What is the taboo in 2023 about an unmarried, couple in a committed relationship having kids

[Anonymous]

Nobody cares, do whatever you want.

[Anonymous]

Some states recognize 'common law marriages' after a certain amount of years, which can potentially co-mingle benefits and funds if a split were to occur and involved division of assets.

I know a couple who have never married but have been together 25 years. Both were married prior to meeting, one had been divorced, the other widowed. They had their own carriers and each brought kids into the relationship. It's not something of shame or no one makes a big deal about it. Heck, most people probably don't know they aren't legally married. No big deal.

[Anonymous]

I don’t care what strangers do, however, I would never want my daughter to have a kid with a man she’s not married to. Marriage is a huge commitment and grants many legal rights that mere cohabitation does not.

[Anonymous]

Statistically, couples who are married are significantly more likely to still be together 10 or 20 years down the line than couples who are unmarried but committed for life based on self reporting. Significantly.

Do there exist people who are truly as committed as a married couple who are unmarried? Yup. But there is nothing a man could say or do that would convince me he was committed for life if he was unwilling to get married. Nothing.

So, yeah, I think usually at least one member of those couples is naive. Maybe it’ll work out, maybe it won’t but I wouldn’t take that risk and put children in the mix.

[Anonymous]

Your relationship is more likely to end. And this is bad for the kids. This is the gist of it. I'm sure everyone will say "but we are so happy and I know married couples who are way more dysfunctional, blah blah"... but still, the truth is that it's crazy to commit to having a child with someone when you wouldn't even commit to a relationship with them. A child is FAR more serious.

[Anonymous]

It’s a class issue at this point. UMC and UC do not have children without getting married. A married couple invests their assets in their children (education, activities, healthcare).
Marriage is the driving force on inequity between classes. This is written about all the time. Smart, wealthy people know this and capitalize on it.

[Anonymous]

My good friend was divorced (no kids) and really burned by marriage. She has two kids with her (male) partner who has told her he’d marry her anytime she wants, but she doesn’t want to marry again. If it matters, I think she out earns him and her long hours are such that I assume they pay for a lot of the housework to be done by someone else.

[Anonymous]

Pp here - I meant to say I don’t think there’s a taboo / stigma about it. At least not in the liberal area where we live.

[Anonymous]

My husband and I always knew we'd get married but the timing of our engagement/marriage was rushed when I got pregnant. While I'd love to think I could have been confident about not rushing to get married, I wasn't, and part of it was societal and part of it was financial: we were really broke and marriage helped. Also, those early years are HARD. We have regular married people problems now, but back then, geez, if we weren't already married I wonder if we would have made it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I suggested to my wife we not get married due to the tax penalty (we ended up paying $20k more per year!) and she was hearing none of that. She was like well then we're paying it. Luckily, god bless President Trump, he eliminated that penalty for pretty much everyone - probably the single biggest pro-family political action ever taken

I thought the tax code incentivized marriage?

NP. My dh and I made like 75k each when we got married, but we paid an extra 4k in taxes once we were married. I couldn't believe it when I saw the tax bill.

Frankly I think the tax code should do MORE to incentivize marriage. I have friends who are engaged, but not married so that their kids can receive services from school for free and other aid (I only know about the school services and free lunch, but she mentioned others)

NP. If they genuinely need those services, are both lower-income, and marrying would tip their household income to a point where the kids would not be eligible, I get why they'd remain unmarried. But if they're just angling for free services and gaming the system, that's wrong. Going to hope here that the issue is the former--unfair rules that mean being just barely over the eligibility threshold takes away needed services that a family then can't afford....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Your relationship is more likely to end. And this is bad for the kids. This is the gist of it. I'm sure everyone will say "but we are so happy and I know married couples who are way more dysfunctional, blah blah"... but still, the truth is that it's crazy to commit to having a child with someone when you wouldn't even commit to a relationship with them. A child is FAR more serious.

This.

Every American couple I know who has done this has wound up breaking up.

Scandinavians and Germans do it for life but they have a different social system and safety net.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is there one? Who even cares any more.

I think it's weird. Why wouldn't you get married? But it doesn't matter what I think so people are free to do what they want.

If people want to think I'm sad for taking my husband's name, I don't really care. So if you want to have kids with someone you're not married to, why would you care what anyone thinks?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I suggested to my wife we not get married due to the tax penalty (we ended up paying $20k more per year!) and she was hearing none of that. She was like well then we're paying it. Luckily, god bless President Trump, he eliminated that penalty for pretty much everyone - probably the single biggest pro-family political action ever taken

I thought the tax code incentivized marriage?

Generally only if one spouse doesn't work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Some states recognize 'common law marriages' after a certain amount of years, which can potentially co-mingle benefits and funds if a split were to occur and involved division of assets.

I know a couple who have never married but have been together 25 years. Both were married prior to meeting, one had been divorced, the other widowed. They had their own carriers and each brought kids into the relationship. It's not something of shame or no one makes a big deal about it. Heck, most people probably don't know they aren't legally married. No big deal.

That's different than a first marriage where they're having kids. But you knew that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Go for it if you want. The reason this is extraordinary uncommon among women who are college-educated isn't that it's stigmatized, it's that you're likely to be stuck in the same position most women are - doing most of the domestic labor, harming your earning potential - but with more likelihood the guy will leave and fewer protections if he does. It's just not a great deal for the woman unless she's not going to need his economic support, which isn't most couples. In a different cultural and legal context, obviously this plays out differently.

Right. No one is judging this from a moral perspective. We just think you’re dumb for making bad choices and not looking out for yourself. It’s so sad when women buy the “it’s just a piece of paper! We don’t need it” line from men who clearly don’t value them all that much.

This.

I don’t think you’re a degenerate. I just think you’re in trouble.