The missing link to Matthew McConaughey’s blessings
Matthew McConaughey announced on Father’s Day he and girlfriend Camila Alves are expecting their 2nd baby. S/he will join brother Levi, now 11 months old.
No mother could ask for a better attitude toward children than McConaughey has. According to People, June 22:
For McConaughey, 39, fatherhood “is a wild, wonderful adventure…. It’s a great new chapter in life, for sure.”
On his website Sunday, McConaughey blogged about the couple’s news:
Happy Father’s Day. It’s my first, and the last 11 months with Levi and Camila have been the most rewarding adventure to date….
We have more blessed news to celebrate this Father’s Day that [will] make this time next year double the fun. Levi is going to be a big brother…
Yeah, we pulled off the greatest miracle in the world one more time, Camila and I are expecting our second child, bringing more life into the world, making more to live for. The future looks bright as the family grows…. just keep livin, Matthew and Camila.
If only McConaughey would marry the mother of his children to bring stability and Godly role-modeling to his relationship.
In addition to acting, McConaughey is also the founder of the j.k.livin Foundation, a non-profit organization helping teenagers “to lead active lives and make healthy choices to become great men and women.”
[HT: Patricia; photo attribution: JustJared.com]
If only McConaughey would marry the mother of his children to bring stability and Godly role-modeling to his relationship.
I don’t think we have any way of knowing whether it is McConaughey who is behind the decision not to marry. Perhaps it is Ms. Alves who is balking or, more likely, it is a joint decision.
Most likely a joint decision? Perhaps Prochoicer.
My experience has been most women want the ring. Not just the ring mind you, (like Elaine Benes of Seinfeld, “Could I see the ring again?”), but the commitment behind the ring.
Most women are right, hold out for the ring.
They are not a family. The mother and children are family. The father and children are family. But the mother and family are not family. Marriage, adoption and birth make families. Having children together does not a family make. If he wants a family, he needs to marry the mother of this children.
Ed, my experience has been more varied. On the one hand, plenty of women have been taught since a young age to define themselves by marriage and buy into the notion that a woman who is unmarried at a certain age is somehow a failure. On the other hand, I also know plenty of women who don’t like anything about marriage, the wedding ceremony, the ring, nothing. So I don’t think generalizations are merited in this day and age.
If he wants a family, he needs to marry the mother of this children.
Posted by: Jacqueline at June 24, 2009 11:47 AM
Luckily, you don’t get to decide that. Sounds like a family to me.
What a beautiful FAMILY. My daughter, her father, and I were a family well before we were married, and being married hasn’t changed that much at all. People make fun of Matthew McConaughey for being somewhat dense…but he sounds like one of the smartest men alive to me right now.
Luckily, you don’t get to decide that. Sounds like a family to me.
That’s right, I don’t decide that. It’s decided. Marriage, adoption and birth make families. Two strangers meet on the street? How do we know they are family? Biology, marriage or adoption. That’s how it’s defined.
You think YOU decide what makes a family?
They are not a family. The mother and children are family. The father and children are family. But the mother and family are not family. Marriage, adoption and birth make families. Having children together does not a family make. If he wants a family, he needs to marry the mother of this children.
Ditto!
I kinda thought the people in the family decided what made their family…I mean…there are parents that disowned their children, informal adoptions of runaways or abandoned kids, people who have been raised by their grandparents or aunts/uncles/older siblings after the death of parents that end up calling those people “mother” or “father”.
I don’t think those families are any less legitimate.
“Biology, marriage or adoption. That’s how it’s defined.”
I think you can have a life partner without marriage. In fact, I’m sure you can.
That is just very typical of Hollywood, and society today.
“I dont need a piece of paper to prove I love him/her.”
So many couples now are having children without being married, but in many cases they do live together. How many of them will still be together in 5 years? In 10?
In fact things are so warped now that kids are growing up with two mommies or two daddies.
Sarah Jessica Parker and her husband just became parents again of twin girls by a surrogate.
The familes with a mom and dad who are married are going to be the minority the way things are headed.
“So many couples now are having children without being married, but in many cases they do live together. How many of them will still be together in 5 years? In 10?”
My husband and I didn’t get married until our daughter was nearly 2 years old (lived together before that for about a year), and even then it was mostly to make things easier for him joining the Army and so we could get the full benefits of that. We’ve been together for 10 years next Feb.
I think you can have a life partner without marriage. In fact, I’m sure you can.
Yeah, you can. But that’s not a family. Likewise I can have lots of different kinds of relationships, friendships, work partnerships, godchildren. That does not mean we’re family. People may affectionately view themselves as such and that doesn’t mean they are. Family has a definition.
Hal is right. I know plenty of life partners who have never sought “official” sanction of their union by church or state. The fact is we don’t know what private commitment Ms. Alves and Mr. McConaughey may have made to each other.
heck, I’ve heard some people say their dog is “part of the family.”
You know, it was pretty quiet around here from the PC side when Jill posted things like this: https://www.jillstanek.com/archives/2009/06/politically_acc.html
and this: https://www.jillstanek.com/archives/2009/06/politically_acc_1.html
I wonder why?
But post something about marriage and they come out of the woodwork. Interesting. Perhaps the marriage material is a bit easier to swallow?
Just musing…
Hmmm . . .
I am not sure the definition of “family” really matters. What does it matter how “family” is defined? The real issue is whether the parents are satisfying their ethical obligation to their offspring and to each other. I am not convinced that marriage is required in order for them to do that.
But that having been said, I am not aware of “family” having a static definition in our language or of precluding unmarried relationships. The first definition in dictionary.com is “parents and their children, considered as a group, whether dwelling together or not.”
I kinda thought the people in the family decided what made their family…I mean…there are parents that disowned their children, informal adoptions of runaways or abandoned kids, people who have been raised by their grandparents or aunts/uncles/older siblings after the death of parents that end up calling those people “mother” or “father”.
I don’t think those families are any less legitimate.
Disownment does not disolve biology and those people you mentioned: aunts, uncles, siblings and people that adopt, those are family through biology, marriage and adoption. Having to create a proxy to compensate for dysfunctions like deaths, abandonment or illness of the parents doesn’t a family make, unless they are related through birth, marriage or adoption. To make it a family, get married or adopt the child. Believe me, children in foster care can be loved and provided for and spiritually adopted all day long, but at the end of the day, they still want a formal adoption. Even if day to day life does not change (like your pre-married life to now), children still want indisolveable family. Children of unmarried parents want the same thing. They all see the basic truth, that if there is no difference between spiritual adoption and legal adoption, and commitment and legal marriage- then people would just get legal. There is a difference and kids know it- that if there was no difference, there would be no reason not to do it.
My godchildren’s biological family all abandoned them, abuse them or refuse to step up to the plate. So I am trying my best through all legal means to secure them a permanent adoptive home. In the meantime, to my delight, they’ll be with me. But that doesn’t make us a family, as much as we love eachother. The courts still require family to make a legal claim, defined by marriage, adoption or birth. I can’t do that because I’m not family. My loving them and raising them and providing for them for the past year doesn’t change that. I’m still not their family and they deserve a mom and dad.
Likewise, I care for my ill landlady who is in the hospital. Even though I take her to the doctor and care for her and love her, the hospital can’t tell me anything about her condition because I’m not family. I have to get it through her son who lives over 300 miles away. Family has been defined, and it has nothing to do with affection. It’s an institution with boundaries.
Family is so important, the backbone of our society, that it can’t be arbitrarily defined by each person according to their affections. That’s why it’s been defined. That’s also why, if you asked for medical information or tried to make medical decisions for your now husband before you were married, you couldn’t. It would have been deferred to his parents or siblings. Because they count as family.
The fact is we don’t know what private commitment Ms. Alves and Mr. McConaughey may have made to each other.
That’s right! That is the fact. We don’t know what if any private commitment they’ve made. All we know is that they haven’t made a formal, public commitment, and how comforting must it be for children to live in that uncertainty! Maybe they’ll see some informal commitment, but there is always the realization that it wasn’t enough to compel a public commitment and the ability for the couple to split and any time, because they were never a unit to begin with.
I know plenty of life partners who have never sought “official” sanction of their union by church or state.
If it doesn’t matter to kids at all and it’s all the same, what’s stopping them? There is always something stopping them.
Kel,
I have noticed that too!! Hmmmmm. Musing with you.
Jacq,
Wonderful comments from you!! I agree with everything you said!
Kel,
I would be happy to start commenting on every post if that is what you would like. I am flattered that you care about my opinion. :)
The particular posts you link seem to be arguments in favor of displaying gruesome images of late term abortions. Meh. I don’t have a problem with displaying gruesome images. Go for it.
(Of course, I don’t think that a gruesome image is really an argument. Most of us here are probably meat eaters but the process of producing a hamburger is pretty awful. War is gruesome but sometimes there are just wars. Heart surgery is also gruesome.)
The first definition in dictionary.com is “parents and their children, considered as a group, whether dwelling together or not.”
Right- parents and children are family, parents of the same children are not, unless they are married. After all, when couples divorce, people say that “they’re not a family anymore.” because when they were married, they once were. Unmarried couples never were, whether they lived together or not.
PC,
Wrong. Not a late term abortion.
That baby was shot and killed by a bullet. The mother lived.
Yes, PC, I would actually like to hear the opinions of PCers on posts like those. Always seems like they’re strangely silent on those issues…
Kel,
Crazy talk about god and marriage always gets us riled up. “If only McConaughey would marry the mother of his children to bring stability and Godly role-modeling to his relationship.” That’s intentionally provocative. Of course we’re going to respond. Most of Jill’s pro-life posts are legitimate expressions of her anti-abortion position, no reason to respond to those usually. We have agreed to disagree on that.
I don’t know that children would necessarily feel uncertainty just because their parents aren’t legally married. I think it depends more on the family life, how often parents fight, how often (if ever) they talk about splitting up, and how they explain their relationship to their kids.
I don’t know what is stopping this particular couple. I know three life partners who aren’t legally married. One couple is just anti-authoritarian. They don’t think that their personal relationship is any of the state’s or the church’s business. One couple doesn’t like what they view as the traditional connotations of marriage in which the woman is seen as subordinate. Another couple saw their parents go through legal battles during divorce and would rather just keep their assets separate and have no relationship. (In the latter case, they are clearly planning for the possibility of splitting up but have been together for 15 years and counting.)
Must go now!
Of course, I don’t think that a gruesome image is really an argument. Most of us here are probably meat eaters but the process of producing a hamburger is pretty awful. War is gruesome but sometimes there are just wars. Heart surgery is also gruesome.
Heart surgery saves life. Abortions always end a life.
War is sometimes just. Abortion is always unjust.
Pictures of abortion victims are necessary to show the injustice of taking a life, show the truth (that abortion kills babies) and lead the thinker to the inevitable question, “Why? Why kill a baby?”
That’s the goal the animal rights folk have when showing factory farming. People see that, see the truth of where meat comes from and ask, “Why? Why do I support that unnecessary suffering by buying/eating meat?” That’s the conclusion I came to and why I became a vegetarian (I’ve since defected because I gained weight due to a carb-heavy and unhealthy vegetarian diet, but I it still concerns me. I’d like to get my crap together enough to be a vegetarian without Taco Bell.)
Nonetheless there is a difference between animals and people, so you can’t compare a cow to a baby, but people with consciences tend to respond to unnecessary evils and suffering. Ghandi said, “You must make injustice visible.” And for those that don’t know it’s gruesome or have denied that a baby is killed, it could mean the difference on whether or not they kill their own baby.
What Hal said too.
Carla, I know that was not a late term abortion, but I thought (and perhaps am mistaken as I was skimming) that the author of the post was trying to say that if showing that image was powerful and valid, then showing a late term abortion is also powerful and valid. Admittedly, I skimmed.
Jacqueline —
(Aaah, really must go in a minute!!!)
Fair enough. I don’t think gruesome images are an argument in and of themselves, but you are correct that they can augment a particular point of view. As I said, I don’t really have a problem (in general) with anti-choicers touting those images. The truth is the truth and they are what they are.
I don’t know that children would necessarily feel uncertainty just because their parents aren’t legally married.
Yes they do. Just like children of parents that air out their problems in front of the kids and torture them with the possibility of divorce. Only in the latter situation, the kids have the realization that their parents are actually, verifyable together and that the parents made the decision at one point, publically, to be committed. Kids of unmarried couples don’t know what to think or expect. In many ways it’s like living under the shadow of divorce every day.
I think it depends more on the family life, how often parents fight, how often (if ever) they talk about splitting up, and how they explain their relationship to their kids.
All unnecessary. Just get married. Complicate things all you want trying to compensate for not being married for the children’s sake and you still can’t compensate for not being married. So just get married.
You know, if my parents weren’t married, they could explain all day long their unique relationship and I would still wonder, “Why aren’t you married?” And all the explanations in the world and reassurances that mom and dad will stay together wouldn’t quell the inevitable question of why they were unwilling to make it official. I’m not stupid, and kids aren’t either.
Thanks, Carla!
The truth is the truth and they are what they are.
Good for you! I can’t tell you how many people don’t want to face the truth and scream that the pictures are fake so they don’t have to feel bad about supporting the murder that the pictures clearly show.
What I don’t get, though, is how you can agree that the pictures are real and still support the evil that it shows? That must be some serious congitive dissonance there.
You know, if my parents weren’t married, they could explain all day long their unique relationship and I would still wonder, “Why aren’t you married?” And all the explanations in the world and reassurances that mom and dad will stay together wouldn’t quell the inevitable question of why they were unwilling to make it official. I’m not stupid, and kids aren’t either.
Posted by: Jacqueline at June 24, 2009 3:33 PM
Hopefully, people will stop asking “why aren’t you married?” to people in love in the future.
I don’t know what is stopping this particular couple. I know three life partners who aren’t legally married.
Prochoicer, I think it’s erroneous to say that something is “stopping” those people from getting married, since marriage is an action that must be intentionally started, not a natural progression of the relationship which must be intentionally stopped. By that I mean, when people say, “Marriage is not important for me to have in my life, it would change nothing,” people often say, “Then why not get married, if it wouldn’t change anything?” That question presumes that the importance the asker places on marriage exists for the people being asked.
It’s like if Betty said, “I don’t care much about baptism. It’s just a piece of paper, it wouldn’t change anything” and Sue responded, “Then why not do it? If it won’t change anything then what’s your reason for not doing it?”
heck, I’ve heard some people say their dog is “part of the family.”
Hal, I love my dog more than I love some of my family. If I defined it I’d write some people out and write my dog in!
Hopefully, people will stop asking “why aren’t you married?” to people in love in the future.
No, people will logically question whether or not they are actually in love, because if they were, they wouldn’t be opposed to marriage.
Crazy talk about god and marriage always gets us riled up.
Crazy talk? LOL Hal, you’re a regular riot.
“If only McConaughey would marry the mother of his children to bring stability and Godly role-modeling to his relationship.” That’s intentionally provocative. Of course we’re going to respond.
So, images of dead and dismembered children, babies who’ve been shot while in the womb, and women who are killed on the street…those things aren’t provocative enough to respond to? Okay.
Most of Jill’s pro-life posts are legitimate expressions of her anti-abortion position, no reason to respond to those usually. We have agreed to disagree on that.
Posted by: Hal at June 24, 2009 3:17 PM
***********************
Hal, an expression of what marriage is and has meant for ages and ages of time is also a legitimate position, even though you consider it “crazy talk.”
Hal, why did you get married?
You say their not a family? Crazy talk! Hal is right!
Tell that to the insurance companies, the IRS, family court and hospitals and they still won’t cover you, let you file joint taxes or make medical decisions.
Mom and Dad may be mom and dad to the kids, but they are not related to eachother.
What does it matter why hal or anyone got married jacqueline? This isn’t about hal.
Is your name Hal?
I agree, Alexandra. Marriage is not the be-all-end-all for EVERYONE, and I have to say that the constant bickering, fighting, and belittling I grew up watching my parents dish out to each other certainly diminished the importance of marriage for me. It helped me see that my relationship with my child’s father was every bit as important and legitimate WITHOUT that peice of paper and the ring. My parents’ marriage wasn’t particularly important to me. As a matter of fact, I kinda hoped every day growing up that my parents WOULD divorce, so so much for “the kids know that it’s important, blah blah blah.” It’s not, the kids know it isn’t, and it has nothing to do with how parents raise or treat their children.
No, people will logically question whether or not they are actually in love, because if they were, they wouldn’t be opposed to marriage.
Posted by: Jacqueline at June 24, 2009 4:05 PM
And when you say “people”, you mean, “Jaqueline”, because you can’t wrap your mind around the fact that not everyone places as much importance on marriage as Jaqueline does, and they clearly must not be in REAL love because they don’t define things the same as Jaqueline does.
No, people will logically question whether or not they are actually in love, because if they were, they wouldn’t be opposed to marriage.
Posted by: Jacqueline at June 24, 2009 4:05 PM
I don’t believe that for a second.
“One recent study by Wendy Manning at Bowling Green State and Pamela Smock at the University of Michigan found that 50 percent of children born to cohabiting parents saw their parents break up by age five; by comparison, only 15 percent of children born to married parents saw their parents divorce by age five.” -W. Bradford Wilcox, NRO
Given that it’s been proven that non-married parents are significantly more likely to call it quits before married parents, it’s safe to assume that children with unmarried parents could have well-founded feelings of insecurity.
Allowing someone to be the mother/father of your child is probably the biggest commitment of all – why not go ahead and rubber stamp it with some added security for the sake of the lives created? I mean, all that stuff about defying cultural norms or leaving the government out of one’s private commitment or redefining families by relationships sounds good enough in concept, but kids don’t understand or care about abstract principles like that. Childhood can be full of insecurity and confusion – we should do our best to minimize that for our kids. If you want to challenge the status quo, that’s super, but it’s not fair for children to shoulder that burden.
(Just in case anyone decides to take my comment personally, I am not claiming that non-married parents do not have their children’s best interests at heart. I give them the benefit of the doubt that their intentions are noble.)
“One recent study by Wendy Manning at Bowling Green State and Pamela Smock at the University of Michigan found that 50 percent of children born to cohabiting parents saw their parents break up by age five; by comparison, only 15 percent of children born to married parents saw their parents divorce by age five.”
Correlation without causation. Those same people would probably have the same outcome even if they had the rubber stamp.
The study I mentioned showed that non-married parents split up sooner than married parents. This is proof that it apparantly does make a difference in how long the family will last.
Oh, I see. If the study contradicts your beliefs than the study must be flawed.
My partner and I got married because he was changing jobs and needed health insurance until his kicked in. It was less of a commitment than buying a major appliance together while we were “just” shacking up.
And when you say “people”, you mean, “Jaqueline”, because you can’t wrap your mind around the fact that not everyone places as much importance on marriage as Jaqueline does, and they clearly must not be in REAL love because they don’t define things the same as Jaqueline does.
You once again act like when I say something that is not at all novel, that people have held to be true for centuries, that it’s my own personal, private conviction and that I some how invented the rules. It’s quite the opposite. To disagree with my assertions is to say that your invented rules are superior for all of human history.
It wasn’t 28 year old me that decided that children are best served by two, married parents. Even those that challenge this basic notion admit to its validity and would admit that they’d rather be raised in a loving intact family than a loving cohabitating boyfriend/girlfriend, broken family or single parent household. I wonder why? It wasn’t 28 year old me that said that broken homes hurt children and intact homes help children. Look at the statistics. Marriage matters to kids. Even adults suffer the divorce of parents. It’s breaking up their family, even if they are grown up with families of their own.
When I say that every person was created by one male and one female and that both those parties matter- and that absence of one of those parties is a sign that something is wrong, you actually think this is an uniquely Jacquelinian concept? And when I say there is a difference between a father than lives in the home with a child and one that picks them up for Disneyland on weekends- you think this is just my opinion? And you don’t think the introduction of non-family into a child’s home like a step-father who is related to a child’s parent but not a child is not total crap for a child to handle? You think being in a home with children that belong to one of the child’s parents and a stepparent, who the child sees having two parents in the home while he/she doesn’t has no effect? You think the cliche “beat you like a red-headed stepchild” is without a context?
Don’t assume that the fact that I see validity in centuries of human households and I’m not arrogant enough to assume I can create a better way affront to what we know to be true somehow means that this is somehow my idea. I just know better than to turn my kids into a social experiment. I know kids deserve their mother and father, related to eachother for life and giving them this basic foundation is best way. I am not going to try to invent something to suit my wants assuming that they’ll be as well off.
Oh, I see. If the study contradicts your beliefs than the study must be flawed.
Posted by: Janette at June 24, 2009 5:12 PM
Never said the study was flawed. Only that it doesn’t prove what you are using it for. 99.9% of drug addicts drank milk as a child, but cutting out mild from children’s diets won’t reduce drug addiction. Getting married, likewise, won’t change the “stay together” rate of those people who currently choose not to get married.
*Sigh* It is proven that married parents are MORE LIKELY to stay together longer than unmarried parents. Yes, I’m sure there are various reasons for break ups of both married and unmarried parents. The fact of the matter is that, whatever the reasons for the break ups, married parents have longer relationships. So obviously, the “rubber stamp” (I regret using that phrase as it is now being mocked) influences the relationship.
That’s nice that you and your husband are in a happy, committed family and you suspect this would have been the same regardless of an official marriage. I feel the same way about my marriage. Regardless, evidence suggests that married parents generally stay together longer. How is this offensive? What is there to dispute?
Marriage is not just about the children, anymore.
because you can’t wrap your mind around the fact that not everyone places as much importance on marriage as Jaqueline does,
Kids place importance on marriage. For most of my life I never wanted to get married at all, but I would never bring kids into that situation. They deserve better.
Never said the study was flawed. Only that it doesn’t prove what you are using it for. 99.9% of drug addicts drank milk as a child, but cutting out mild from children’s diets won’t reduce drug addiction. Getting married, likewise, won’t change the “stay together” rate of those people who currently choose not to get married.
Posted by: Hal at June 24, 2009 5:26 PM
The study shows a correlation between the length of relationships and marriage. The reasons for breakups are inevitably various, but it is proven that married parents generally stay together longer than unmarried parents. Earlier in the conversation, the subject of children feeling insecure about their unmarried parents relationship was introduced. The study indicated that 50% of children with unmarried parents saw them divorce before age 5, while 15% of children with married parents saw them divorce before 5. This data is relevent to the conversations about the children’s insecurities and how realistic those feelings may be.
So obviously, the “rubber stamp” (I regret using that phrase as it is now being mocked) influences the relationship.
Janette, it looks like people are dismissing the obvious and using the logic that the couples would have split even with a marriage license to say there’s no difference. What they don’t see is how they just proved our point!
Perhaps the difference are the types of couples that get married are the ones truly committed to eachother- Maybe that is why they stay together and not the license because they truly were committed, EVIDENCED by the public vow the made. Let’s assume that Hal is right.
So my original assertion about non-married couples not being committed, atleast not committed enough to validate it by marriage, would be correct. If it’s not the marriage license that keeps a family together but the commitment of the couple evidenced by the license, then these couples aren’t as committed as marriage couples and there is a huge difference between being raised by a boyfriend and girlfriend rather than a husband and wife.
I agree with you and do think it’s the commitment of marriage that keeps people together, because without those it’s much easier to leave for any reason or no reason at all. A marriage is an institution that must be legally dissolved, not ended via text message on a whim.
divorce or split up, I should’ve said
Jacqueline, You have written with great insight & I have really enjoyed reading your comments. Thanks for taking the time to write here.
Sex outside the covenant of marriage is strictly forbidden by God. The Bible specifically warns that no sexually immoral person (fornicator) has any inheritance in the kingdom of heaven. So, it is not really so important what we all ‘think’ or ‘believe’, for that is relative to our personal desires (which are heavily influenced by our selfish desires.) God has ordained that for the good of all human beings that a man make a permanent covenant committment to faithfully love a woman in marriage before he is becomes sexually intimate with her. That is God’s way & it is perfect & good & beautiful. Just take one moment to think of what the world would be like if we ALL obeyed His commandment here. Now that’s as close as you can get to paradise… For women. For men. For children.
Jacqueline, You have written with great insight & I have really enjoyed reading your comments. Thanks for taking the time to write here.
Sex outside the covenant of marriage is strictly forbidden by God. The Bible specifically warns that no sexually immoral person (fornicator) has any inheritance in the kingdom of heaven. So, it is not really so important what we all ‘think’ or ‘believe’, for that is relative to our personal desires (which are heavily influenced by our selfish desires.) God has ordained that for the good of all human beings that a man make a permanent covenant committment to faithfully love a woman in marriage before he is becomes sexually intimate with her. That is God’s way & it is perfect & good & beautiful. Just take one moment to think of what the world would be like if we ALL obeyed His commandment here. Now that’s as close as you can get to paradise… For women. For men. For children.
What’s keeping a non-married couple together other than they just feel like being together this week? The kids? That’s a lot of pressure on the kids.
As someone who’s never been married, all of my relationships have been based on a mutual desire to be with eachother- with the understanding that this could cease at any time. If my desire ceased to be with him for some reason, I could dump him. If his desire ceased- He could dump me. That’s what these relationships are built on. I know I’m oversimplifying, since I’ve been in lengthy relationships that survived huge fights but it all boils down to what you want in the end- because if we didn’t want to be together, we could walk away.
Marriage vows aren’t “I will be with you as long as I feel like it” but in sickness, health, richer, poor, good times and bad. You make that vow because you’re not always gonna feel like it. Likewise, you have to seriously love someone to be willing to endure sickness, poverty and bad times with them if that’s what it takes to be with them. Not getting married says by default that you don’t feel that way about them, or at least not enough to publicly declare it and create a family. If people involve kids and it’s the kids that bond them rather than choosing to bond themselves first, that’s another dysfunction for the kids to contend with. Couples that marry and then have kids married because they wanted eachother and the kids were a consequence. So they start out committed. Couples that weren’t committed enough to make it official and then involve children often only have the children as a concern with whether or not to walk away.
Since you all seemed to like ignoring this bit, I’ll post it again:
“Marriage is not the be-all-end-all for EVERYONE, and I have to say that the constant bickering, fighting, and belittling I grew up watching my parents dish out to each other certainly diminished the importance of marriage for me. It helped me see that my relationship with my child’s father was every bit as important and legitimate WITHOUT that peice of paper and the ring. My parents’ marriage wasn’t particularly important to me. As a matter of fact, I kinda hoped every day growing up that my parents WOULD divorce, so so much for “the kids know that it’s important, blah blah blah.” It’s not, the kids know it isn’t, and it has nothing to do with how parents raise or treat their children.”
My brothers, sisters, and myself all pretty much agree that our home would’ve been much happier had it been broken. Being raised in a situation like we were was stressful beyond belief. But since it doesn’t suit the Little House On The Prarie view you all are so fond of, I guess my siblings and I, and our opinions on marriage as a consequence of being raised in such a home (I’m the only one of my siblings who is married, yet 4 out of 6 of us have children and are in relationships with our children’s parents, and again, that was primarily because of Uncle Sam that I wed) just don’t exist.
How is it offensive jacqueline, to call unmarrieds NOT a family. Gosh….. Let me think…. Ummmm……
Families aren’t defined by people’s desires as much as you want them to be. Throw a hissy all you want. It doesn’t change this.
And as for the study, you aren’t grasping that just brcause marroed people are more likely to stay together, that doesnt mean its because they got married.
You aren’t grasping that even if I concede that point and agree that married people aren’t more likely to stay together because they’re married but because they’re otherwise committed, it only serves to prove my point that unmarried people aren’t as committed. Yeah, take an unmarried couple and only apply a marriage license, they might divorce just the same since they weren’t committed in the first place (like I said). But those couples that truly are committed get married, which is why 50% stay together rather than 15%. As a child would you prefere a 50% chance of heartbreak or 85%?
“What’s keeping a non-married couple together other than they just feel like being together this week? The kids? That’s a lot of pressure on the kids.”
What’s keeping MARRIED couples together? Someone remind me…what exactly is the divorce rate again?
It’s somewhat amusing to me that I have to argue that children generally do best under the care of their biological, married parents, as if this is a provocative sentiment whatsoever. OF COURSE there are some situations where this is not the case and a happy family still exists. OF COURSE there are married parents who do not have a functional relationship. GENERALLY SPEAKING, a legal marriage indicates a serious, loving commitment and provides a nurturing environment for children. OF COURSE parents can be seriously and lovingly committed and provide a nurturing relationship for children without the freaking “rubber stamp” (curse that phrase, curse it to heck), but MOST people choose to identify that commitment publically and legally. Therefore, it makes sense to think that SOMETIMES unmarried parents are not as committed as married parents and MAY not provide an equally stable environment.
There. Was that enough pandering and generality and inclusion to make that acceptable?
Xalisae is made of win.
For me, yes. Thanks. Have a great evening! ^_^
My brothers, sisters, and myself all pretty much agree that our home would’ve been much happier had it been broken. Being raised in a situation like we were was stressful beyond belief.
I’m sorry. But in that situation I would suggest two people like that not marry in the first place, not raise a household of children while shacking up, because I’m thinking that the lack of the marriage license would not have resolved the fighting. You seem to blame the license, not the people who fought. How ridiculous is that?
But since it doesn’t suit the Little House On The Prarie view you all are so fond of, I guess my siblings and I, and our opinions on marriage as a consequence of being raised in such a home (I’m the only one of my siblings who is married, yet 4 out of 6 of us have children and are in relationships with our children’s parents, and again, that was primarily because of Uncle Sam that I wed) just don’t exist.
Did I ever say marriage makes people not fight?
All you just said is that being raised with bickering, fighting parents gave you all issues that none of you overcame that you’re willing to pass on to your own kids. I don’t get that between the 6 of you not one of you came to the inevitable conclusion that it wasn’t being married that made your parents fight. They’d have fought if they lived together too. So you, who just said nothing changed when you married so marriage wasn’t necessary- you somehow think that adding a marriage license or marrying before kids would have made you and your siblings fight like your parents did? I thought marriage didn’t matter. Make up your mind.
I never wanted to marry because I’ve seen a mess of bad marriages. I also take my vows seriously and could end up with an ass that exploits that to treat me badly- but I wouldn’t raise children in a household with no foundation. The whim of two people is not the same a family.
“those couples that truly are committed get married”. Not quite jacqueline. See this is what you’re having trouble with.
Not all couples that are truly commuted get married. Period. Chew on that.
And yeah….. We can just decide what we call a family. It does not have to be a married women and man just because that’s what it has been for some centuries or what your religion says.
And as for the study, you aren’t grasping that just brcause marroed people are more likely to stay together, that doesnt mean its because they got married.
Posted by: Banana at June 24, 2009 5:43 PM
If married parents are more likely to stay together longer than unmarried parents, and you assert that the reason for this is not marriage…then what is the reason?
(If your point is that it’s the commitment and healthy relationship that most people choose to acknowledge through legal marriage, then I agree and thought that this was already understood)
“Sex outside the covenant of marriage is strictly forbidden by God.”
Oh really?
xalisae-
Have you noticed that the only options you mentioned in your life were kids being raised by a fighting couple that made you miserable or kids enduring a broken home? And you decided those both suck (I agree) so you lived your life with a third option: kids and no marriage. I don’t get why you disregarded from the beginning the obvious option of two loving people marrying eachother and having a happy home. You live that now, but only because of tertiary benefits.
I get that your folks marriage traumatized you, but rather than trying to invent a new way to do things, could you have admitted that, done right (your parents done wrong), a happy loving married couple having a family as a fully intact unit is not a bad thing? Being married now and happy, not yelling and screaming, can you let go of the unfounded belief that marriages are traumatic to kids?
“But since it doesn’t suit the Little House On The Prarie view you all are so fond of, I guess my siblings and I, and our opinions on marriage as a consequence of being raised in such a home (I’m the only one of my siblings who is married, yet 4 out of 6 of us have children and are in relationships with our children’s parents, and again, that was primarily because of Uncle Sam that I wed) just don’t exist.”
Posted by: xalisae at June 24, 2009 5:51 PM
How has anything anyone has said implied that you and your siblings opinions on marriage just don’t exist? How does asserting that, most of the time, married parents are the best situation for kids invalidate your experiences and feelings? I don’t believe anyone here is claiming that abusive marriages should continue, or that being married cures all dysfunction. We’re saying that, generally speaking, it is best for parents to be married. This does not diminish your negative experiences with married parents or seek to sweep your traumtic childhood under the rug.
And yeah….. We can just decide what we call a family. It does not have to be a married women and man just because that’s what it has been for some centuries or what your religion says.
Like I said, go ask for medical information for a non-relative. Try to file your taxes with your neighbor. Seek custody of some kid in your neighborhood. Tell me how that works out for you.
Families are defined whether you like it or not. Deal.
“those couples that truly are committed get married”. Not quite jacqueline. See this is what you’re having trouble with.
Not all couples that are truly commuted get married. Period. Chew on that.
I never said “all” but I think it’s cute how you are using anomalies to make a losing case. Yeah, not all people who get shot die from it. I still don’t want to get shot.
Not all couples that are truly commited get married and not all couples that get married and truly committed, What you’re not seeming to get is that the married couples are overwhelmingly more committed on the whole, as evidence by the break-up rate. Like I asked, would you prefer a 50% chance of a broken home or 85%? Like I said I don’t want to get shot, I wouldn’t want an 85% chance of being shuttled between parents and stepparents etc. Neither would you. So no, not all people who don’t marry aren’t committed- but 85% aren’t. I’d take the better odds and be raised by married folks, and so would you.
Just skimming some of the comments since I left. I have to say that Alexandra’s comment addressed to me at 3:54 is spot on. I agree 100%. (I believe that I had adopted the word choice she was critiquing from someone else’s comment.)
Not all couples that are truly commited get married and not all couples that get married and truly committed, What you’re not seeming to get is that the married couples are overwhelmingly more committed on the whole, as evidence by the break-up rate. Like I asked, would you prefer a 50% chance of a broken home or 85%?
What you seem not to get is that when it comes to the individual couple, it’s not marriage that affects whether or not they are committed. Marriage can indicate commitment, but here you’re implying that marriage affects commitment.
Most couples who are committed do choose to get married, so married couples tend to be more committed than unmarried couples. That does not mean that committed couples who choose not to marry will become less committed.
Marriage has not made the uncommitted 50% of once-married couples more committed, so why would a a lack of marriage make the committed percentage of unmarried couples less committed?
xalisae-
Have you noticed that the only options you mentioned in your life were kids being raised by a fighting couple that made you miserable or kids enduring a broken home? And you decided those both suck (I agree) so you lived your life with a third option: kids and no marriage. I don’t get why you disregarded from the beginning the obvious option of two loving people marrying eachother and having a happy home. You live that now, but only because of tertiary benefits.
I get that your folks marriage traumatized you, but rather than trying to invent a new way to do things, could you have admitted that, done right (your parents done wrong), a happy loving married couple having a family as a fully intact unit is not a bad thing? Being married now and happy, not yelling and screaming, can you let go of the unfounded belief that marriages are traumatic to kids?
Posted by: Jacqueline at June 24, 2009 6:16 PM
Well, this is the difference between what I am saying and what you are saying:
A lack of marriage doesn’t invalidate the relationship to me. Married, not married, whatever, I’d rather judge the relationship on the health of the relationship and not on a piece of paper or their standing in court. I’ve met married couples that work out great, I’m pretty fond of my marriage as a matter of fact, but I don’t see the arrangement we had BEFORE that as wrong or less substantial. I’m not the one trying to diminish other peoples’ relationships. I think many different arrangements are “families”. You’re the one who said that one set of circumstances is more legitimate than another, and I disagree.
I am with Xalisae. I too know from personal experience that married parents isn’t always the best thing for kids.
So what if there are still some things like tax laws and insurance companies that don’t recognize unmarrieds as families YET? That doesn’t mean they aren’t families. Just as you don’t recognize them as families doesn’t mean they aren’t families.
Who said this was just me? I don’t write family law, tax law, medical policies and insurance policies. And I sincerely doubt that one day all these entities will start giving out information, placing children with just anyone and insurance companies will start covering anyone you say is “family” based on nothing tangible. Birth, adoption and marriage are tangible things that can be proven. Affection and claims of commitment can not. This is why you don’t decide who’s a family- It’s already defined. I just agree with the definition.
Call it mean. I guess doctors protecting your privacy by refusing to give your medical information about someone not related to you that considers you family is being mean, too? I guess a judge protecting your child from being snatched from you because some other women considers him family- that judge is mean! Your arbitrary and toucy-feely concepts of family are never going to be validated because they don’t work. Family is a tangibly-defined thing, not like choosing your BFF in junior high and exchanging bracelets. You can call whatever and whoever you want a family. I do! I affectionately call my closest friends family and they feel like family to me. But if you said we weren’t a family, you’d be right. It wouldn’t impugn our affections- it’s just true. Likewise I’m not saying these groups of people living together don’t love eachother and act like a family, but acting like one and being one are two distinctly different things.
I’m not the one trying to diminish other peoples’ relationships. I think many different arrangements are “families”. You’re the one who said that one set of circumstances is more legitimate than another, and I disagree.
Yes, I did, and not “more” legitimate- legitimate and illegitimate.
It’s not diminishing it to call it what it is. Like the examples I’ve used before, before you were married, a doctor wouldn’t be calling your relationship less than it was by denying you medical information and giving it to someone who is family to your husband. The doctor isn’t saying that you don’t love eachother and live together and do all sorts of stuff married folk do, he’s noting the objective truth that you two are not family. Now he wouldn’t deny your husband info about your daughter or you info about your daughter. Because your daughter and your husband are family. You guys weren’t. You want to say you were without any objective basis other than “We say we’re family.” Objectively, you were not. Having kids together didn’t make you so. How could you be distinguished from a anyone else, a live-in girlfriend, a friend, etc? Only your word. Also, your husband wasn’t the legal father of your daughter. Marriage is used to decide legal fatherhood.
Either your married, adopted or born- all objective, verifyable states. That’s what makes a family. Not whatever someone says at any given moment. It’s not impugning the love people have for eachother even when not adopted, married or born. But family is not something that can be sculpted informally according to one’s one rules.
And jacqueline, you might want to be raised by married folks bit would I? Wouldn’t matter to me, so long as my parents were committed married or not. Like I said, I know families that aren’t and those kids have GREAT parents
Not my question. If your parents were committed, you’d prefer them married. As a child, you want that reassurance and solidity. Every kid does.
Not my question. If your parents were committed, you’d prefer them married. As a child, you want that reassurance and solidity. Every kid does.
But three people on this thread (Xalisae, me, and Banana) have said they wouldn’t and didn’t prefer that. My husband too did not prefer his parents married when he was growing up.
I got that — fair clarification, though, Banana.
So I guess that is 2 people on this thread plus my husband who all would have affirmatively preferred their parents NOT be married or committed. And then Banana who preferred her (or his) parents be committed but didn’t have a preference as to marriage.
“Also, your husband wasn’t the legal father of your daughter. Marriage is used to decide legal fatherhood.”
WRONG. Even though we weren’t married, all we had to do was add one single little form to the pile of documents we already filled out which we did before I was finished giving birth, and he was listed on her birth certificate just like the married folk do it. There’s ONE way you can compensate for marriage for you. A piece of paper-a little blue form.
And yes, that’s how many (not all) things are NOW. It doesn’t mean that one day, hopefully soon, we can see the blurred lines of a quasi-religious union recognized by the government melt away, and establish universally recognized civil unions that all couples can get, and you churchy people can go have your ceremonies after you get yours, and other people can just be together as they like. Equality and separation of church and state FTW.
Perhaps someone can answer this question, because this is what is holding me back from understanding the other side (I went missing from the debate because I had to tend to my kid – not that I’m sure I was actually missed):
If two parents are genuinely committed to the preservation of their family and their relationship, how could legal marriage be anything but an asset?
This is what’s stopping me from accepting the notion that unmarried parents are an equally stable family as married parents. I don’t understand avoiding marriage except for lack of a healthy relationship (i.e. commitment issues), which is the heart of the problem for all dysfunctional relationships. The only other thing I can think of as a possible reason for avoiding marriage is for the principle of the thing, as a way to state one’s opposition to the institution – but in that case, I’d think it wouldn’t be worth the social impact on the kids who have to survive in a culture that values marriage.
So, in all seriousness, how can legal marriage be anything but an asset to genuinely committed parents in a healthy relationship?
“…I’d think it wouldn’t be worth the social impact on the kids who have to survive in a culture that values marriage”
Some people never feel that social impact, or don’t care. Couple that with an overall ambivalence towards the institution, and there you go.
Do you really believe that the majority of unmarried parents remain unmarried because of ambivalence towards the institution and apathy towards the potential social impact upon the family?
I’m not questioning your sincerity – I’m saying that I’m skeptical. And if it’s true that the majority are indeed ambivalent, then we also have to factor in the legal benefits as motivation to get married. I’m just having trouble swallowing that the majority of unmarried parents are so ambivalent and apathetic that they are willing to opt out of numerous legal benefits.
If you do not believe in God and His plan for marriage as THE social foundation and mirrors Christ’s relationship to the church then it is hardly surprising that marriage is not important.
What I keep reading on this thread is Marriage=Meh from those who are non believers.
Carla,
Good observation!
If one doesn’t believe in the sacrament of marriage, where the man, woman and God are united as one, why would they bother with what amounts to a piece of paper?
Exactly, Janet!! :)
Exactly.
If one doesn’t believe in the sacrament of marriage, where the man, woman and God are united as one, why would they bother with what amounts to a piece of paper?
Yes!
Equality and separation of church and state FTW.
Hear! Hear! Civil unions for everyone and religious marriage for those who desire it. Honestly, how could that actually displease anyone?
Totally disagree with you there Terezia.
How come, Carla?
The answer is for all of us to turn back to God, who made us in His image and beg His forgiveness for how we have been led like sheep gone astray.
The institution of marriage is His idea.
Carla, I believe in God, but I have a lot of trouble with many aspects of Christianity, especially with the idea that we were made in God’s image.
I also have a really hard time believing that marriage is a sacrament, as opposed to something man-made.
None of this has much to do with the legal benefits society chooses to confer on those who are married. I pay taxes like the next person.
And quite frankly, everyone’s marriage is exactly what the participants want it to be, regardless of the marriage license.
It is a family alright, but “family” is a word and words have meanings. I’d suggest that the best example of family is one based on a marriage that is recognised by the state or society as such. Other expressions of family should be seen as they relate to the ideal form.
Terezia, marriage is only a sacrament in the Catholic Church and Orthodox Church. Elsewhere it it is something natural and good, but not sacramental.
The “man-made” aspect of marriage is in the regulating of it and the customs tied to it. The essence of it, however, comes from God.
Although marriage can exist without the state and associated benefits, it is normally recognised by most societies as being best for society if marriage is protected and supported by the state and the community.
Marriage is not just about the children, anymore.
Apparently it’s not about children at all any more. Which explains a lot.
Oh, I see. If the study contradicts your beliefs than the study must be flawed.
Posted by: Janette at June 24, 2009 5:12 PM
no actually what they do Janette is say correlation without causation. It’s like “it’s my body, my choice”.
Just another liberal slogan to beat away anything that doesn’t support their world view.
Excellent comments by Jacqueline, Louise, Carla.
I am with Xalisae. I too know from personal experience that married parents isn’t always the best thing for kids.
Posted by: Prochoicer at June 24, 2009 6:48 PM
except that your experience is NOT the norm. Ask any kid what they would prefer:
mommy and daddy living in a relationship that is a committed one, with vows before God and family
OR
mommy and daddy living together where they can step out and be gone at any time?
Ask any kid what they preferred: mommy and daddy divorced? or mommy and daddy together.
And BTW, research shows that kids are better of even when the parents are fighting, than in a situation of divorce.
The only time they are better off with the parents separated is when there is serious abuse in the home, drug, physical or sexual.
Terezia,
God already knows what you have trouble believing in, and yet He loves you just the same and waits for you to trust Him.
That’s beautiful. Thanks, Carla!
Terezia: just a thought, but when the Bible says that we are made in God’s image, this is referring to our spiritual aspect – our souls. Not our physical body. Although we are body-persons, God is not. He is sexless, and yet both male and female – ness are part of God.
I’m not sure I totally comprehend this, but that is the Catholic, JP II theology of it on a superficial level.
Angel, I never knew that. It’s funny because I’ve been visiting pro-life sites, off and on, for about 3 years, and have learned more about Christianity than over the course of the earlier 40 years (my mom’s a very casual Lutheran, and my dad was an atheist, maybe agnostic).
Never once has anyone pointed out the distinction you just made. Thanks for the info.
Hear! Hear! Civil unions for everyone and religious marriage for those who desire it. Honestly, how could that actually displease anyone?
Posted by: Terezia at June 24, 2009 10:39 PM
On one hand, I don’t think this is a half-bad idea. Perhaps the government should not be involved in the marriage regulating business whatsoever, save to protect those who are unable to consent.
This is my problem: I cannot accept that the same government that claims to have a vested interest in banning trans fat from restaurants does not have a vested interest in encouraging a time honored societal structure based around child-rearing. So I believe the individual states (via the will of the people) should determine the qualifications for legal marriage.
I really have no religious motivations for my beliefs about marriage. I believe that children deserve no less than to be under the loving care of their biological parents, so I have no problem with government providing incentives to encourage this structure. I realize that this cannot always be achieved, and we cannot force people to be responsible, but I do think we have an interest in guiding the culture in that direction.
Terezia, I only just recently learned this myself. You might try reading one of Christopher West’s books on the Theology of the body. Although, Catholic, this work is meant for everyone because it’s about the human condition and I think you qualify! ;)
Mmm, very good, angel.
Bobby’s back!! Yay!! :) Hope your vacation was awesome!!
Terezia,
Feel free to email me anytime. I do love to wrestle with God’s truth and have a deep, abiding faith in Him.
Hiya,
You can’t expect nor dictate that everyone should NOT believe in God. He’s yours and mine, BTW.
Thanks Carla. Indeed it was. I got to finally meet MK! Hurray!
Hi there, BB. It’s good to see you (as much as you can on the internets) and hope you had a great time. :D
I believe that children deserve no less than to be under the loving care of their biological parents
I can understand your point of view, and, as a generality, I agree with you. But there are plenty of times when a married couple staying together is way worse for the couple (and consequently for the kids). We’ve all seen these cases where everyone (including kids) blossoms once the divorce is finalized.
And statistics are kind of meaningless when you’re the one stuck in a marriage that seems unfixable. Count me among those who would have been happier had my parents split rather than constantly expose us to the hatred they had for each other back in the day. They ended up being happy together once the kids left, but I know their fighting has done a number on my expectations of marriage, and I’ve had to work on that.
Angel, I’m pretty familiar with the ideas in Theology of the Body from spending a lot of time at Dawn Eden’s site and following her links, though I’ve never read any Christopher West. I’ll put him on my reading list.
Carla, the more I read about Christianity, the less I feel it’s for me. I don’t think it’s a bad belief system at all, but, despite extensive reading, I still can’t wrap my head around many of the central tenets, which makes me pretty much ineligible for membership in the club.
I’ve got no use for Pascal and his wager and think I shouldn’t adopt any belief system unless I truly have faith in it. Hence, still searching.
I do feel that God appreciates worship that doesn’t come from any particular human belief system. So I’m mostly okay with God these days.
That said, I genuinely do appreciate your kind offer!
Just as an aside, although I once worked out a version of Pascal’s wager myself, before I’d ever heard of it, I agree with you, Terezia, that one should only adopt a belief system once you truly have faith in it.
I would like to point out, therefore, that there are very good reasons to believe in the Catholic Faith. If you were to read “Mere Christianity” by CS Lewis and just the ninth chapter of Karl Keating’s “Catholicism and Fundamentalism” you would have sufficient reason to see that the Catholic Faith does not oppose reason and is actually a very rational world view, even though it has required Divine Revelation for some of its beliefs (e.g. The Trinity).
If those books did not satisfy you, other people here could recommend perhaps even better ones.
Karl Keating’s website (catholic.com) Catholic Answers is a good place to start if you don’t have money (or inclination) to buy either of those books.
Your local library might have the CS Lewis. Not sure if you could get C&F from your library, though you might be able to request they order it.
If you really want to know about the Catholic Faith there are good resources out there. Because the Faith is real, it’s not simple. It can be hard to grasp. This is not surprising, since it involves God! Once you do begin to grasp it, any serious study will show it to be an entirely coherent world view, and not opposed to reason.
AWESOME advice, Louise! Catholic Answers changed my life, brought me back to the faith. If you consider any of this, Terezia, also listen to some of their radio call in show. It’s all archived on there, totally free, and I think if you have questions, you will hear many of them answered in a very convincing fashion. God love you.
Bobby’s back! woohoo! rock on!
But there are plenty of times when a married couple staying together is way worse for the couple (and consequently for the kids).
Posted by: Terezia at June 25, 2009 3:57 PM
Oh, I definitely realize that there are exceptional situations where parents are harmful to children. I was speaking in general terms regarding what’s best for children.
You know, maybe he doesn’t believe in god and doesn’t feel the need to establish himself as a godly role model. Maybe he and his girlfriend don’t believe in marriage, or don’t feel the need to do so. Not all women are interested in marriage: I have no desire to marry, though I’d really enjoy having a life partner. Marriage, however, has quite a few societal implications that I don’t feel like dealing with or participating in.
Marriage, however, has quite a few societal implications that I don’t feel like dealing with or participating in.
Fine, then don’t have children. Children deserve the security of married parents.
Really, Jacqueline? You get to decide whether or not I have children? Children deserve loving parents. Married, unmarried, gay, straight, single, whatever. Kids deserve parents.