Why is marriage more serious than having children?

Frenchy girl, don't you know marriage is for White people! Seriously though, this question is no laughing matter. Some time last year, I started a similar discussion asking readers "Why Are There More Baby-Daddies Than Husbands." The truth is, people are having sex unprotected. They may not want to get married, but they want to have sex. What I fail to understand, however, is never mind getting pregnant, how can people considering the high risk and probability of contracting sexually-transmitted diseases, can continue to have sex unprotected. Folks hear about people contracting diseases everyday and they STILL refuse to protect themselves.

Marriage seems to carry a great deal more weight of responsibility: A scary issue for some; a taboo to others; and, a welcome challenge to many.

Why? Morals are much more looser today than they were some 40 years ago.

----------------

I'm ole fashioned; therefore, traditionally, IMHO folk should marry first, feather the nest, then stock the nest as affordability allows...!

Having children is the easy part, raising children requires a bit more---time, energy and money--18-21 years is a looooooog time.

This is just a theory, and very general.

Marriage is about looking at that person the same way you look at yourself and accepting all the flaws. Marriage is about surrendering the self to consider the impact your actions have on another who is equally as important. Marriage is about the choice of being with a person and always having the choice to walk away, wheather you exercise that choic or not. Marriage is about unconditional voluntary love. You choose your friends and you choose your spouse.

Children will always be with thier parents. You may have a sorry Mama, but she is still your Mama, you may have a dead beat Dad, but he is still your Dad. Children start out receiving unconditional love and in turn they give unconditional love. You do not get to pick your children, you do not get to pick your parents, you simply play the cards that you are dealt. Because of the genetic link, it is more difficult to change those bonds. Which is why people fight so much over custody during divorce, you have chosen not to give part of yourself to the other person any more thus you want your children, because they are more you than the other person.

Bottom line, there is more personal risk in marriage than there is in having a child.

quote:

Why is marriage so much more serious/frightening than having a child?

I think we have just been conditioned to believe that it is ok to have children out of wedlock. I believe that for many people, marriage is a risk but having a child without the benefit of marriage is acceptable today.

quote:

Originally posted by Nikcara:
This is just a theory, and very general.

Marriage is about looking at that person the same way you look at yourself and accepting all the flaws. Marriage is about surrendering the self to consider the impact your actions have on another who is equally as important. Marriage is about the choice of being with a person and always having the choice to walk away, wheather you exercise that choic or not. Marriage is about unconditional voluntary love. You choose your friends and you choose your spouse.

Children will always be with thier parents. You may have a sorry Mama, but she is still your Mama, you may have a dead beat Dad, but he is still your Dad. Children start out receiving unconditional love and in turn they give unconditional love. You do not get to pick your children, you do not get to pick your parents, you simply play the cards that you are dealt. Because of the genetic link, it is more difficult to change those bonds. Which is why people fight so much over custody during divorce, you have chosen not to give part of yourself to the other person any more thus you want your children, because they are more you than the other person.

Bottom line, there is more personal risk in marriage than there is in having a child.

Can you better define the personal risk of a genetic bond? Meaning explicitly what effect does this have on a person? Is the real personal risk a psychological one? For instance say.... it's more damaging to break a psycho-physiological genetic bond over the damage created from an emotional bond ?

Please elaborate....


Peace,
Virtue

quote:

Originally posted by virtue:

Can you better define the personal risk of a genetic bond? Meaning explicitly what effect does this have on a person? Is the real personal risk a psychological one? For instance say.... it's more damaging to break a psycho-physiological genetic bond over the damage created from an emotional bond ?

Please elaborate....


Peace,
Virtue

When you have a failed relationship with a love interest how do people normally react? My best friend has been divorced twice, I have another girlfriend who is an attorney whose third divorce, neither looks at thier spouses as the reason for the failure they each blame themselves even when the men were assholes. Why, it was personal, it was a rejection of the indivdual. Guy could be abusive, but she failed to recognize, failed to acknowledge what she saw, she failed.

The genetic bond, no matter how your relationship is with your parents, you are stuck. If your mother was crazy, your father can say, my genes were good, the mama's was bad, which is why the kid is crazy. Same goes for the mothers ability to say stuff about the father, if the kid is messed up, not her fault, she did the best she could...

Very few people delete themselves from thier family... evidence of the gentic bond but you can walk away from the other person, the fact that you choose to stay in my mind is what makes it more personal and why it is harder to get married than it is to have a child.

My clients take divorce very personally and people do fight over their children but it seems to me that they do it to hurt the other person with the only thing left of their relationship, i.e. the kid. They do not care about how thier blood lust effect the kid because it is never about the kid it is always about the end of that relationship. Which goes back to personal failure because of the end of the relationship. The circle is complete.

Hope that answers your question, I have not studied psychology since 1988 when I got my degree so the clinical analysis has not been done this is just my theory based on observations from life and as a matrimonial attorney.

quote:

Originally posted by Nikcara:

quote:

Originally posted by virtue:

Can you better define the personal risk of a genetic bond? Meaning explicitly what effect does this have on a person? Is the real personal risk a psychological one? For instance say.... it's more damaging to break a psycho-physiological genetic bond over the damage created from an emotional bond ?

Please elaborate....


Peace,
Virtue

When you have a failed relationship with a love interest how do people normally react? My best friend has been divorced twice, I have another girlfriend who is an attorney whose third divorce, neither looks at thier spouses as the reason for the failure they each blame themselves even when the men were assholes. Why, it was personal, it was a rejection of the indivdual. Guy could be abusive, but she failed to recognize, failed to acknowledge what she saw, she failed.

The genetic bond, no matter how your relationship is with your parents, you are stuck. If your mother was crazy, your father can say, my genes were good, the mama's was bad, which is why the kid is crazy. Same goes for the mothers ability to say stuff about the father, if the kid is messed up, not her fault, she did the best she could...

Very few people delete themselves from thier family... evidence of the gentic bond but you can walk away from the other person, the fact that you choose to stay in my mind is what makes it more personal and why it is harder to get married than it is to have a child.

My clients take divorce very personally and people do fight over their children but it seems to me that they do it to hurt the other person with the only thing left of their relationship, i.e. the kid. They do not care about how thier blood lust effect the kid because it is never about the kid it is always about the end of that relationship. Which goes back to personal failure because of the end of the relationship. The circle is complete.

Hope that answers your question, I have not studied psychology since 1988 when I got my degree so the clinical analysis has not been done this is just my theory based on observations from life and as a matrimonial attorney.

Thank you for answering....

Much to chew on.....




Peace,
Virtue

quote:

Originally posted by Frenchy:
Numerous times I've heard this exchange from all sorts of people:

Person 1: "We're trying for a baby."
Person 2: "Wonderful! Are you going to get married?"
Person 1: "WOAH! We're not ready for that!!"

I don't understand the logic behind that. You have to take care of a child forever. If the marriage isn't working, you can just get a divorce.

Why is marriage so much more serious/frightening than having a child?

Because so much is at stake when one considers marriage such as the prospect of having a divorce later along the line, or geting hurt, used, abused etc. Having children has a deeper meaning....meeting the natural urge to procreate and extend one's genes to the next generation.

black folks say that because our community is so ass backwards right now that people think it's normal to raise a child without benefit of marriage. this generation which has largely been raised without fathers, largely think that the way they were raised is the only way to go. unfortunately, they gravely underestimate the benefit of being raised in a two parent household. not only is it more stable financially, but emotionally. we do tend to do what our parents did afterall. '

even though my parents are divorced, i was insistent on being married before having a baby. i thought about having one alone, but then realized that i'd be perpetuating a community problem. people look at me like i'm crazy when i tell them that i'm over thirty, married, own a home and don't yet have kids (stay tuned any day now). it's a rarity because we have a whole generation of folks who don't even think it's possible to meet and marry the right person. black men think black women are a problem and black women think black men, or lack thereof, are a problem. if you think about the sheer animosity between black brothers and sisters, it's not hard to see why many of us can't even imagine meeting and marrying the right person. it's sad, in my opinion, but not too late to turn things around.

I watched this story on Anderson Cooper 360. It ended with the woman saying "We love this house and we think it's worth fighting for." Neither one of them said they are considering getting married. Instead, the man said, "When we're ready, then we'll we'll be ready."

Tuesday, April 25, 2006
Move or get married

Imagine you've bought your dream house. And you've moved in. Now, imagine being told you can't live there because you -- and your children -- are not considered a family. That's the situation facing Olivia Shelltrack, Fondrey Loving and their three kids in Black Jack, Missouri.

They moved from Minneapolis to the St. Louis suburb a couple of months ago. I visited them recently at their five-bedroom home. They told me Black Jack requires all homes to have an occupancy permit, but that they were denied one. They said they were told that because there are more than three people in their house, and not all are related by blood or marriage, they don't meet Black Jack's definition of a family.

As Black Jack's mayor, Norman McCourt, put it recently at a city council meeting: "It's overcrowding because it's not a single family. It's a single-family residence and they're not a single family."

Olivia and Fondrey aren't married and had two of their three children out of wedlock. The third child is Olivia's from a previous relationship. They appealed to the city's Board of Adjustment for an exemption, figuring it wouldn't be hard for anyone to see they're a real family. But they were denied. Olivia and Fondrey told me they came away from that meeting feeling like they were given a clear message: Get married or move.

"Just because we don't meet your definition of a family doesn't make us any less of a family. ... We've been together for 13 years. ... We're raising three kids together," Olivia said.

So the couple called the ACLU. That's when they discovered at least three other families have had this kind of trouble in Black Jack before. The ACLU showed CNN a letter it says it received from Mayor McCourt in 1999 explaining why another family was being denied an occupancy permit at the time.

"While it would be naive to say that we don't recognize that children are born out of wedlock frequently these days, we certainly don't believe that is the type of environment within which children should be brought into this world," the mayor wrote.

The city has issued a statement saying at least 89 municipalities in the St. Louis area have similar occupancy permit requirements. The ordinances are designed to eliminate boarding houses and illegal renting of rooms, but the city now admits its 20-year-old ordinance may not be in step with the times.

And after a public hearing scheduled for Thursday, Black Jack may soften the wording of its ordinance. If the ordinance isn't changed, the ACLU says it will sue the city, arguing it is violating federal fair housing rules and the constitutional right to privacy. In the meantime, all Shelltrack and Loving can do is hope the city won't force them to move.