Happily 'Married'?
In my usual perusing of the BBC News page, I came across this.
'Barbara Simpson, a deputy district judge in the family division and leading family law expert, said new rights would recognise there is little difference between living with a partner for years and looking after children - and doing the same as husband and wife.
"This will address a terrible unfairness, and it's long overdue," she said.'
Why is it 'terribly unfair'? No-one is denying such couples the option of marrying in the first place if they want to. And you have got to ask why 'if there is little difference...' people are so gutless and unable to make the step of comitting themselves to a marriage.
Even if one isn't keen on a big wedding and making a thing of it, why not just pop along one afternoon to the registry office? After all, there seems to be little difference between some of the 'Living Together' clauses and the implications of being married. In many ways now it just boils down to the name, so being afraid of marriage but signing all sorts of other agreements is just petty.
Call me a traditionalist, but if you can't bring yourself to make a commitment, are you really in a position to buy a house or have kids together? Kid's aren't a commoditiy, and they're the ones who will get messed up when they have to deal with separated parents, daddy's new girlfriends and "step siblings" they don't get along with.
'Barbara Simpson, a deputy district judge in the family division and leading family law expert, said new rights would recognise there is little difference between living with a partner for years and looking after children - and doing the same as husband and wife.
"This will address a terrible unfairness, and it's long overdue," she said.'
Why is it 'terribly unfair'? No-one is denying such couples the option of marrying in the first place if they want to. And you have got to ask why 'if there is little difference...' people are so gutless and unable to make the step of comitting themselves to a marriage.
Even if one isn't keen on a big wedding and making a thing of it, why not just pop along one afternoon to the registry office? After all, there seems to be little difference between some of the 'Living Together' clauses and the implications of being married. In many ways now it just boils down to the name, so being afraid of marriage but signing all sorts of other agreements is just petty.
Call me a traditionalist, but if you can't bring yourself to make a commitment, are you really in a position to buy a house or have kids together? Kid's aren't a commoditiy, and they're the ones who will get messed up when they have to deal with separated parents, daddy's new girlfriends and "step siblings" they don't get along with.
Comments
The very obvious counter-argument to your 'it doesn't take any effort to get married' argument, is that it doesn't take any effort to not get married and children can be brought up by loving parents exactly the same, whether the loving parents are married or not. The step siblings only come knocking when someone gets married...
You're right, dave, it doesn't take any effort to not get married - and it makes it so much easier to move on when the grass appears to be greener over at the neighbour's house, leaving kids with single parents or multiple 'aunties' and 'uncles' to go with the half-siblings. Yes, parents can be loving without being married, but the reality is that they are less likely to still be living together with you when you take your GCSEs.
Yeah, but some people aren't stoney hearted idiots like me and they are affected by these issues early in life. It's not their choice, but you can choose to be compassionate.
Sam, thanks.
Dobbin, I have to admit I got my facts from an 'expert' on tv but have just found this: http://www.civitas.org.uk/hwu/cohabitation.php to back them up.
Dave, my parents divorced when I was very young and my father made life hell for my mother and me. Rather than putting me off marriage (if my mother had just been living with him it wouldn't have made matters any better) my experiences made me more determined to 'get it right first time'. I'm not completely insensitive but if you don't care about somebody enough to commit to marrying them, should you really consider having children together?
MA
Unsurprisingly, today's speaker focussed on the downsides and the risks of sleeping around (STDs etc) and the idea that sex should ideally involve an emotional as well as a physical side which can make it much more difficult to get over a break up.
One point which was raised was the idea that if God intended sex to be enjoyed within a stable and loving relationship then why does that have to mean marriage? The guy speaking basically said that if the relationship is stable and long term and that the couple are serious about one another then why don't they show it by declaring it publicly through marriage?
One to think about; perhaps it's because in society today it's easier to focus on the short term benefitss than the long term consquences.
Also, as has been commented on, the idea that 'people who cohabit without marrying are more likely to split up' etc. was introduced. Does anyone have any official sources for statistics which prove (or disprove this)?
Once upon a time in my more bitter and cynical days I did think that marriage was pointless as everyone divorces anyway. I think the reason of this although partly to do with divorce of parents was probably more to cover up the fact that I was one of the few girls who had not planned wedding to the last detail. I still haven't, but have accepted that marriage is a good thing.
One point to note about marriage is hat divorce is expensive. The amount my mum had to pay to lose a husband is equivalent to the amount I shall owe the government in 2 years time, while gaining an education. Therefore, we shouldn't get married - we should do classics degrees at Oxford.
So let's do it like they do on the discovery channel (8)
I do however believe that you should not have kids until you're ready to marry (and have done so). If you don't feel sure enough about the person to marry them, you shouldn't have kids with them. (Though having said that, from the kid's point of view, I'd rather have been sired by unmarried parents who ended up splitting than to never have been born at all..)
Marriage/kids (I regard this to be one package deal, you can't have one without the other..) is the ultimate commitment. Sex is a commitment, but less so. You should definitely only do the marriage/kids thing with your final ultimate perfect partner and at the right time in your life, but as for sex I'd say it's less of a big deal. Sometimes I think Christians put too much importance on sex, holding it up as if it's the single greatest most important commitment in the universe. No, that would be marriage/kids. Sex is just sex. You shouldn't do it with just anyone, but it's not exactly the holy grail either.
Personally, I don't think the world is going to stop spinning if you have protected sex with various long term partners who you love at the time, before finally marrying and having kids with someone. Christians' arguments against unmarried sex are often very thin ("You'll get STDs and unwanted pregnancies!!" What if I use a condom? "Um..."), it's almost as if they decide to be against it first and come up with the reasons second. And they always talk about sex and what it's like in and out of marriage as if they're experts, when they haven't even experienced it outside of marriage, or at all, if they're not married yet.
Anyway, I wouldn't begrudge anyone for saving themselves for their wife/husband, but it's not compulsary either. My main thoughts in summary are that you shouldn't marry until you're the right person and have found the right person (and I argue that non-Christians can be better judges of when this is the case), that you shouldn't have children until you are married and than any sex you have (should you chose to have any, which is up to you) before being married should be with contraception.
To answer the original question "Is Christian sex better?", no-one can answer that without having experienced both Christian and non-Christian sex, which is pretty much impossible. I would, however, venture that what the best type of sex is is not really one of life's massive issues, I personally place far more importance on many other issues than squabbling about who's getting the best sex!
So, get out there, live, have lots of partners over the next ten years, then marry Mrs/Mr/Dr/Rev Right. That's my plan for myself anyway. None of this "oh if I like something enough to go out with them I'd better marry them" rubbish.
And of course I will marry Commodore Right BEFORE having his children. No child should have parents with two different surnames IMO, or attend their parents' own wedding as a guest.
BTW I can see "Sex isn't wrong, marriage is!" being the next Goldie Lookin' Chain hit...