Aye, and my point is they shouldn't have to marry, just because of a social norm or whatever social value is assigned to marriage. The fact that a couple are unmarried should not belittle their relationship in the eyes of others and society at large, as long as they are committed to one another. I accept that marriage denotes commitment, both within the couple and society, but it should not be perceived as the be all and end all of a relationship.Revnak said:I'd argue the social value is reason enough. There really isn't a reason not to in the case of people who plan on staying together anyway is essentially my point.Wadders said:Fair enough, point made. Your statement that marriage is "certainly better for raising children" seemed to infer that you thought unmarried parents were, as a rule, inferior at raising their offspring, but you cleared that up. Probably I just misinterpreted you.Revnak said:For you it may have worked. For you it may have been the best way to do it. But generally that is not so, and here we are not talking about specifics, but generalities.Wadders said:Whilst I don't doubt that marriage can be nice - I myself would like to be married - I disagree that it is necessarily better for raising children in every case. Sure there will be some families who will benefit from the support and financial benefits, but my parent are unmarried, still together, and never once have I doubted their abilities as parents to support me morally or financially. We are not rich, but they have spent and saved shrewdly - were pretty comfy don't want for much.Revnak said:Because such horror stories are born of bad statistics, unrealistic expectations, and social pressures. Marriage itself can be quite nice, and it is certainly better for raising children.
Sociology, one of my favorite fields of study, is entirely generalizations. I love it. It can do incredibly well to generalize, as long as you remember that what you are doing is just that, generalizing.It does not do well to generalise, but I see your point. An old friend from high school had a kid last year, aged 21, whilst still in university. For him and his partner marriage was of course a sensible move.
As a related issue though, I still disagree with the idea that people should marry just because it's seen as the done thing. If a couple do not deem themselves to be in need of the financial benefits, and have no religious convictions, then why should they need a ring and the word of a clergyman to attest to their commitment to one another?
Edit: Just to clarify, I'm not arguing against marriage. I'm saying people ought not to marry if they themselves see no reason, just because it is the normal thing to do.
I can see this going round in circles though