Personally, while I don't think the children of single parents are any worse off than those with two parents, I do think that two parents are much better at handling the task. Most single parents have no time to themselves; it's much tougher to raise a child on your own. To hear children aren't as important to marraige overall isn't surprising to me. People now are more focused on their own self-actualization. Many may worry that they'll have to raise the children themselves if the marraige fails. Some just opt out of the responsibility. Of course I've seen some cases of "competitive parenting" that disgust me; so I wonder how much is hidden or simply missed by such statistics.

I really don't trust polls that ask, basically, "are you happy?" I think the tendency to stretch the truth and lie a bit has got to be pretty high on a question like this--a decision that for many is not a decision but no longer an option due to age and the such. I think many people make the best of things as they are presented and if they don't have children (or do) they often seek to just 'deal with it' and go on as happy as they can be.

I haven't read the survey, but I think the point is supposed to be just that a marriage can be happy without kids. Not that you don't need a partner to have kids. Or that people are separating their life with kids from life with their partner. True, false, or otherwise, that seems like a strange leap in logic based on the results published in the first paragraph, and not what the survey was addressing.

Very funny that "chore-sharing" outranked kids as a "very important" factor in marital happiness!

Fourth!

I will be happier when the kids move out of the house!

Usually Lurking - I agree. The survey didn't address single parenthood or decoupling children from marriage, so this post is a strange departure.

Bottom line, while children of single parents CAN do as well as children of married parents, they don't do as well in the aggregate. Some of this has to do with socioeconomics - single parents tend to be younger and poorer when they become parents - and some of it with simple logistics - it's much harder to raise children as a single parent.

"I haven't a clue."

Leslie, this is about the first thing you have ever printed that I agree with. LOL!

This study/survey made sense to me, or at least in terms of what I've seen. It seems that as long as the marriage is strong, anything added to it (be it grad school, kids, moving, etc.) will be enriching and rewarding. A marriage that's shaky to begin with will just fall to pieces when additional stress (be it good or bad stress) is added.

So, sure, I can see how kids are not a 'happiness factor'; they CAN be, but only if the parents/marriage are doing fine to begin with.

"Very funny that "chore-sharing" outranked kids as a "very important" factor in marital happiness!"

I don't think this is such a leap. All married couples have chores, but not all have kids. And kids don't automatically equal happiness. They're a huge strain on a marriage, despite the fact that you love them to death. They certainly do inspire you to make your marriage work, and, for me at least, this means truly forgetting about the small, petty stuff and focusing on communicating and making time for us.

The thing I was most impressed with in the survey is how supportive people are of getting married older and having involved dads. Sounds like a recipe for happiness to me.

I think that being honest with your partner, and willing to share the good and the bad with them (and the chores!) helps to foster a great relationship (marriage or live-in, whichever). If you don't have trust and respect, other lesser problems tend to get magnified and blown way out of proportion. So, I can see where sharing of chores is high on the list; plus, I'd think that women are the ones most answering these polls, and having someone sharing the work around the house goes a long way to fostering marital happiness.

I am confused -- why WOULD children be necessary for a happy marriage? A marriage is a relationship between two adult partners who share their lives together, which may or may not include kids. Might kids enrich that life together, if both partners want them? Sure. But I can't see why kids would be necessary for two people to have a fulfilling relationship. Heck, my marriage would probably be better without my kids -- my huband and I would have more time for each other and more disposable income for hobbies and fun.

Don't get me wrong -- I wouldn't trade my kids for anything; my marriage might be better, but my life would be infinitely poorer. And my husband and I were happy to trade the time and money to have those kids in our lives. But that's the point: it WAS a tradeoff. So I have a lot of trouble seeing how someone who chose not to make that trade couldn't have just as good a marriage as me, if not better, because there's more time and energy to devote to its care and nurturing.

Actually, what I think is the "single most striking finding" is that the study's authors did NOT focus on the chore-sharing, which quadrupled in importance. How does a 24% drop outrank a 47% (4x) gain in the "important findings" category?? Chore-sharing is a lot more critical to the success of my marriage, because there's simply no way one person could handle everything.

"Do your children contribute to the happiness (or unhappiness) or your marriage?"

Yes.

My four children are a key component of the satisfaction and happiness of my marriage. True, I would love my husband if we had no children - after all, we did not have children for the first 4.5 years of our marriage - but I know that the presence of my children has given our marriage a depth of emotion and experience that would have been unattainable without children.

Most kids are accidents anyway and drive a wedge between the parents. Their only purpose is to be used as pawns in a divorce settlement. If you don't believe this, ask a few divorce lawyers.

...annnddd - the first anonymous troll hits at 8:55 am. That's later than on some other days. :-)

Our kids are an important part of our marriage, and we always wanted to have kids. But I'd like to think that we'd still have a happy and successful marriage even if circumstances had prevented us from having kids.

I am not surprised by these results at all. I think that a lot of people have watched their parents and friends' parents divorce and remarry. While some of these remarriages have lead to children many have not. And these people are happier then they ever were in the first marriage.

Second point, perhaps this survey and a cultrual shift in this direction will help stop people from having a baby to "save" a marriage. I cannot imagine this evr working. If your marriage is unhappy before kids, kids will not make it a happy one.

I love that sharing chores ranks first in the recipe for a happy marriage! This is probably a stand-in for sharing in general - marriage as a true partnership. That sounds like a sound basis for intimacy and happiness. Children don't make a marriage happy, as wonderful and amazing as raising them can be.

It sounds like we want more from our marriages as a society now, and we want them to be about our relationships as partners rather than business arrangements to raise children and earn the money to keep a home. Hooray! I think children benefit from this change.

One of the funniest things I ever heard from someone was that kids make a marriage stronger. The woman was divorced four times, and on to husband number five.

I am sure that for some, parenthood is very rewarding and fulfilling. Unfortunately, I don't hear about that nearly as much as the complaints and worries. And sometimes it just boggles my mind when our friends rattle off all these complaints and gripes about kids, but then in the next breath tell us we should have some of our own. But they can't really answer why. Is it just some autopilot belief that because they've done it, everyone should? I have a theory that it's some deeper "misery loves company" mindset.

Bottome line for me, whether or not anyone is married, the decision to have kids is just as personal as religion. You choose to have them because you want them. If you're like me, and you don't, why would anyone ever try to push that on someone who doesn't?

I think the point here (the "striking" one, anyway) may be summed up in a quote from the study's coauthor: "Marriage and kids were kind of hyphenated before, and now the hyphens have been removed."

My wife and I had a tiny bit of trouble conceiving our daughter, and before we succeeded we went through an emotionally difficult period, trying to accept that we may not ever be "blessed with" or "allowed to have" children. Eventually, though, we came to realize a kind of conceptual shift. We remembered that we got married because of each other, not because we wanted kids. Once we remembered that, we also remembered all the places we wanted to travel and everything else we wanted to do, and kids no longer seemed to be prerequisites for our happiness.

So- I think this survey is saying that couples in 1990 could not have made that shift as easily as we did. The survey may shed more light on preconceived ideas about having children than any actual effect children have on a marriage.

If you are having kids to make yourself happy in the marriage, you are making a further mistake. The first was staying in a marriage you were not happy in and the second one was bringing an innocent life into the marriage just to make yourself happy.

My wife and I had children because we wanted to raise a family. We were already happy.

I've read that introducing children into a marriage (or partnership) tends to magnify everything in the relationship. IOW, they can contribute to increased happiness, or they can help make everything worse.

That to me makes perfect sense; if you're happy with your spouse (or partner) then having a child with that person would just increase the love and emotional ties between them. If there are already problems, however, then the child would just throw gasoline on the fire that's already getting started, due to the added stress, financial impacts, extra work, etc.

I know people in both cases; couples who had children and are happy and fulfilled with them, and those who have children with questionable partners and it's like watching a shipwreck take place.

I phoned one of my old high school [childless] buds yesterday, and for the first time in 6 months I didn't get the recorded message "This number has been temporily disconnected..."

but anyway, he took off to South Carolina and married his internet girlfriend 7 years ago. He lives in a trailor, his wife works while he lays around the house smoking pot and watching the tube all day long. Every now and then he reports strapping on an apron to wash a few plates, bowls, spoons and busting open a can of Chef-BoyR-Dee.

Him and his wife are happy as larks. Good for them!

Leslie - I really do enjoy reading your blog, find it often ccauses me to look at things in a new way. But, once again, I must quarrel with a statement you made - that you could not function as a working mother without your husband. I'm sure that you didn't think about this, but, as a working mother who is only single because my husband unexpectedly passed away, I find that kind of statement tough to read. Your blog would speak to a much larger audience if you wrote it in a less "I have a perfect life" way...

I really was pretty happily married until we had kids.

I would say that it is amazing how much more you can love a man who turns out to be a good father; it is also amazing how much less you can love a bad one.

It seems odd to me that children were ever considered very important to the success/happiness of a marriage. (On a side note, why are success and happiness used interchangeably? Do they mean the same thing?)

I wonder whether what this meant about infertile couples. Does this mean that people believed that a lack of children imperiled the success/happiness of a marriage?

I really think this is one of the most bizarre poll questions I've ever heard.

"85 percent of parents with children under 18 described them as a top source of personal fulfillment"

I was surprised by this quote and saddened by it. Of course we love our kids and yes they come before your job and having a nice car and those silly things. But your personal fulfillment has to be taken care of by you and you alone. Maybe I just don't get this statement or maybe I've watched too much Oprah and I think that you should create your own personal fulfillment. Should personal fulfillment be wrapped up in someone else, be it your child or spouse or significant other? That just seems unhealthy. Shouldn't you find personal fulfillment as an individual before you drag others into your life?

Perhaps the most amusing statistic in the survey:

Men think that women and men can be equally happy without ever getting married (73% of men think women can be happy single, 70% of men think men can be happy single).

At the same time, most women think that they can be happy single (83%) but far fewer think that men can be happy single (64%).

Son #1 and I were talking about a similar topic a week or so ago. Apparently, some social psychologists did a survey or study (I don't recall right now) to rank the 20 things that made a marriage happy, and kids ranked near the bottom. The theory was that while thinking about one's children makes a parent happy, the aggravation they cause far outweighs that warm fuzzy glow.

I can see that!

I think the results Leslie wrote about today may be related in some form to parents realizing (again -- these things seem to go in cycles) that they should not stay in a horrible marriage for the sake of the children.

Off-topic OT to Fred:
Thank you for honoring me with my first ride in the Creepy Van (tm)! I'm so excited, I even came up with a modification. Why not change the horn so that, instead of honking, it goes moooo?

Hi JJ -- I am so sorry to hear about your husband. I am certain that being a single parent is far harder than anything I've ever tackled, particularly when facing the death of a loved one.

I don't ever mean to come off as if I have a perfect life. I definitely don't. This is my second marriage, and it is far from perfect, mostly because I am opinionated, hot-tempered and determined to live a great life -- a real pain to live with compared to a lot of people. (See my earlier entries if you don't believe me...) My first marriage was even farther from perfect because I married a man who physically abused me.

So you have all of my sympathy, and my apology that I made you feel badly today.

Attitude is everything. If both husband and wife want children and a FAMILY and the responsibilities that come with children - then they will do well. If you want children; but NOT the responsibility and challenges,, then the marriage will struggle. Children do change your lifestyle. You can't do what you want, when you want, how you want. Life just isn't that way anymore. Your spouse will not be giving YOU undivided attention anymore at anytime. If you accept and understand that - then I think children can bring immense happiness to your marriage.

However, if you are happy together as a couple... then sure you can have a happy marriage without kids.

Marriages are happy when both people are committed to making it happy. Period. Kids or no kids.

Do whatever you want in life and stop taking advice from stupid polls, disinterested bystanders, and bloggers who have nothing better to do with their time.

Another interesting survey result:

23% of men and 20% of women think it is a 'bad thing for society' that more men are staying home with children so that their wives can work full-time.

"I would say that it is amazing how much more you can love a man who turns out to be a good father; it is also amazing how much less you can love a bad one."

Very well put! I'll bet you're not a bad mommy at all. :)

What I found most striking, and depressing, in that article was the 27-year-old woman who won't marry the father of her three children because *marrying* him would be a "lifetime commitment."

Once you have kids with a man, you are committed to him on some level for life -- whether you remain romantic partners or not. Why on earth would a woman choose to allow a man she isn't sure merits a "lifetime commitment" to impregnate her three times? And don't tell me it wasn't a choice after the first one, at least. That's the decoupling of marriage (or marriage-like commitment) and kids I find hard to understand. Yes, marriages fail, partners die, etc., but if you aren't at least starting out with the hope and intention of commiting to that partner, why have children with him/her?

BTW, I don't think my son was telling me about this survey; we were discussing it before these results were released. Also, now that I think about it, the survey/study he was talking about might have been related to personal happiness.

I'm sure I would have been a happy person without children; having had them, it's just difficult now to imagine what my life might have been like without them.

I'm also pretty sure my marriage would have ended much sooner, because once you have children, you are willing to put up with more aggravation than you would otherwise. That can be a good thing, or a bad one, depending on the 'aaggravation' you have to tolerate.

This study has been discussed on many of the forums and boards I read, and the varying reactions have been funny. It's like some people are actually horrified that there are happily married childfree couples out there!

As for me, marriage does not equal children. When we married at age 21, we married because we loved each other and were committed to spending the rest of our lives together. Children would come much later. As it turned out, children aren't in the picture at all. As we got older, we realized the reason we kept saying "later" was because we really didn't want them at all. It's been ten happy childfree years. I think if we had children, we would not be happy.

Dogma -- I am not one to think of bearing children as an "achievement", but I do think that parenting cannot be a source of personal fulfillment.

I find personal fulfillment in my accomplishments. These include my successes in my career, as well as my successes in my family. I take pride in my ability to be a good partner to my husband and a good mother to my daughter. Getting pregnant and giving birth didn't require particular skills, as far as I am concerned. But being a good parent does, and I see no reason not to feel fulfillment in that "activity".

I guess it's in how you phrase it -- the fulfillment is not in the person, but in what you do to nurture and support the development of that person.

dogma, I'm not surprised that 85% of parents with children under 18 describe them as a top source of personal fulfillment. One definition of "fulfillment" is "a feeling of satisfaction at having achieved your desires". So if your desires including raising "successful" children, then yes, children can be a source of fulfillment.

That won't be the case for everybody, but I know that for me, my children are both a source of fulfillment AND a source of great aggravation!

Quick question for the group: I know research suggests that the first few years of a new baby are the hardest on a marriage. I've found it quite trying, even though I think my husband and I had a strong marriage going into parenthood (we have a toddler). But it really seems like we're struggling to find time for ourselves and for our relationship when we're not exhausted or busy doing something else.

Please tell me it gets a little easier! We are working on it, but our relationship is really not as happy as it once was.

That's funny, I never thought of my own happiness as a legitimate goal. What makes me happy is helping people achieve peace and calm in their lives.

JRS- Maybe your friends can't tell you why having kids is great, but my child-ed friends and I can. Maybe you just have miserable friends who regret their life choices. I don't feel the need to force kids on anyone. In return, I expect my friends to repect my decision to have kids. It's not a war, it's a group of friends making choices that are best for ~their~ lives.

I think many more people now actually decide whether or not they want children, rather than just automatically having them because it's just what you do next. People who truly want children are going to be happier with them that people who didn't really want them but had them anyway.

Children can be a terrible strain on a marriage. Many people will say there marital problems started when they had children. And I've read surveys where a high percentage (50-80%) of parents say that if they were able to do it all over, they would not have children.

I think a lot of people dislike the idea that a marriage can be happy without children.

Correction: I meant parenting CAN be a source of personal fulfillment. Darn typos!

"Please tell me it gets a little easier! We are working on it, but our relationship is really not as happy as it once was."

It gets easier.

Then you have baby #2 and it gets more challenging again [pregnancy exhaustion much worse with a toddler].

Then it gets easier again.

Then you have baby #3 and you have to switch from man-to-man to zone defense and it gets more challenging.

Then it gets easier again.

Until they become teenagers and it gets more challenging.

Then it gets easier again.

Until they start getting married and it gets more challenging.

Then it gets easier again.

And then you have baby-sitting for you grandkids and that gets more challenging.

Then it gets easier again.

Then you die [which can initially be challenging, but then gets much easier].

[Repeat the process if you are Hindu.]

To Ryan

I think unfortunately that society does put pressure on couples to have children, even in this day and age, and that infertile couples have to overcome this pressure from the outside and the inside of their relationship. Which may mean (I don't know and I haven't seen any statistics) that infertile couples are not as successful/happy. However, if a couple can emotionally survive the societal and any internal pressure they will probably be very happy together.

I have several friends without kids and we have kids and my son's friends who are kids have parents. Here is my analysis:

Couples without kids are dedicated to themselves, their happiness, and quasi-material things that separate them from the "rest of us." My friends without kids plan events like bicycling to Hagerstown or they buy expensive art or they decorate their house entirely in antiques or they form a band and play shows or they write books or they eat at every hip restaurant or they travel or they get PhDs. Those are fun things to do that strengthen their interpersonal bonds.

I had to sell the antiques to pay for daycare, I can't travel because it's a chore with kids and not relaxing, I can't see bands at night, let alone play anymore, I have no time to write more books (particularly since my last one bombed), my kids wouldn't tolerate a bike trip of longer than 1 hour, the hip restaurants don't tolerate kids.

Recently my kids stopped letting us watch netflix DVDs. Whenever we start one, the kids seem to wake up and harass us and we immediately turn off the TV, get them to bed, sit with them, and then one of us is asleep. That makes me intensely unhappy and absolutely drives distance between my wife and I. Last night I had to complete a report for work. I made dinner while my wife fed the baby, I gave the oldest a bath, I went downstairs and picked up toys and started the report at 9:30pm. At 1am I completed the report. The baby woke me up at 5:45am. My wife was in the shower. I changed the baby on 4 hours sleep and cursed my wife for not being there when I had a report due. My wife, on the other hand, had to watch the baby while I was in a shower and make the oldest one's bag lunch and cursed me for not finishing the lunch last night. We both hit the car this morning thinking the other one didn't hold up their end of the bargain. I can laugh about it now, but it's not a good thing for marital stability.

I mean, let's say you want to go to a nice restaurant. Well, a babysitter for two kids is going to cost me $50 over the cost of the restaurant. I have friends whose daycare bill is twice the cost of their mortgage- they could be paying for a beach house and a condo at a ski lodge for what they're paying FOR DAYCARE! I know a gay couple who is spending over $30k per year on their son's private school and summer camp. $30k is what they'll admit to! $30k per year would buy a nice new car.

Then, also, is the way the kids force us to find friends who also have kids. I have grown to dislike many of my son's friend's parents. At a party this weekend one of my better friends in that group lamented that really, truly, he's not friends with any of us. I wasn't offended, he's a nice guy, but he's completely right. I don't care about UK soccer teams, he doesn't care about music, neither of us cares about the lawyer's problems, and none of us want to know about another couple's infidelity and one of the couples is pretty racist. So we sat around the BBQ making small talk about the daycare center and our kids as we slowly went mad- each couple thinking the other couples are nuts.

And I know people who didn't have kids who were unfaithful or who drove each other crazy or who were just in bad relationships.

I'm not saying that having kids is even a bad thing. We do not have an option, if we want doctors to treat us when we're 75, then we have to raise kids to be doctors, you can't just decide not to have kids without negatively impacting the world around you. But I think that if I wanted to have a close relationship with my wife for the rest of my life the best way to do that would be to eliminate everyone from our house who was neither my wife or I. There's no other way around it- children are a wedge.

But it really seems like we're struggling to find time for ourselves and for our relationship when we're not exhausted or busy doing something else.

Please tell me it gets a little easier! We are working on it, but our relationship is really not as happy as it once was.

Posted by: balancing marriage and kids | July 2, 2007 10:25 AM

It gets better, but not for awhile. For us, it was around the time our oldest turned 5, but then we had another baby. Is your family complete or do you plan to add additional children? Planned, regular date nights are good if you can afford the sitter plus the cost of the date.

The problem for us was that one of the thing we most enjoyed was going to hear live music. Since the band doesn't start playing until 9:30 - 9:45, and plays until 1 - 2, live music dates didn't square well either with our parental responsibilities the next day, or with most baby sitters' preferences. So now we pay for a baby sitter so we can go out to eat, and going out to eat has never been a highlight of our relationship.

It gets better, but not for awhile.

balancing marriage and kids,
Your problems are no worse than any of those experienced by countless billions of other humans. I am not sure what you call happiness, but most people in this world would find a great deal of happiness simply in the comfort that middle-class American life affords. Maybe force yourself to look at your life with a new perspective.

I felt the same way you did, then I for many years I really thought about how spoiled I was, and my ingratitude began to make me even more unhappy. That is how I began to learn contentment.

LESLIE,MN,MONA,FRED,SCARRY,PITTYPAT,EMILY,MEGAN,FATHER OF 4,CATLADY,WORKINGMOMX,WORKERBEE and my apologies to any regular posters I have left out.I have decided to retire from this blog. I have enjoyed reading your posts, arguing with you and sharing some laughs. I hope (and know) that each of you will continue to express yourselves and use the great freedom of this country to argue those things that are important to you. Good Luck! and goodbye. pATRICK

"What I found most striking, and depressing, in that article was the 27-year-old woman who won't marry the father of her three children because *marrying* him would be a "lifetime commitment."

Heh. Whether she wants it or not she's already got a lifetime commitment with that man, unless he just up and runs off from her and the children. Even if they live separate lives, there's still that connection between them, for good or bad.

I know someone like that, she detests her daughter's father, but he lives with her (at her request) in order to help raise the child. It's a sad situation all around.

DCer - spot on. I would never choose the parents of my kids' friends as friends. They want to talk about remodeling, the cost of tae kwon do classes, and the online list of sexual predators. We'd prefer to talk about music and politics (even with people with whom we disagree).

I don't understand your opinion that we are obligated to have kids. There are plenty of doctors. Whether my husband and I contributed to more kids to society isn't going to amount to a hill of beans in the long run. Nonetheless, this one disagreement aside, the rest of your post perfectly captures the wedge issue and why kids are hard on a marriage relationship.

Children will worsen an already shaky marriage due to the extra stress, financial issues and general hassle.

Children will also strengthen an already strong marriage due to the cooperation and emotional bonding between everyone involved.

So, if they become a "wedge" in a marriage, the crack was probably already there.

I suspect this finding tells us more about how we define happiness than the relationship of children and marriage... Few people today seem to have a good definition of happiness, especially if material objects are removed from the definition. Today 'happiness' is more marketing tool more than emotion...

pATRICK -- why oh why? how can you break it off without an explanation...

men...

That's funny, I never thought of my own happiness as a legitimate goal. What makes me happy is helping people achieve peace and calm in their lives.

Posted by: joe | July 2, 2007 10:25 AM

balancing marriage and kids,
Your problems are no worse than any of those experienced by countless billions of other humans. I am not sure what you call happiness, but most people in this world would find a great deal of happiness simply in the comfort that middle-class American life affords. Maybe force yourself to look at your life with a new perspective.

I felt the same way you did, then I for many years I really thought about how spoiled I was, and my ingratitude began to make me even more unhappy. That is how I began to learn contentment.

Posted by: joe | July 2, 2007 10:35 AM

joe, put down the bong and step away from it. maybe force yourself to look at your life from a whole new perspective.

To DCer -- I laughed while reading your post (particularly the piece about each parent blaming the other for not holding up his/her end of the bargain). It was one of the best descriptions of marital miscommunication that can happen when you are trying to balance work and family. Not that those things don't happen sans kids --but it just seems more salient. And the parents of kids things was even funnier -- we recently moved, and I found myself immediately navigating toward a couple with a child close to mine in age. Then I started wondering if we'd even have anything in common, other than the children?

Yet, despite the madness, I can honestly say that having a child is the most incredible thing in the world. It's so easy for me to complain -- and I do a lot of it -- but there's nothing like a child to help put life in perspective. It's exhausting, aggravating, and challenging, but for it's also been the most incredibly positive experience ever.

"Recently my kids stopped letting us watch netflix DVDs. Whenever we start one, the kids seem to wake up and harass us and we immediately turn off the TV, get them to bed, sit with them, and then one of us is asleep. That makes me intensely unhappy and absolutely drives distance between my wife and I."

Wow. Not watching DVDs makes you intensely unhappy. I don't even know what to say to that. I haven't seen more than 2 hours per week tv or movies for the past 12 years. It's no big deal. I'll have plenty of time to catch up when the kids are older and when I retire.

Taking care of our children is what we do together, not watching movies.

Wanted to add my two cents: I think the reason some people are happier with kids then their spouses is the control factor. You have more control over a child as you are raising them. With a spouse, you need to accept things about them that you did not consider before. For a lot of people who are used to having things the way they want them, it's tough to give that up when you marry someone. Necessary, yes, but not always easy.

So, if they become a "wedge" in a marriage, the crack was probably already there.

Posted by: John L | July 2, 2007 10:46 AM

I disagree and think this is too pat and easy a conclusion. Before children, there is more time to tend to each other and the marriage relationship, to work out miscues early before they turn into a pattern of hurts. There is more time for sleep. )Isn't it amazing how much more caring and considerate fully rested people can be?) There is less noise and chaos. There is time for sharing impulsive, unplanned moments of both whimsy and seriousness.

Kids add many other wonderful new and different experiences, but many good marriages don't have a crack in them until a child or events put a chisel at just the right point and hammer it in deep.

Would you say the same thing for those who experience the death of a child? That there must be a crack in the marriage if that death results in a permanent rift?

Some events are life and person-changing. They simply are. The arrival of a child is one such event.

My children have been grown up for many years, (ages 44 and 40). I find we never cease to "parent". They have been out of the house since they went off to college.
Their father died when they were 15 and 11.
When they need something, I fit the bill.
Otherwise, they feel they are justified in
attempting to govern my life. Funny, I am a working person, they are not supporting me. I do not get where they think I lost
my power of thinking just because they grew up.

pATRICK -- You can't just break up with us without an explanation in a BLOG. Please, what's up?

"I think the reason some people are happier with kids then their spouses is the control factor. You have more control over a child as you are raising them"

Umm, Bob, are you even married? Do you actually have kids?

Okay, when we marry we accept things about our spouse. We give up on the "whatever I want, whenever I want, because I want to." That part is true.

But - control over children? Not in any universe with which I'm familiar. Yes, absolutely, children who live in our house live by our rules, etc. etc. But I've found that I have far LESS control over my life since children than I ever did before. It seems like the last 18 years have provided me with even less control than I could have imagined.

So, if they become a "wedge" in a marriage, the crack was probably already there.
----

I don't know a single relationship without a crack. None. Never met a single person in any relationship where there were no issues.

Of my high school friends I keep in touch with, my parents are the last undivorced couple. I have 3 friends from school who got divorced already.

This reminds me of a director I worked with, religious, always believed "everyone else" was too self-centered, self-analytical and found Seinfeldian fault with each other that people with "character" never fell into. I met his wife at a party and she HATED his holier-than-thou attitude and what he considered "character" was driving his wife so nuts, she complained about it to his employees and contractors as she got more and more drunk and embarrassed the kids. He didn't see the cracks, but that was because he blinded himself to them.

There is no such thing as a relationship without a crack.

"but anyway, he took off to South Carolina and married his internet girlfriend 7 years ago. He lives in a trailor, his wife works while he lays around the house smoking pot and watching the tube all day long. Every now and then he reports strapping on an apron to wash a few plates, bowls, spoons and busting open a can of Chef-BoyR-Dee.

Him and his wife are happy as larks. Good for them!"

Posted by: Lil Husky | July 2, 2007 09:47 AM

Wow. It's hard to count the examples of what's wrong with America contained in that simple post. I'm all for people finding happiness in their own way, but I think it's a little extreme to compliment lazy, freeloading drug-users (using improper grammar, I might add).

"pATRICK -- why oh why? how can you break it off without an explanation...

men..."

Posted by: Leslie | July 2, 2007 10:51 AM

HEY! At least he did say goodbye. I thought that he just faded away!

It's not you, it's me!

I need to add my voice to the chorus of replies to Dogma. Fulfillment that comes entirely from myself and my own desires got pretty boring. When my wife and I had our first daughter four months ago, I realized for the first time what it is to care unselfishly about someone else. Maybe that makes me a bad person, but this is the first time I've unconditionally loved. It is immensely fulfilling.

That said, to Balancing Marriage and Kids: These have also been the hardest 4 months of my life. Last month a little easier than the week before, though, and that was easier than the month before that, so I just hope that eventually we will come out somewhere reasonable!

Hey, no one is perfect, and I wasn't implying that anyone's relationship was.

What I was saying was that, if there is something already existing that could split a marriage or relationship up, then adding a child to the mix could very well split it wide open.

Plenty of couples function just fine with all the bumps and warts between them, but the added stress of a child can make everything so much worse that what was acceptable before may become intolerable now.

Oh, pATRICK, With whom will Emily and I share virtual flan in the afternoons? Woe is I!

(Caveat) This is just my experience...everyone's is different.

Having a kid has made my marriage harder. In my opinion, this is because Proud Mama and I considered ourselves to be 'complete' people before baby. The baby didn't contribute to completing us (as people) in any way. He's a fantastic part of our family and I always want him around. But marriage is about being a couple, and any third-wheel (fourth, fifth, sixth wheels) you add to the couple is going to leave less time for 'coupling'.

Joshua --

Congrats on the new baby. And I agree -- it's so remarkable to so unconditionally love a little person . . .

Despite my question, I can say with 100% certainty that things between myself and my husband have gotten far better than they were those first few months. Life is much easier now, even if it's not quite where I'd like it to be. So I hope that's a note of optimism for you!

Great topic for someone like me who's struggling to decide whether to have kids. I am very happily married but sense that if we did have a child it would dredge up our differences (on religion, discipline, etc.) that we can live with, now. No doubt a child would put a strain on things. Not to mention it's such unrelenting work.
We really love and enjoy our little nieces and nephews, but maybe we're better suited to be the cool aunt & uncle than parents, and in the long run that may be a better choice for our marriage.
But I think I'll always wonder.

Hey Army Brat, Yeah I am married. Almost three years now. And our firstborn son is 8 months. I have to accept that my wife is not the same person as I am and I can't push her the way I push myself sometimes (that is a continuing lesson). But I can see the siren call that having a child gives: the urge to raise a child to avoid making all the mistakes you make (i.e. a second childhood done the "right" way). That's what I mean about control. I think this is the motivation behind a lot of "helicopter parents", sad to say.

"pATRICK -- why oh why? how can you break it off without an explanation...

men..."

Posted by: Leslie | July 2, 2007 10:51 AM

HEY! At least he did say goodbye. I thought that he just faded away!

It's not you, it's me!

Posted by: Fred | July 2, 2007 11:06 AM

I think pATRICK needs more personal space. He doesn't want to commit to just one blog!

_________

Otherwise, they feel they are justified in
attempting to govern my life. Funny, I am a working person, they are not supporting me. I do not get where they think I lost
my power of thinking just because they grew up.

Posted by: Ohio | July 2, 2007 11:01 AM

When their father died, and you had to assume the role of mom AND dad, I would guess that they had to assume more responsibility as well. Is it possible that they started thinking then that all of you were more or less equal, and maybe even that they felt like they had to take care of you -- even if you didn't need it, and didn't encourage it? If they assumed a caretaking role, perhaps as a way of coping, they might have gotten themselves stuck in that thought pattern. I'm not there, so I don't know -- I'm just throwing out a theory.

I think I had a maybe more realistic idea of what kids can do to a marriage, because my stepdaughter was in the picture long before I had children with my husband. Of course, I was just as unprepared as anyone for the sleep deprived, bleary eyed haze that you operate in after a child is born, but since it was never just the two of us to begin with, our relationship developed in a way that included an "outsider". I also try very hard to remember that raising children is ONE phase of a good marriage. We as a couple do not exist for the sole purpose of bringing up baby.

Of course, I should practice what I preach more. I am thrilled to report that my husband and I are going away by ourselves for a whole weekend soon. It's the first time ever since we had our first. I. cannot. wait.

Ohio,

Without knowing the circumstances . . .Is it possible view your children's attempts to intervene in your life as an expression of their love and concern for you? Perhaps you could thank them for their concern, and tell them that your appreciate their interest in helping you, but then politely suggest that you disagree with them and are more inclined to follow your own path.

Of course, that could be utterly naive, depending upon what's going on with your family. But it may help by giving them the message that you've heard them and considered their advice, while also hinting that they should respect your decision not to follow it.

Lucky to have options:
The best advice I can give you is to work out all those potential conflict issues BEFORE you have kids. Even though your marriage is strong, find a couples counselor who will help you negotiate the areas of difference, and who will help you decide if you want to have children in the first place.

Sometimes, on my darkest days, I think it was better when we all had arranged marriages, to spouses chosen by our parents, to people that they thought would be compatible. Then I remember that my parents thought STBX would be a good father and stable, sober, faithful husband...

Balancing Marriage and Kids--

Actually? It is. Thank you.

Marriage and kids were connected at least in part by religion. Many religious denominations still require couples to agree that they will welcome children into their lives before they can get married in the church. While the impact of religion in politics has grown over the last decade, my personal impression is that its impact on individuals has diminished, to the point where couples don't feel obligated anymore to follow church guidance and issues like birth control and childbearing.

I vehemently disagree that children are always a wedge in a marriage. Its all a matter of perspective. My husband and I have three children. We knew before we had the first one that we would be giving up trips to restaurants, late nights at jazz clubs, travel to exotic destinations, sleep, money, etc. So when all of that actually came to pass, we simply decided not to feel resentful. We adopted more of a "misery loves company" approach and laughed our way through it. The shared experience has definitely made our marriage stronger. And while we are looking forward to having an empty nest someday, right now we are enjoying our children.

Taking care of our children is what we do together, not watching movies.
---
Wow, that's a really sad story. Maybe you should hire a babysitter and get some time to yourself. There's way to find balance and you'll find it.

Late again. Figures.

Someone brought up they found it interesting, but not exactly groundbreaking, that sharing the chores in a way that feels equitable to both parties was important.

I call it the "roses vs. clover" effect.

Roses are not about everyday things. They are like exclamation points. Well, you don't get daily exclamation points in life. Not as a rule. But clover, it's quiet, unassuming, ubiquitous. Easily overlooked and undervalued. Look more closely and you realize it's not only a legume, it's the source of some really tasty honey.

As for kids--there are rewards. But it's a long hard slog to adulthood. And no matter how hard we try, what we say, when we say it, there's far too much luck involved in childrearing. I don't want to put the success, failure or raison d'etre for my marriage on my children's backs.

Anyone else remember being a teenager? Who here also made it to adulthood at least partially through sheer dumb luck rather than using good judgment? Maybe only once or twice, rather than all the time, but still.

[Raises hand]

Otherwise, they feel they are justified in
attempting to govern my life. Funny, I am a working person, they are not supporting me. I do not get where they think I lost
my power of thinking just because they grew up.

Posted by: Ohio | July 2, 2007 11:01 AM

Ohio,

I'm so glad to read your post. My brother treats my widowed father just the way you describe. Dad is a fully functioning, adaptable, resourceful human being, but my brother, for reasons of his own, needs to infantalize him.

Luckily, Dad pretty much lets it run off his back, but it's got to irritate the h&ll out of him!

Y'all have mostly said great stuff.

Re: happiness. People typically won't admit to not being happy. They might anonymously-as a survey typically is. My sister is in an unhappy marriage (two unhappy ppl meet and have kids-guess what happens) and yes it is a train wreck to watch, not much I can do. I said to sis once-hey I don't think you're happy. Her response- of course I'm happy, I just had a kid (third). I tried to explain to her it's a lot of pressure to put on a kid to rely on them for your own happiness.

Of course, it also pains me that her first reaction was defensive rather than thinking I have her best interest at heart.

She also thinks admitting you've made a mistake is the worst thing anyone could ever do (when I think it makes you an adult...). So she would never get divorced no matter what's best for her, the kids, etc. So she compounds her bad decisions every day. The kids just add complications but they were already unhappy, before they even met each other...

By the way, I think we could all use a re-read of Erma Bombeck's books.

"A Marriage made in Heaven; or Too Tired for an Affair" was her more adult-themed (but still clean!) one. But "The Grass is Greener over the Septic Tank" is darned funny.

It sounds like we ALL could use some levity.

Even pATRICK. Sorry to see you go, does this mean your father is doing significanly worse? Good luck!

As for kids--there are rewards. But it's a long hard slog to adulthood. And no matter how hard we try, what we say, when we say it, there's far too much luck involved in childrearing. I don't want to put the success, failure or raison d'etre for my marriage on my children's backs.
--------

I really like this sentence.

Not every family I know, but maybe 1/4 of them, their two kids are very different in temperament. With those striking differences I know that it's not the parenting that is forcing this behavior, it's the children's innate personalities or their reaction to the parenting.

I am reminded of my own childhood when at age 9 my parents had a financial breakthrough that meant we could go to the beach for vacation instead of Grandma's house. Up until then, scrimping and saving and clothes from cousins, after then, buying nice clothes and name brand food. How different that was for me.

Or which kid in your family has health problems? And what that means for the parents. Or those parents where none of the kids have any health issues and you look at them like, what do you know about the emergency room? Or the parents with one kid with Downs. Or the parents with one Austitic kid. Or the parents who never had a miscarriage. Or the parents who lost a twin.

How can your marriage be affected by hope and tragedy? How can you keep your romantic relationship romantic without it being pedestrian and parental?

I think too few people are willing to make the adults' relationship a priority in the household and then raise children to respect and honor that. We make a point out of both having adult conversations/movies that are not to be interrupted, and of involving kids in nontrivial, issue-oriented dinner conversation. In other words, our household doesn't revolve around kids and childish stuff, although it includes ample time for that. Parents who refuse to set limits for kids and to expect responsible, respectful behavior from them are indeed setting themselves up for marital strain. This is an avoidable problem, in my view, but our society is so kid-fixated that we're now polarized between a picture of marriage that is me-oriented and centered around entertainment, and one that views children as the end of all adult life.

"Many religious denominations still require couples to agree that they will welcome children into their lives before they can get married in the church. While the impact of religion in politics has grown over the last decade, my personal impression is that its impact on individuals has diminished, to the point where couples don't feel obligated anymore to follow church guidance and issues like birth control and childbearing."

Many denominations? As far as I know, only the Roman Catholic church makes any requirement of welcoming children, or any comment on birth control at all. What other denominations or religions have such a requirement?

Is our marriage better for our kids? Probably not. We used to dash off to dinner whenever we wanted, spend hours and hours giving each other our undivided attention.

Now that we're parents, we have date nights, and we work hard to make time for each other. But we can never maintain the same level as we did when we were childless.

But for us, it doesn't matter because our life is better because of our children. So to focus exclusively on marriage seems too narrowly focused to me, since a marriage is part of a life.

And I agree with the person who commented that the huge increase of the importance of chore sharing is *much* more significant than the smaller drop of how children factor in. Unfortunately, the headline is not as sexy, so the media didn't pick up on that one. It's a shame.

"Children will worsen an already shaky marriage due to the extra stress, financial issues and general hassle.

Children will also strengthen an already strong marriage due to the cooperation and emotional bonding between everyone involved.

So, if they become a "wedge" in a marriage, the crack was probably already there."

John L, I generally agree with you and some other posters who have said similar things. But what if you can't always "cooperate"? Sometimes having kids can actually create issues that never would have arisen otherwise.

Example: My husband and I have very different parenting styles: his dad was very authoritarian and a yeller, and he figures he came out ok, so what's the problem? Well, our daughter is very high-energy and sensitive, and that approach just makes her dig in her heels, which frustrates him until he yells, at which point she breaks down, at which point he yells again at her not to cry, at which point all hell breaks loose. So I'm left trying to figure out how to present a "unified" front to my daughter while calming them both down and getting frustrated myself wondering why such a brilliant man keeps doing things that he KNOWS will only make the situation worse. And pretty soon we're all a snit -- mine probably the worst of all, because someone's gotta be the designated grownup, so I HAVE to keep my temper and find a productive solution, instead of just making myself feel better by yelling at the lot of them.

None of this was an issue between us before kids. And quite honestly, it's the biggest recurring conflict we have in our marriage -- it's not a big huge crack, but it is this little chink-chink-chink, and if you don't take the time and energy to focus on healing those little chinks, it can grow into something irreparable. And when you look at the time and energy it takes to do that repair (get over my own frustration, figure out ways to help them get along better, figure out ways to help him lower his own frustration and get some more realistic expectations, etc.), together with all of the other demands of jobs and kids and chores, I'm not that surprised people don't always manage to fix those little things while they are still little things.

Lucky to have options - we really are lucky. Only a couple of generations ago, you and I probably would not have considered not having kids. It just wasn't done. While this decision can be a hard one to make, at least we have the power to make it.

Anyway, this is your decision entirely. Don't let anyone pressure you two into having kids or not. They aren't the ones who would be stuck regretting it. Good luck.

New initiative: No children? Then no marriage
'Absurd' idea aims to start discussion

By RACHEL LA CORTE
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

OLYMPIA -- Proponents of same-sex marriage have introduced an initiative that would put a whole new twist on traditional unions between men and women: It would require heterosexual couples to have children within three years or else have their marriages annulled.

Initiative 957 was filed by the Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance, which was formed last summer after the state Supreme Court upheld Washington's ban on same-sex marriage.

In that 5-4 ruling, the court found that state lawmakers were justified in passing the 1998 Defense of Marriage Act, which restricts marriage to unions between a man and a woman. In defending the act, the ruling specifically mentioned a state interest in furthering procreation.

Under I-957, marriage would be limited to men and women who are able to have children. Couples would be required to prove they can have children to get a marriage license. If they did not have children within three years, their marriages would be subject to annulment.

All other marriages would be defined as "unrecognized" and people in them would be ineligible to receive marriage benefits.

"Absurd? Very," the group says on its Web site, which adds it is planning two more initiatives involving marriage and procreation. "But there is a rational basis for this absurdity. By floating the initiatives, we hope to prompt discussion about the many misguided assumptions" underlying the Supreme Court's ruling.

Gregory Gadow, who filed I-957 last month, said the three-year time frame was arbitrary.

"We did toy with the idea of (requiring) procreation before marriage," he said. "We didn't want to (annoy) the fundamentalists too much."

Gadow said that if the group's initiatives were passed, the Supreme Court would be forced to strike them down as unconstitutional, which he believes would weaken the original ruling upholding the Defense of Marriage Act.

But he said he highly doubts that any of the initiatives will pass, and that they are being done "in the spirit of political street theater."

"Our intention is not to actually put this into law," he said. "All we want is to get this on the ballot and cause people to talk about it."

Cheryl Haskins, executive director of Allies for Marriage & Children, agreed with Gadow's group on at least one point about the initiative: "It's absurd," she said. Haskins said opponents of same-sex marriage "have never said that the sole purpose of marriage is procreation."

The measure's backers said the two other initiatives they plan would prohibit divorce or separation when a married couple had children and would make having a child together the equivalent of marriage.

Gadow said his goal is to raise $300,000 to spend on advertising on the first initiative.

From the marriage rites:

The gift of marriage brings husband and wife together
in the delight and tenderness of sexual union
and joyful commitment to the end of their lives.
It is given as the foundation of family life
in which children are [born and] nurtured
and in which each member of the family,in good times and in bad,
may find strength, companionship and comfort,
and grow to maturity in love.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/29/AR2007062900942.html?hpid=smartliving

Check out the article about the 5,400 square foot house in Loudon which includes a master suite for an 11 year old girl because, I jest not, the mother says, "I didn't want my daughter to live in a small room."

I can only hope that the 11 year old doesn't grow up to be a dorm- or suite-mate of my children, and that she never wants to run away to NYC. She'd be so horrified by a 600 sq. foot studio.

I wish more people would decide not to have kids rather than foisting such spoiled brats on the world.

I guess Gadow would find my wife and I heretics, then, since we've been married 23 years now without children. How does he feel about women having children without marrying? They're probably heretics too.

"Absurd? Very," the group says on its Web site, which adds it is planning two more initiatives involving marriage and procreation. "But there is a rational basis for this absurdity. By floating the initiatives, we hope to prompt discussion about the many misguided assumptions" underlying the Supreme Court's ruling.

But he said he highly doubts that any of the initiatives will pass, and that they are being done "in the spirit of political street theater."

"Our intention is not to actually put this into law," he said. "All we want is to get this on the ballot and cause people to talk about it."

I don't see any religion that requires children in a marriage (R.C., sort of). But I'm not looking that hard, either.

A valid Catholic marriage results from four elements: (1) the spouses are free to marry; (2) they freely exchange their consent; (3) in consenting to marry, they have the intention to marry for life, to be faithful to one another and be open to children; and (4) their consent is given in the presence of two witnesses and before a properly authorized Church minister. Exceptions to the last requirement must be approved by church authority.

Does marriage need kids? Do kids need marriage? Does ANYONE?

We sure are conducting one huge social experiment these days. Is it good? We will find out.

We commonly have pre-nups now. They should probably be mandatory - so the less-educated don't get shorted. The marriage contract could have an expiration date for the marriage - say 20 years from the birth of the last child, with optional renewals. Childless marriages could set other time limits.

No one should take anyone for granted. Or bug out on child-rearing responsibilties. Only really awful marriages would need to be granted "early outs".

Empty nesters may wish to part ways in order to pursue old dreams or new endeavors, even if just for a set "sabbatical" time period. Marriages used to be shorter because people's lives were shorter. Now we have to re-think the institution so it doesn't feel like an unwanted "life sentence"!

Everything in marriage should not be about the kids nor should it be all about the adults - another place for the ol' balancing act.

My dad's 2nd wife refused to marry him until her Catholic church officially recognized the divorce from her earlier marriage, even though she had legally divorced him years and years earlier.

It took months after she sent in the application before they did, and she said later had they refused to recognize it she would have married him anyway, but it did make her feel better to get their approval.

Considering they were both well into their late 40's, I kind of doubt either of them were "open to children" by then, though.

http://www.stthomasparishhuntington.org/id49.htm

Does this help?

http://www.stthomasparishhuntington.org/id49.htm

1664. Unity, indissolubility, and openness to fertility are essential to marriage. Polygamy is incompatible with the unity of marriage; divorce separates what God has joined together; the refusal of fertility turns married life away from its "supreme gift", the child.

Does this help?

By RACHEL LA CORTE
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

OLYMPIA -- Proponents of same-sex marriage have introduced an initiative that would put a whole new twist on traditional unions between men and women: It would require heterosexual couples to have children within three years or else have their marriages annulled.

* * *

Finally -- some common ground between the gays and the straight old people who want grandchildren!

Some people do NOT want grandchildren! They say it would make them feel "old". Haha. I am seeing lots of this among my boomer friends who make up all kinds of silly names because they don't want to be called "granny!"

Regardless of what is in any particular marriage rite, there is no denomination other than Roman Catholics (who don't consider themselves a denomination, btw) which requires a couple to be open to the possibility of children.

To make a broad statement about the church requiring children and discouraging birth control when it's pretty much only a Catholic thing is irresponsible.

To make a broad statement about the church requiring children and discouraging birth control when it's pretty much only a Catholic thing is irresponsible.

Posted by: | July 2, 2007 12:26 PM

Doesn't the Catholic church regard itself as the "the church"/"one true church"? Is it more correctly spelled Catholic Church?

Is anyone here Muslim, or Hindu, or something other than Christian who could tell us more? Directly and personally, rather than what someone may be able to pull from the internet.

"I can only hope that the 11 year old doesn't grow up to be a dorm- or suite-mate of my children, and that she never wants to run away to NYC. She'd be so horrified by a 600 sq. foot studio."

I have a friend who has always been a bit materialistic. Very much into big house, big cars, etc. She lived in a very nice house, not a McMansion. Her son grew up and she tried to talk to him about buying something rather than renting. He just wasn't interested. He'd rather rent a room from someone and have no management/upkeep responsibilities. He just wanted to concentrate on his job, his further studies, and his social life. He really couldn't care less about material trappings.

"Some people do NOT want grandchildren!"

I am one of them. My youngest is still a teen. Grandchildren might be nice someday, but I'd prefer not becoming a grandmother until I'm completely done with being a mother of dependent children.

Someone said something about materialism and if it really meant happiness.

A rabbi once said he was teaching teenagers and he asked them to write down five things they thought would make them happy (this was a while ago, so it was stuff like walkman, tv , computer, etc).

Then he asked them to write down the five happiest times in their lives, and he said that they mostly wrote, my bat/bar mitzvah, family event, family vacation, being with friends, etc.

So sometimes we get our values screwed up by things, but if we look back to when we were happiest, it's rarely because we bought those cool shoes.

He'd rather rent a room from someone and have no management/upkeep responsibilities. He just wanted to concentrate on his job, his further studies, and his social life. He really couldn't care less about material trappings.

Where o where did I go wrong???

He'd rather rent a room from someone and have no management/upkeep responsibilities. He just wanted to concentrate on his job, his further studies, and his social life. He really couldn't care less about material trappings.

Where o where did I go wrong???

Posted by: Mom | July 2, 2007 12:48 PM

Her concern was that he was just "throwing his money away" by renting.

my bat/bar mitzvah, family event, family vacation,

Those usually involve someone parting with some cash.

Hanging out with friends is the only thing that sounds like it could be low-cost. Unless they are into hanging out at the mall.

Doesn't the Catholic church regard itself as the "the church"/"one true church"? Is it more correctly spelled Catholic Church?

Is anyone here Muslim, or Hindu, or something other than Christian who could tell us more? Directly and personally, rather than what someone may be able to pull from the internet.

Posted by: | July 2, 2007 12:36 PM

The fact that the Catholic church regards itself as The Church doesn't mean the Reformation never occurred.

Protestant denominations have no such requirement and to equate the Roman Catholic church with Christianity is incorrect, much as it pains the Vatican to acknowledge history.

In Judaism, you are required to have sex as it is part of the marriage contract (no joke). if kids come along, it is a blessing from g-d.

This is whether or not you are able to have kids (and the no contraception thing is in there too - which is why many very religious jewish families have 8 or more kids - the Catholics got it from the jews - but if you shouldn't have kids because of some real reason, but you are still fertile, you are permitted to use some forms of contraception because you're supposed to have sex).

How's that?

It is kinda fun to watch the gay lobby tweak the "I'm not homophobic" homophobe lobby.

to 12:52 : no one is required to make cash change hands for any of that.

It was more of: the accomplishment of studying and reading the torah in front of my friends/relatives - who I am spending a special day with and that's what is fulfilling...

From the Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod

"In view of the Biblical command and the blessing to 'be fruitful and multiply,' it is to be expected that marriage will not ordinarily be voluntarily childless. But, in the absence of Scriptural prohibition, there need be no objection to contraception within a marital union which is, as a whole, fruitful."

atlmom, Do Conservative and/or Reformed synagogues espouse those teachings, as well? or only Orthodox? I thought it was the latter, but seek to learn.

As long as we're all going off-topic anyway, I have a weird question.

Poland Spring water is no longer sold in Maryland. In fact, it looks like it is no longer sold south of the Mason-Dixon line. I can't find it anyway.

Does anyone here have a "source" for overpriced bottled water? I tried the Staples site, but it's kind of a mess. I can't believe I'm looking for this stuff, but a friend of mine really does taste the difference and really hates Deer Park water. (Personally, I say get better acquainted with tap water, but I have my own weirdnesses.)

I knew from my Jewish friends that sex within marriage is a "must-have", but none of them are Orthodox so I was unaware of whether there were mandates on children or not.

I found this passage rather comforting.

Second, those of us beyond childbearing years must "put our money where our mouths are." That is, we must help to provide day-care arrangements and tuition aid for Jewish day schools, supplementary schools and camps.

Here the Talmud's insistence that grandparents have the same duty to provide a Jewish education for their grandchildren as parents do for their children is especially apt in our time. It is not a great favor when grandparents help with these costs; it is simply what our tradition expects them to do.

Third, we need to recognize that the emphasis on children in the Jewish tradition only exacerbates the problems of infertile Jewish couples. Not only do they suffer personally each time they see their contemporaries become pregnant or deal with their children, wishing that they could be in that stage of life as well; their own Jewish tradition seems to condemn them for not having children.

Here it is critical to note two things. First, like all obligations in Jewish law, the duty to procreate ceases to apply to those who cannot fulfill it through no fault of their own. Furthermore, adoption is an honored choice in the Jewish tradition that should be encouraged and supported.

Finally, we must impress upon Jews that even if childbirth is not an option, there are other ways to contribute to the nourishment of the Jewish people.

For example, the Talmud analogizes those who teach other people's children to those who give birth to them.

Second, we in the Jewish community must take steps to support and assist young adults who would love to get married and have children, but cannot.

Communal activities and Internet sites like JDate can help, but so can parents who host intellectual, religious and social gatherings at their homes for their children and their friends and their friends' friends.

We also must recognize that many couples in our midst would love to have children but cannot. That requires minimally that we must not badger couples without children with questions about when they are going to have them. We must instead try to be there for them emotionally as they struggle with this issue and support them in their efforts to have their own biological children or to adopt.

Moreover, in our programming we must plan for couples who do not have children as well as for those who do. Our Jewish institutions should not be only for couples with children, for that group constitutes a diminishing percentage of our people.

Instead, we must recognize the infinite worth of each Jew, married or not and with children or not, a value imprinted in each of us when we were created in the image of God.

Rabbi Elliot N. Dorff is professor of philosophy at the University of Judaism in Los Angeles.

Here's the link, too.

http://www.jewishsf.com/content/2-0-/module/displaystory/story_id/26770/edition_id/515/format/html/displaystory.html

Thanks, 1:06, notwithstanding MP's over-broad 11:30 post, the position of the Missouri Synod is typical of non-Catholic, Christian denominations. There's no child-bearing litmus test for marrying within the Christian church.

I thought Poland Spring was carried at Giant stores. Last I looked it was, anyway.

MN-it is typically only the orthodox who would not use contraception, and it is very controversial (well maybe not very) in the orthodox comm. As well. My cousin is what she calls herself 'modern' because they use contraception and she doesn't always wear a skirt and she doesn't wear a wig , etc.

So there are a zillion interpretations. But the sex thing is that the husband is obligated to provide it for his wife.

Husband: Let's go out on the town tonight and have some fun.
Wife: Yeah, but if you get home before me, remember to leave the front door open.

Ohio and Educmom,
I saw myself in your post as well, although I am the child that sometimes tries to make decisions for my mother. My father died when I was 14, and Educmom was right-- the responsibilities were then shared much more and I began to have a "friend" relationship with my mother rather than a "parent/child" relationship. I felt as though I had to take care of her much more (and still do), because she had/has so much on her plate now that she no longer has a life partner. While it may be infuriating to you, try to let it roll off your back-- I have a feeling your children aren't trying to be demeaning and controlling, but rather are trying to watch out for you as best they can out of love and concern.

Thanks, atlmom and anon at 1:14. Both posts were interesting and enlightening.

While it may be infuriating to you, try to let it roll off your back-- I have a feeling your children aren't trying to be demeaning and controlling, but rather are trying to watch out for you as best they can out of love and concern.

Turn that around for parent and child and it's the same thing.

I'm well over majority age and been parenting for some time now, but just yesterday my mother was telling me to do something that I was ALREADY DOING. She caught herself, apologized, and said it's simply a hard habit to lose.

We had a good laugh.

Come on, if we couldn't all agree that families can be crazy-making, what else would we all agree upon? Ever?

I think the importance of children regarding happiness in a marriage surrounds the desire of both partners wanting to be parents. Unfortunately, sometimes two people get married and one wants children and the other does not. Each thinks that the other will change his/her mind. This is setting up for trouble...

In worse scenarios, one of the parents decides AFTER the child comes that he/she does not want to be a rpent. I have known a couple of women whose husbands left them within weeks of giving birth because they missed their "freedom."

Our daughter did not drive a wedge between us--we both enjoyed parenting. Our divorce was the result of issues other than parenting.

Poland Spring's web page purports to offer home delivery.

signed,

Girl Who Drinks Water From the Tap

To have a valid Catholic marriage, it must be ratified and consummated (ratum et consummatum). Ratification is by a priest or lay person with the power and the consummated, you can figure that out. If a marriage is not consummated, it may be declared "annulled." How that one is figured out, I don't know.

As to the issue of children, the Church's requirement is that the couple is "open" to having children. If no children are possible due to a medical problem or advanced age, there is no issue for the Church. The couple is still married in the eyes of the Church.

What is the issue is that the couple does not take any action such the use of birth control to prevent a child. (although most US Catholics don't adhere to this requirement.)

Yeah, I put in the local zip code and up pops the message "delivery unavailable".

But thanks so much for looking.

Like I said, it is a weird request. I drink tap water too.

Being capable of having children as a requirement for marriage? What hogwash! That means that any woman over the age of 50 (plus or minus) would be barred from getting married. Any woman who'd ever had a hysterectomy would be barred from getting married. Any man who'd been left sterile from childhood cancer or other disease would be barred from getting married. Anyone who knew that s/he was a carrier of a genetic disorder and decided it was best not to pass that disorder on to a biological child would be barred from getting married. Etc., etc., etc. I think you get my drift.

Murphy,

Pls refer to my 1:33 post.
Being open to children is not the same as having them.

Single western mom (and all):

But really people get married all the time not agreeing on tons of things and then expect the other to change. Happens every day. Kids, clearly, are more important to agree on, since you are more tham welcome to make yourself miserable, but when you bring an innocent child into that, it's heartbreaking.

But that says that they have to want them or the marriage isn't "real". Not wanting kids, or not wanting more kids is grounds for annullment.

From the larger branch of Lutherans in the U.S. (Evangelical Lutheran Church of America

"When a woman and man join their bodies sexually, both should be prepared to provide for a child, should conception occur. When that is not their intention, the responsible use of safe, effective contraceptives is expected of the male and the female. Respect and sensitivity should also be shown toward couples who do not feel called to conceive and/or rear children, or who are unable to do so."

They also say

"The purpose of marriage goes beyond the intimacy and companionship it provides the couple. The wider community is symbolically present when a couple publicly exchanges vows. Witnesses pledge to support the marriage, and those exchanging vows are reminded that their marriage will affect the wider community. They are to extend themselves for the sake of others."

It seems that they recognize that individual marriages may have different purposes, though not exclusively inward ones, say materialistic DINK purposes.

to 1:49, Yes, if it can be proven that one of the couple was not open to children and then married, a annulment can be granted.

I am not sure in the case of any additional children.

I also know that a couple even with children can be granted an annulment on the basis on immaturity. This is the usual basis of an annulment for a teenage marriage.

I think the saddest thing of all is when two people get married and both purport to want children, but when theory meets reality, one or the other takes off. Sometimes literally, sometimes figuratively (but for all intents and purposes).

Now I'm a little scared (in the figurative sense, not literally.) I haven't gotten married yet (we're working towards that) and I don't have children. While the thought of having kids is nice, I'd really hesitate to do it if I thought my kids would be my biggest source of fulfillment. I'd rather not place my happiness in another human being--even one that I birthed, because that wouldn't be fair to them or myself. Besides, I already have things that fulfill me, and a special person that is a great source of happiness--me.
If I had children, I'd like to think that I'd be content with just providing them with love, nurturing and lessons, while continuing to live my own life, and letting them live theirs as they grow older. I know what it's like to have a mom who finds one of her greatest sources of happiness in me. I'm flattered, but I'd rather that she lived her own life, and found her happiness in something that has nothing to do with me.

I know for a fact that we read a British book in health class from the 1800s that said that a woman who got married knowing she coul