Marriage Does Not Need ChildrenContrary to what some sociologists, psychologists and marital experts prefer to believe, not all couples think marriage needs children to improve their relationship. As child-free couples believe, having children can, in fact, cause a great deal of stress in a marriage. Some of these couples had married friends whose lives were ripped apart by their childrens medical or behavioral problems in addtion to marriages which had been on very solid ground until the couples became parents. So many couples decided not to include them and are very content with their choice. However, the opinions of child free couples are often overlooked -- even ignored -- by the majority of publishers and authors. In their best-selling book, The Good Marriage, authors Judith Wallerstein and Sandee Blakeslee, deliberately excluded couples without children from their study, which included roughly fifty couples interviewed by Wallerstein personally. In Wallersteins own words, "I included children because all of my professional work has focused on families and because married couples without children, either by choice or incapacity are psychologically and socially very different from those with children over the course of their lives." I found it quite interesting that she didnt elaborate on exactly what she meant by "psychologically and socially very different." Very different how? In an interview with one of the couples for her book, one of her subjects made the following statement: "Marriage needs children. Thats what makes it a marriage. Otherwise, its just a date." Although this person believed this to be true, it was, in fact, just another opinion. Laura Carroll, author of Families of Two, selected interviews of fifteen child free couples for her book (she actually interviewed over 100), all of whom felt they had very happy marriages because children were not part of their relationship. Obviously, the couples interviewed by Carroll would strongly disagree with those interviewed by Wallerstein. What an interesting debate that would have been. So the question remains: why did Ms. Wallerstein feel it necessary to exclude all childless (by circumstance) and childfree (by choice) couples? One has to wonder. Could it be that she didnt want it known that couples without kids can be even happier? Those who made the child free choice, can, anyway? Did she purposely present marriages with kids as the yardstick all must measure up to in order to be successful? Its the firm belief of this writer that she did. Theres no other reason to avoid presenting the other side. From my perspective, it appeared that in her opinion, marriages where couples choose not to include children are somehow lacking and are therefore undesirable. Wallerstein identified four basic marriage categories in her book: romantic, rescue, companionate and traditional. In all groups but the traditional, where raising children is generally the primary purpose of marriage, you can also find some couples who made a thoughtful and conscious decision not to have children, if youre unbiased enough to look for them. In some cases, there are couples who couldnt have them and felt badly at first, but then began looking at the benefits of their circumstances instead of the drawbacks. Some members of the childless group may move over to the child free way of thinking after a few years. They stop seeing themselves as victims of life and opt to be participants in life. In an interview by Mary Ann Hogan, published on the Internet, Wallerstein discusses her views on traditional and companionate marriages. In response to a question "where is the family headed?" from Hogan, Wallerstein replied that its the only way she knows to bring up children. What I would have added to the interview was a question Hogan did not ask. Specifically, "what problems do you have with marriages which do not include children by choice?" Strangely, that topic was never raised, let alone discussed. Wallerstein also stated that she doesnt buy into the notion that the traditional family is what most people want. However, if that is really the case, then why did she omit all childless or child free married couples from her study? Doesnt the omission reflect a personal bias on her part in favor of marriages including as the type of marriage couples should have as a rule? In response to the question, "should societys expectations of marriage change?" Wallerstein replied that marriage should continue to be valued, but women will not give up their hard-won gains. She went on to state that we meaning society in general are in a transition period, but again stressed that "family is here to stay because its the best method of human beings for dealing with the stresses of adulthood and bringing up children." What she may be overlooking is the fact that for many couples, bringing up children is what creates more stresses; on marriage in general and their marital relationship in particular. These couples, for their personal reasons, want to have less stress on their relationships, not more. The bottom line is; parenting, like any other job, is one that isnt suited to every person. And there is nothing wrong with a woman or couple who decides not to travel down the parenting road. As a parent who made the choice to be a happy mom to one child only, I not only understand the choice to be childfree, I applaud it. Too many pro-family groups are quick to judge the people who decide not to be parents, often calling them selfish or irresponsible. On the contrary, it is a very responsible person who knows his or her own limitations and is wise enough to realize that parenting would not be the right choice to make. After reading the terrible stories of mothers and fathers who neglect, abuse and even kill their own children, I only wish more people would make the choice before another child suffers a terrible fate. Tags: world america Family Love time Religion money Friends
Latest stories in Opinion
AMERICA CORRUPTION ERRUPTING
Malaysia – truly Asia but not fully Asia
ARE WIND FARMS THE ANSWER?
RATS!
North East India needs to emulate Mawlynnong - Asia's cleanest village
|
|
|
|
|
David says on 2005-02-17 10:36:19 about Marriages are for children.
Lovemaking with protection (or with an unsterile partnert) is not really "mating", because well, it could not possibly create life, which as we know is the POINT of mating.
Most people enjoy making love mainly for the purpose of pleasure, not procreation. That is fine, but call it what it is, LOVEMAKING, not MATING.
Same thing with marriage, ladies and gentlemen, SAME THING.
MARRIAGE was INVENTED by religion. HOLY MATRIMONY, look it up. 95% of the "marriages" out there are just two horny people "getting hitched" for their own pleasure, having nothing to do with the values which MARRIAGE is based on, which come from religion. Making a family -- that is, creating and fostering and nurturing and advancing life -- is the most holy act in the Judeo-Christian faith system, and is the MAIN REASON why marriage was invented. Without that, it IS NOT A MARRIAGE, PERIOD.
Call it whatever you want, but it is not holy matrimony. It is two people who have decided to be together, and officialize it with a "marriage", which they clearly do not understand the meaning of.
Does this mean that people who CANNOT have kids are incapable of a marriage? No. They are obligated to adopt. The point of a family is to RAISE the family. You can raise an adopted kid, thus his life, mentality, and ultimate success are the fruits of your labor and the result of the love you have shared with that other human being, and that is what marriage is all about.
Without it, it is just two people who are living together and f*cking. Which is fine, many couples without ever having children are more happy and well adjusted than many in "real marriages", who just go into it because of the reasons stated in the above article, unprepared or aware of what it really means. Despite that fact, it doesn't make it a marriage, and neither does the priest who pronounces it so.
That is like saying that because you build a box with wheels you can call it a Ford Mustang.
Well, sure, you COULD, but it doesn't mean it is one. Only Ford can decide if it is one or not, just like only the INVENTORY OF MARRIAGE -- GOD, can make your relationship with another a marriage. And God has already laid out the conditions of marriage.
Therefore, if you think your relationship, without children, meets God's requirements, then you can feel free to believe it is a marriage, and others are free to believe you are wrong, that is what freedom is all about. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
David says on 2005-02-16 18:57:49 about Marriages are for children.
Lovemaking with protection (or with an unsterile partnert) is not really "mating", because well, it could not possibly create life, which as we know is the POINT of mating.
Most people enjoy making love mainly for the purpose of pleasure, not procreation. That is fine, but call it what it is, LOVEMAKING, not MATING.
Same thing with marriage, ladies and gentlemen, SAME THING.
MARRIAGE was INVENTED by religion. HOLY MATRIMONY, look it up. 95% of the "marriages" out there are just two horny people "getting hitched" for their own pleasure, having nothing to do with the values which MARRIAGE is based on, which come from religion. Making a family -- that is, creating and fostering and nurturing and advancing life -- is the most holy act in the Judeo-Christian faith system, and is the MAIN REASON why marriage was invented. Without that, it IS NOT A MARRIAGE, PERIOD.
Call it whatever you want, but it is not holy matrimony. It is two people who have decided to be together, and officialize it with a "marriage", which they clearly do not understand the meaning of.
Does this mean that people who CANNOT have kids are incapable of a marriage? No. They are obligated to adopt. The point of a family is to RAISE the family. You can raise an adopted kid, thus his life, mentality, and ultimate success are the fruits of your labor and the result of the love you have shared with that other human being, and that is what marriage is all about.
Without it, it is just two people who are living together and f*cking. Which is fine, many couples without ever having children are more happy and well adjusted than many in "real marriages", who just go into it because of the reasons stated in the above article, unprepared or aware of what it really means. Despite that fact, it doesn't make it a marriage, and neither does the priest who pronounces it so.
That is like saying that because you build a box with wheels you can call it a Ford Mustang.
Well, sure, you COULD, but it doesn't mean it is one. Only Ford can decide if it is one or not, just like only the INVENTORY OF MARRIAGE -- GOD, can make your relationship with another a marriage. And God has already laid out the conditions of marriage.
Therefore, if you think your relationship, without children, meets God's requirements, then you can feel free to believe it is a marriage, and others are free to believe you are wrong, that is what freedom is all about. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Susan Levine
From 1997-1999 had a column in a special interest publication, LOTTERY NEWS
From 1999-2001 had a column in the special interest publication LOTTERY SECRETS, which folded in 2001
Divorced, with one son, residing in Northern VA.
Began writing in 1997 for various publications, including two special-interest lottery publications.
Launched the relationship website in 2002, called:
QuestionsBeforeMarriage.com
Completed a screenplay in 2004, this writer's first work of fiction, based on song by Grammy and Academy Award Winner Phil Collins.
 GOD IS DEAD. HE IS NO MORE. HE IS KAPUT.There is no such thing as church law, sharia law or any other religious law. The law of the land, Government law, or International law applies. Religious entities simply do not have the legal power or authority to create or apply laws.
|
