Intentional Unwed Pregnancies

[greyman24]

2. Legally tying yourself to another person makes everything more real.

I understand your point but I don't agree with that. Being legally married doesn't make me more committed, only more obligated. Commitment and Obligation are not the same thing.

I want to stay with a person because I feel love and commitment toward them, not because it would be difficult to leave due to both our names being on the mortgage.

Commitment and obligation may not be the same thing, but one must lead to the other. Saying they're different is like saying pregnancy and amniotic fluid are different. True, but it's tough to have one without the other.

Your reasons for staying with a person are your reasons, but I'm not sure how a legal union changes why you'd want to stay with someone.

[Navarre]

A legal union ties into finances. If I get divorced I lose, essentially, half of everything I have worked for and currently own.

That cannot be discounted if someone was getting a divorce. Therefore, it is a factor.

I don't want that to be a factor in whether or not I choose to stay with someone. If I stay with them it should be because I want to not because of the consequences of not being with them.

[Gaumer]

A legal union ties into finances. If I get divorced I lose, essentially, half of everything I have worked for and currently own.

Prenup

[Navarre]

Sure, a prenup is fine. I am only speaking toward Greyman's point.

[Gaumer]

I was too.

The legal union he spoke of that you pointed out would drain a person of part of their accumulated finances can be made moot by simply applying another legal document on top of the marriage certificate.

The legal union would still tie into finances in some form or another presumably. Sharing a house or a car or a share of the bills would be assumed but doesn't have to be the case. But since it IS the norm that finances would be shared to some extent once the marriage certificate was signed, adding a prenup would put to rest any financial ramifications that came from a dissolution of the marriage contract. Of course, terms of the agreement would be specific to the specific marriage contract. We're all talking theory anyways, I was just stating that financial issues do not have to necessarily be a part of a divorce.

[Navarre]

Yes, I agree with all of that. I was trying to address a broader point and didn't do very well. Let me try again.

It seems there is an assertion being made that commitment is synonymous with obligation and that the couple isn't truly committed to each other if they aren't willing to get married.

I disagree with that.

[Gaumer]

I disagree with that too.

But I think a lot of people do see things that way. Those people may or may not have an impact in the couple's life and may or may not think or do things differently if a couple does things it is "traditional" for a married couple to do. It may be wrong, but it has an impact on the choice the couples make I'm certain. The government is one of those "traditional" thinking entities and I got a better tax rate when I got married.

[Navarre]

I have no problem with people getting married. It's none of my business.

I think what is important is that both parties in the relationship feel the same way about the union and all it entails. That would include the precepts and boundaries of the marriage if they are married (and the relationship, if they are not, would work the same way).

I think both people in a committed relationship (married or not) have to hold the same values on the relationship and its nature for it to work.

Beyond that, I think people should live as they wish (assuming no one is hurting themselves or others) and allow others the freedom to do likewise.

[greyman24]

My assertion was not that two people must be married to be truly committed. My assertion is that, outside of marriage, that kind of commitment becomes much more difficult (not to mention difficult to articulate).

Marriage is short-hand for lots of different kinds of commitments two people can have (social, financial, medical, etc.), and it waters down what many people say when "I'm not married, but I am committed to someone." That may be true, but the concept is much more vague than marriage is. For instance, I've known many committed couples who don't live together. This would at least be considered unusual in a married couple--at least one that wasn't headed for divorce.

To get back to the topic, for a person to say he or she "isn't ready for marriage", but still wants to have a child seems a bit odd. However, if you wish, you could just as easily say, "I'm not ready to devote myself to one person, and have that person devote him/herself to me, to become responsible for that person's care should he/she get sick, to absorb that person's financial obligations and to stick with him/her in any circumstance, to allow the fears, insecurities, or concerns of another to occasionally take precedence over my own, to take out the garbage (because it's my chore) and ALSO sometimes wash the dishes (even though it's hers/his) because he/she had a bad day, caring for pets in EVERY WAY (playing with them, nursing them to health when needed, and, yes, cleaning up their poop/vomit/urine), to equally care for our shared THINGS (cars, houses, carpets, foosball tables, etc.) and to do whatever I can to nourish and encourage this thing that we've created together."

No matter what, being ready for a child, but not being ready for THAT doesn't make much sense to me.

But, you know, that last bit is a touch long.