idea and I speak from that background as well as several years industrial experience.

Anyway that is a roundabout way of getting to the point that child rearing isn't or hasn't been a strong suit in the UK in general. With material gifting seen by many as a reasonable substitute for presence, time, effort or commitment.

The unpalatable truth is that people can be very destabilised if areas of familial stability collapse............something else public service workers and professionals could tell you.

[Hope]

But again I'd challenge you on the assertion that 'most people who choose to live together are also looking to have children' - I don't think you can justify that claim.

OK, I'm making a number of assumptions, but 'educated' ones I would argue.  Many studies suggest that a majority of women want children as do a majority of men.  Studies also suggest that the majority of men and women want to enjoy a relationship with one (or more) other members of the species.  After all, that is the prime way in which the human race continues from generation to generation. 

Putting those two sets of data together it seems very probable that the living together and the having of children are matters that are discussed early in the process.    After all, someone who wants to have children isn't going to want to get too far into a relationship before at least broaching the subject.  Obviously, there are some relationships where the likelihood of either partner wanting chidren is very low, for a number of reasons, but I'm not sure that they in any way equal, let alone outnumber those where children are a consideration. 

[ProfessorDavey]

OK, I'm making a number of assumptions, but 'educated' ones I would argue.  Many studies suggest that a majority of women want children as do a majority of men.  Studies also suggest that the majority of men and women want to enjoy a relationship with one (or more) other members of the species.  After all, that is the prime way in which the human race continues from generation to generation. 

Putting those two sets of data together it seems very probable that the living together and the having of children are matters that are discussed early in the process.    After all, someone who wants to have children isn't going to want to get too far into a relationship before at least broaching the subject.  Obviously, there are some relationships where the likelihood of either partner wanting chidren is very low, for a number of reasons, but I'm not sure that they in any way equal, let alone outnumber those where children are a consideration.

No - you cannot make that leap.

Just because a woman wants children at some unspecified point in the future, and so does a man, you cannot assume that when they decide to move in together that they are doing so because they want children. That is a leap that makes no sense. I think it is extremely common for 2 people to move in together and definitely don't want to have children with each other at that point - and are probably taking precautions to avoid it.

So unless you can come to some evidence that as soon as couples move in together they stop using contraception I think your assertion that 'most people who choose to live together are also looking to have children' is a pile of rubbish. Indeed if they are using contraception then it is pretty clear they don't want children at that time. Maybe that might change in the future, maybe not, but that is a separate matter.

[Hope]

So unless you can come to some evidence that as soon as couples move in together they stop using contraception I think your assertion that 'most people who choose to live together are also looking to have children' is a pile of rubbish. Indeed if they are using contraception then it is pretty clear they don't want children at that time. Maybe that might change in the future, maybe not, but that is a separate matter.

Whereas I would argue that using contraception doesn't make it clear that they don't want children.  There may be a one or more of a whole host of reasons for not wanting children at a given time that doesn't mean that they don't intend to have children at some point in the future.  It is you who seem determined to link the 'getting together' and the 'having of children' together within a limited timeframe.  I have never even touched on the concept.

[ProfessorDavey]

Whereas I would argue that using contraception doesn't make it clear that they don't want children.  There may be a one or more of a whole host of reasons for not wanting children at a given time that doesn't mean that they don't intend to have children at some point in the future.  It is you who seem determined to link the 'getting together' and the 'having of children' together within a limited timeframe.  I have never even touched on the concept.

But if there is some rather vague aspiration to have kids at some point in the future with someone, who may or may not be the person they are moving in with how can you say they are moving in with someone because they are looking to have children.

No doubt most people aspire to live together with someone, yet when two people start going out together I don't think it is because they want to live together. I suspect a that point when they enter a relationship, although moving in together at some point in the future might be a possibility, that would be the last thing on their minds at that moment.

[ProfessorDavey]

Whereas I would argue that using contraception doesn't make it clear that they don't want children.  There may be a one or more of a whole host of reasons for not wanting children at a given time that doesn't mean that they don't intend to have children at some point in the future.  It is you who seem determined to link the 'getting together' and the 'having of children' together within a limited timeframe.  I have never even touched on the concept.

But you have to have some temporal proximity between the two.

Otherwise you could similarly claim that people get a job because they are looking to retire. I imagine most people want to have a job and career, and ultimately most people want to retire and the two are much more linked than living together and having children. Yet it would be barmy to claim that the reason someone gets a job is because they want to retire.

[Outrider]

Whereas I would argue that using contraception doesn't make it clear that they don't want children.  There may be a one or more of a whole host of reasons for not wanting children at a given time that doesn't mean that they don't intend to have children at some point in the future.  It is you who seem determined to link the 'getting together' and the 'having of children' together within a limited timeframe.  I have never even touched on the concept.

I don't think that was intended to be read as 'they don't want to have children at that point in time but are open to the idea of having them at some point', I think it was meant as 'when they get married, they have no intention of having children at all, and that sentiment might come over them later'.

O.