KathyM Posted July 11, 2007 Report Share Posted July 11, 2007 I'm not sure if this is controversial enough for in here, but here we go. I've got to admit, I'm not very "up" on policies, taxes and the likes. This story however highlights something that really pees me off: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6288578.stm Typical Tory views - marriage solves everything, including finances! Like I said, not being up on current tax legislation, I'm not sure what the deal is now for married vs unmarried couples (would love it if any of you lot could fill me in). But what gets me about the Tory view is that it shows a complete disregard for couple who choose not to marry (but who are committed to a relationship parenting children as much as any married couple). It seems according to them that you're either married or a single parent, there's no inbetween. I wondered what all of your views on marriage are? I've been married, got to say I wasn't impressed, didn't bring me anything that I didn't already have, other than a whole load of hassle when it ended. I don't believe for a second it brings any more commitment into a relationship - you've either got that or you don't, and a piece of paper isn't going to make a relationship stronger. Baz and I decided not to marry for various reasons. That might change, it might not. I've gone through phases of insecurity where I've wanted to do it, but then realised that marriage wouldn't take that away. Our relationship is really solid (famous last words, haha), both of us are committed to raising our children (which is a big deal with our Baz considering he didn't make them). Would an extra £20 a week change my views on marriage? Honestly? Financial reasons would prolly be one of only two reasons I'd marry again - that and a decent p*ss-up party. OK, OK, i'm an old romatic and would get married if we both wanted to, but neither of us see any gain to it. Why should a married couple get more financial benefits than us? Why should a married couple deserve more benefits than a single parent who is the only potential breadwinner? Do you think adding financial incentive to people to get married will strengthen marriage and "values", or completely undermine them? Given the huge divorce rate, do you think marriage makes for a more stable family? Is marriage even necessary at all? There, that's my ponderance for the day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheryl33 Posted July 11, 2007 Report Share Posted July 11, 2007 I agree with you Kathy After watching my parents go through a nasty divorce a few years ago I am not a big fan of marriage. The only reason I would do it is to get a lovely ring, a pretty dress and a massive party I think the proposed extra £20 a week for married couples is totally unfair and think it should go to single people who work (like me! ), single parents and people on state pensions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jemimap Posted July 11, 2007 Report Share Posted July 11, 2007 Personally i wouldn't have children outside of marriage, if i'm not commited enought to someone to marry them they i sure as hell ain't committed enough to have children with them. Marriage means something to me though, because of my beliefs and the way i was raised. I don't believe in divorce either. I don't judge anyone who chooses to have children on their own or with a partner they are not married to. Afterall if they don't have the same thoughts on marriage as i do it wouldn't be the same commitment to them as it would be to me. I strongly disagree with married couples having more financial benefits than unmarried couples though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
murtle Posted July 11, 2007 Report Share Posted July 11, 2007 The same could be said for all taxes if you don't get them. i.e. why should a single parent get more benefit then a married couple? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KathyM Posted July 11, 2007 Author Report Share Posted July 11, 2007 Thanks both of you. Jemimap - can I ask you (with the utmost respect for your views), what you think marriage changes in a relationship? Do you not think people can have the same commitment without a piece of paper? Genuinely interested, not knocking your views. The same could be said for all taxes if you don't get them. i.e. why should a single parent get more benefit then a married couple? Because married/cohabiting couples have two potential wage earners, and a single parent has the same costs and only one potential income (if they're able to work)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheryl33 Posted July 11, 2007 Report Share Posted July 11, 2007 just going to say that Kathy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
owl Posted July 11, 2007 Report Share Posted July 11, 2007 There are at present no financial advantages to being married as the married person's allowance has been discontinued. I don't think paying people to get married will improve the stability of society. In fact, if more people get married as opposed to living together there are likely to be more proportionately more divorces. I have read the link and wonder what on earth David Cameron has in mind when he suggests "relationship classes". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KathyM Posted July 11, 2007 Author Report Share Posted July 11, 2007 LOL Phebe, I did wonder that too - no doubt a way of forcing more archaic views on couples and their subsequent children. I did read about him trying to sort out the "deadbeat dad" image with encouraging people to stay together "for the children" somewhere too. He really hasn't got a clue, has he? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maria Posted July 11, 2007 Report Share Posted July 11, 2007 (edited) I'm only quoting what I've read here, so am not sure where the stats come from (so therefore how robust they are)...... It is felt by some that the current benefits / tax credits system discriminates against married couples, and I have certainly read of cases where people have been told if they separated / divorced then they would be entitled to more help (which if true can't be right surely?). As a result there is a far higher proportion of children living in poverty whose parents are married..... Although the divorce rate is high, the separation rate is significantly higher between couples who live together (apparently). If the above is true, then I do think it is wrong, and therefore would agree with some changes being made to address this inequality. Personally, I do agree with marriage, and I do think there is some value in it (can't articulate why, maybe because of my background and the way I was brought up ). I don't see why choosing to believe in and getting marriage should be considered archaic? I am married, without children, and have been married before. But I wouldn't judge anyone for not being married at all - it's their choice, but it seems some people are happy to judge those who do want to get married. I don't think there should be additional financial incentives for that choice though, it should be at least a level playing field. Edited July 11, 2007 by Maria Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jemimap Posted July 11, 2007 Report Share Posted July 11, 2007 Thanks both of you. Jemimap - can I ask you (with the utmost respect for your views), what you think marriage changes in a relationship? Do you not think people can have the same commitment without a piece of paper? Genuinely interested, not knocking your views. I don't mind if you do knock my views Kathy, i'm used to people taking the pee anyway I'm quite old fashioned in that respect i guess I can only say what it would change for me as it obviously wouldn't change anything for some people and different things for others. It would mean i was completely commited to that person for the rest of my life. To me it is the ultimate commitment, to make my marriage vows before God and promise to be with that person forever. People can have that level of commitment without a piece of paper but only because they see it as a 'piece of paper' to me it is much much more. Although i don't attend church regularly i am catholic so i guess that has a lot to do with it. If i were to get married on a football pitch for example it wouldn't be the same - that's when iit would turn into a 'piece of paper' to me. I wouldn't feel married unless it was in a church. Does that make sense Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KathyM Posted July 11, 2007 Author Report Share Posted July 11, 2007 Personally, I do agree with marriage, and I do think there is some value in it (can't articulate why, maybe because of my background and the way I was brought up ). I don't see why choosing to believe in and getting marriage should be considered archaic?I am married, without children, and have been married before. But I wouldn't judge anyone for not being married at all - it's their choice, but it seems some people are happy to judge those who do want to get married. I don't think there should be additional financial incentives for that choice though, it should be at least a level playing field. Sorry, didn't articulate very well. Got no problem with marriage, or people choosing to do it. What I do think is archaic is this "marriage is for life, stay in a miserable marriage for the children" view that some people push - I've got nothing against people having this view, it's when potential leaders force it that it bothers me. I've never seen anyone get grief for choosing marriage, I have however had bother over choosing not to get married. We also get common misunderstandings (for example Baz getting called Mr M when he goes to the school because my children have my name), etc. One thing I don't understand is the view that marriage brings commitment to a relationship. I was married, after two of my children were born and before the last was. My marriage broke down because my (ex) husband didn't have the commitment to us. Marriage doesn't bring commitment in my view. That has to already be there, and if it is, I'm not sure exactly what marriage is supposed to bring to a relationship. I do like that it's a way of publically announcing that commitment though (something Baz and I would like to do without the pice of paper). As for divorced/separated people getting more benefits, I would assume that's because they'd be in the same boat as a single person/parent - but if extra costs weren't an issue, then yes I see the inequality in that and that's wrong. I don't mind if you do knock my views Kathy, i'm used to people taking the pee anyway I'm quite old fashioned in that respect i guess I can only say what it would change for me as it obviously wouldn't change anything for some people and different things for others. It would mean i was completely commited to that person for the rest of my life. To me it is the ultimate commitment, to make my marriage vows before God and promise to be with that person forever. People can have that level of commitment without a piece of paper but only because they see it as a 'piece of paper' to me it is much much more. Although i don't attend church regularly i am catholic so i guess that has a lot to do with it. If i were to get married on a football pitch for example it wouldn't be the same - that's when iit would turn into a 'piece of paper' to me. I wouldn't feel married unless it was in a church. Does that make sense Absolutely makes sense, thanks for posting that! I completely understand the importance of marriage for those with religious beliefs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jemimap Posted July 11, 2007 Report Share Posted July 11, 2007 One thing I don't understand is the view that marriage brings commitment to a relationship. I was married, after two of my children were born and before the last was. My marriage broke down because my (ex) husband didn't have the commitment to us. Marriage doesn't bring commitment in my view. That has to already be there, and if it is, I'm not sure exactly what marriage is supposed to bring to a relationship. I do like that it's a way of publically announcing that commitment though (something Baz and I would like to do without the pice of paper). I think some people believe it brings more commitment as its not as easy to walk away from a marriage as it to walk away from a unmarried realtionship. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KathyM Posted July 11, 2007 Author Report Share Posted July 11, 2007 LOL - it was just as easy to my ex (he packed a bag and went, took two minutes) - it just wasn't for me afterwards, pinning him down for a divorce. Considering he's the one who lacked the commitment and was the one who walked away, I'm not sure it is any harder to be honest, other than for the people left behind. I think quite often it's actually harder to walk away from a co-habiting situation, as you don't have the same clearcut rights as married couples. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cycas Posted July 11, 2007 Report Share Posted July 11, 2007 (edited) Apparently children raised by married people are less likely to have problems, cheaper for the state to run, etc, etc. What worries me is that we seem to have a major opposition party that cannot understand that not all correlations are cause and effect, and that financial incentives are are unlikely to be relevant to situations where people are on the whole, already trying their best in difficult circumstances. I mean, do they really think that people sit down and think - "Hmm, I'd like to become a single parent on benefits with expensive screwed-up children, but for an extra £20, I think I'll get married, and spend my evenings helping the kids with their homework instead! " Just because people who are married are more likely to have problem-free children doesn't mean we should pay people to get married. I would guess that families with married parents are more likely to have other things too. Pianos, say. I bet married people are more likely to own a piano. Shall we grant pianos to everyone, on the grounds that a couple with a piano is more likely tobe socially responsible? Pif! I am terrible at sums, but even I know that statistics don't work that way. Edited July 11, 2007 by cycas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KathyM Posted July 11, 2007 Author Report Share Posted July 11, 2007 I can't say I trust statistics to be honest when it comes to married vs single. Firstly it doesn't address what difference (if any) there is between a child brought up in "wedlock" and a child brought up in an equality committed two parent, non-married relationship. Secondly I don't think it sheds fair light on people who are excellent single parents. Some single parents do a far better job of raising their children than many married couples (eg. married couples staying together for the kids, child brought up in the midst of arguments or spousal abuse). I truly believe that there will be no difference between a child brought up in a home where the parents are married and a child brought up in a home where the parents have the commitment and not the marriage certificate. This is what bothers me about the Conservative view of "family values" - we can't all have the same beliefs, but we can have the same aims - and to punish people who choose not to get married seems really ridiculous to me (as it would if it were the other way round), as does giving financial incentive to get married. I was brought up in a piano-owning home. I have to say it's had no effect on me - we do not have a piano here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts