Have "family values" proponents caused out-of-wedlock kids?

[DGayle]

I was reading the "shocking" news that Amy Duggar was born out of wedlock, and someone said if that's shocking, then so is Shakira having a baby without being married, and that made me think about something. So many more people these days are committed though not married, having babies, and then getting married, while treating the wedding like a reason for a party, and not something OMGSacred.

So I sat here thinking on that, and it came to me. Why saying only opposite-sex couples should be allowed to marry (not saying straight couples since we know some gay people marry the opposite because they think they have to) has resulted in same-sex couples (couples far less likely to have babies, which is relevant in a minute) having no choice but to live together unmarried for the longest time, and I think that helped normalize cohabitation, which spread to opposite-sex couples. If people can live together just as committed as married, buying houses together and having joint bank accounts, why get married? (I know there are benefits to it, but those can be harder to see when unmarried and nonchilded.) And if you live together, you probably have sex, which means more chances for babies, which often means babies. And then getting married for the baby's protection.

If "family values" people hadn't fought same-sex marriage, maybe we wouldn't have had the chance to get so used to cohabitation. Who was supposedly saved? Babies that a couple guys or couple women weren't conceiving together? If opposite-sex couples could have married from the start, maybe we wouldn't have gotten used to living together unmarried, and maybe more people would have gotten married before living together long-term and popping out babies.

I think we have more out-of-wedlock babies now than we would have, and I think I can thank the "family values" people for making my own "shameful" birth (bastard baby, here) something that is now acceptable.

They hurt their supposedly "for the children" cause.

[anjulibai]

I don't think gays not being able to marry had anything to do with the social acceptance of straight being living together without marriage.

[louisa05]

I don't think gays not being able to marry had anything to do with the social acceptance of straight being living together without marriage.

I agree. Acceptance of straight couples living together, gradual though it was, predated same sex marriage movements.

[Cleopatra7]

Contrary to what many "family values " people think, most people do want to get married, even the low income people with several children by different mothers/fathers that conservatives often look down on. The problem is that today marriage is often seen as something you do when you've "made it" and in today's post-industrial economy there are many people who will never "make it" and so they don't get married. Part of the problem is with the wedding industry, which convinces many people that unless you have a huge ceremony that will put you into debt then you're doing it 'wrong."

What the "family values " crowd fails to understand is that there were actually more teen mothers in the 1950s than there are now. Those girls either married the father at an absurdly young age or they went to an unwed mother's home. Keeping the baby wasn't an option, unless your parents or another relative were willing to adopt it. I think what conservatives really want is to return to the days when girls had no option but to be forced to give birth and give up the baby to middle class married couples, since that would eliminate single mothers and abortion (at least on the surface). But I don't see us going back to the days when being a single mother or cohabitation was deeply shameful, simply because it's too common now.

[Mama Mia]

I agree. Acceptance of straight couples living together, gradual though it was, predated same sex marriage movements.

I agree. Straight couples openly living together was perfectly normal and acceptable over 30 years ago, when I had my first child. And I was pretty much the only very young parent I knew who was married.

Just doing a completely non-scientific scan of my Facebook friends who have kids -- :lol: of my population sampling of 80 or so people aged aprox. 22 - 55 about half had their first child out of wedlock, and half while married. Many people had some children while married and others while un married.

I think the cost of a wedding, and feeling like a wedding is a party does have a lot to do with it.

[doggie]

I read one study that way back in the early years of the church even that there were at least a 30% of all babies were 8 month heavy preemies. people have been having on marital sex forever and the church has never been able to stop it. sex happens get over it.

[lilah]

Contrary to what many "family values " people think, most people do want to get married, even the low income people with several children by different mothers/fathers that conservatives often look down on. The problem is that today marriage is often seen as something you do when you've "made it" and in today's post-industrial economy there are many people who will never "make it" and so they don't get married. Part of the problem is with the wedding industry, which convinces many people that unless you have a huge ceremony that will put you into debt then you're doing it 'wrong."

What the "family values " crowd fails to understand is that there were actually more teen mothers in the 1950s than there are now. Those girls either married the father at an absurdly young age or they went to an unwed mother's home. Keeping the baby wasn't an option, unless your parents or another relative were willing to adopt it. I think what conservatives really want is to return to the days when girls had no option but to be forced to give birth and give up the baby to middle class married couples, since that would eliminate single mothers and abortion (at least on the surface). But I don't see us going back to the days when being a single mother or cohabitation was deeply shameful, simply because it's too common now.

yeah go read "the girl who went away" it's so it will completely break your heart. it's about many women who got pregnant out of wedlock in the fifties and sixties and we're basically sent away to some kind of unwed mother's home. The women were often shamed and coerced into chosing adoption. They were treated terribly during delivery and when they had their child in many cases were not allowed to hold the baby or even see the baby before it was given up for adoption. the invention of the pill and the advent of Roe v Wade really changed those practices of shaming and coerring umwed pregnant women into giving their babies away. And of course as it is now and it was then often the men who father the children did not receive any sort of social stigma.

I do think there's a lot of hypocrisy around why conservatives spends most of their energy blocking gay marriage a family values but don't seem to want to interfere in the lives of the many unwed mothers.

[RosyDaisy]

I think the cost of a wedding, and feeling like a wedding is a party does have a lot to do with it.

Off topic for a moment. A wedding doesn't have to be a big expensive party. You can keep them short and sweet or just have a civil ceremony at the courthouse.

Back on topic. Traditional family values has never existed and those ranting about it know it. It's all about power and control.

[August]

I agree. Acceptance of straight couples living together, gradual though it was, predated same sex marriage movements.

By quite a long time, too. Blame gen X.

[Black Aliss]

Did any other FJers have to sit through a showing of Blue Denim at a youth group meeting? If it was intended to scare us away from premarital sex, it didn't work well as the number of prom-nite-babies stayed pretty high. (pregnant Senior girls got married, pregnant Junior girls "went to stay with their Uncle in California for several months")

[Mama Mia]

By quite a long time, too. Blame gen X.

I'd go back even farther - at least in my very liberal area. I'm on the cusp of Baby Boomer and Gen X ( obviously I prefer the sites that classify me as gen x :whistle: ) and came of age in the early 80 's . It had been socially acceptable among my parents friends, relatives, older friends of mine, etc. during the time I could remember. Of course my parents were leftist semi-hippies so

That could have something to do with it :lol: . But even my widowed Grandma lived with her boyfriends when I was a little girl - and I don't recall thinking it was odd. I think more people may have rushed to get married if they were pregnant, or wanted a baby up through the mid-seventies though.

Same sex marriage came much later. What was more common, when I was a little kid, is that a couple of women would live together and do everything together, and I'm sure some of the adults were aware they were a couple -- but as I kid I just assumed they were friends. I've talked to other people my age and that seems to have been a pretty common assumption. When people started being more open about it, I don't recall any family members being particularly shocked or negative about it -- but again, super liberal area. It was more of a " oh, well, duh, of course that makes sense why cousin Ann always brings her friend Stacey everywhere for the past 10 years. And why Spinster Aunt left her house to her long time companion Martha". If that was now, instead of in the 80 s - 90 s , I'm sure they would of had weddings so it would of been more clear from the beginning.

[2xx1xy1JD]

Historically, recognition of opposite-sex common-law marriages in some jurisdictions came long before recognition of same-sex couples.

FWIW, I also wouldn't necessarily consider a child born into a stable common-law marriage as an out-of-wedlock kid, since the parents are still together and there is often some legal framework to recognize the marriage.

I do, however, have an example where strict religious rules actually led to the acceptance of common-law couples and foreign marriages, which then led to early recognition of gay marriage.

In Israel, there are no civil marriages performed within the country. If someone is Jewish, they need to have a Jewish wedding, and there are a ton of rules about who can and can't get married. To get around those rules, it became very common for couples to either live together common-law, or to get married elsewhere since foreign marriages were recognized.

So, as soon as gay marriage was legalized in Toronto, you had some same-sex couples who married there and applied to register themselves as married in Israel. There was some bureaucratic hassle and a court decision, but they ruled unanimously that same-sex couples were no different. Since there was already such a large number of couples excluded from religious marriage, same-sex couples really weren't any different, and the religious establishment had no effective way to argue against recognition.

[anjulibai]

I'd go back even farther - at least in my very liberal area. I'm on the cusp of Baby Boomer and Gen X ( obviously I prefer the sites that classify me as gen x :whistle: ) and came of age in the early 80 's . It had been socially acceptable among my parents friends, relatives, older friends of mine, etc. during the time I could remember. Of course my parents were leftist semi-hippies so

That could have something to do with it :lol: . But even my widowed Grandma lived with her boyfriends when I was a little girl - and I don't recall thinking it was odd. I think more people may have rushed to get married if they were pregnant, or wanted a baby up through the mid-seventies though.

Same sex marriage came much later. What was more common, when I was a little kid, is that a couple of women would live together and do everything together, and I'm sure some of the adults were aware they were a couple -- but as I kid I just assumed they were friends. I've talked to other people my age and that seems to have been a pretty common assumption. When people started being more open about it, I don't recall any family members being particularly shocked or negative about it -- but again, super liberal area. It was more of a " oh, well, duh, of course that makes sense why cousin Ann always brings her friend Stacey everywhere for the past 10 years. And why Spinster Aunt left her house to her long time companion Martha". If that was now, instead of in the 80 s - 90 s , I'm sure they would of had weddings so it would of been more clear from the beginning.

Yeah, my parents are boomers. They lived together before marriage (and lived with other people before they were together).

Interestingly enough, my gay dad went for women because he wanted a children. He was so desperate to get married that he asked my mom to marry him after 2 weeks of dating.

The idea of getting married to a man and having children was not something that ever crossed his mind.

[DGayle]

Traditional family values has never existed and those ranting about it know it. It's all about power and control.

That's why I used quotes around "family values."

[DGayle]

I remember in the early 80's an explosive scandal when an aunt of mine wanted to live with her daughter's dad. Having the baby wasn't the explosion. Living with the dad unmarried was huge. There was so much pressure to get married.

[LittleOleMe]

yeah go read "the girl who went away" it's so it will completely break your heart. it's about many women who got pregnant out of wedlock in the fifties and sixties and we're basically sent away to some kind of unwed mother's home. The women were often shamed and coerced into chosing adoption. They were treated terribly during delivery and when they had their child in many cases were not allowed to hold the baby or even see the baby before it was given up for adoption. the invention of the pill and the advent of Roe v Wade really changed those practices of shaming and coerring umwed pregnant women into giving their babies away. And of course as it is now and it was then often the men who father the children did not receive any sort of social stigma.

I do think there's a lot of hypocrisy around why conservatives spends most of their energy blocking gay marriage a family values but don't seem to want to interfere in the lives of the many unwed mothers.

Watch "The Magdalene Sisters". It follows three girls who were sent to one those places. Horrible. One was sent bc she was pregnant out of wedlock and the priest basically kidnaps her child moments after he's born. One was raped so she clearly was asking for sex and therefore a slut. One was thought to be too pretty and the boys all liked her so she obviously was a hussy. It's really heartbreaking and pretty terrible.

The men always get to walk away and then are hailed as heroes when they actually take part in their child's life. It's frustrating as hell.

[Cleopatra7]

Watch "The Magdalene Sisters". It follows three girls who were sent to one those places. Horrible. One was sent bc she was pregnant out of wedlock and the priest basically kidnaps her child moments after he's born. One was raped so she clearly was asking for sex and therefore a slut. One was thought to be too pretty and the boys all liked her so she obviously was a hussy. It's really heartbreaking and pretty terrible.

The men always get to walk away and then are hailed as heroes when they actually take part in their child's life. It's frustrating as hell.

It's also frustrating because until the 19th century, scientists, doctors, and the general public were unaware of the female's role in the reproductive process. It was simply assumed that all of the "stuff" needed to make a baby was present in the man's semen and the woman's uterus just acted as an incubator. Thus, women didn't have any rights to the children that they bore, which is why men traditionally received custody of children in a divorce (this is still the case in many conservative societies). Yet despite this dismissive attitude, women who were pregnant out of wedlock were unilaterally blamed for their situation, when the party that should have held most of the blame (if you accept their assumptions about reproduction) could walk away from the situation scott-free. I guess it's true about possession being 9/10 of the law, at least when it comes to baby making. :wtf: :penguin-no:

[LittleOleMe]

It's also frustrating because until the 19th century, scientists, doctors, and the general public were unaware of the female's role in the reproductive process. It was simply assumed that all of the "stuff" needed to make a baby was present in the man's semen and the woman's uterus just acted as an incubator. Thus, women didn't have any rights to the children that they bore, which is why men traditionally received custody of children in a divorce (this is still the case in many conservative societies). Yet despite this dismissive attitude, women who were pregnant out of wedlock were unilaterally blamed for their situation, when the party that should have held most of the blame (if you accept their assumptions about reproduction) could walk away from the situation scott-free. I guess it's true about possession being 9/10 of the law, at least when it comes to baby making. :wtf: :penguin-no:

They were blamed bc it was their fault. It was also believed at this time that women could only get pregnant if they had an orgasm. This is why rape could never result in a pregnancy bc if she got pregnant then she had an orgasm and that meant she liked it and obviously was a willing participant.

Oddly enough, the men had the babies and the women were incubators, yes, but the women decided the sex of the baby. I'm still not sure how those two beliefs were able to co-exist but they did. It's amazing how much people did not know.

[August]

I'd go back even farther - at least in my very liberal area. I'm on the cusp of Baby Boomer and Gen X ( obviously I prefer the sites that classify me as gen x :whistle: ) and came of age in the early 80 's . It had been socially acceptable among my parents friends, relatives, older friends of mine, etc. during the time I could remember. Of course my parents were leftist semi-hippies so

That could have something to do with it :lol: . But even my widowed Grandma lived with her boyfriends when I was a little girl - and I don't recall thinking it was odd. I think more people may have rushed to get married if they were pregnant, or wanted a baby up through the mid-seventies though.

Same sex marriage came much later. What was more common, when I was a little kid, is that a couple of women would live together and do everything together, and I'm sure some of the adults were aware they were a couple -- but as I kid I just assumed they were friends. I've talked to other people my age and that seems to have been a pretty common assumption. When people started being more open about it, I don't recall any family members being particularly shocked or negative about it -- but again, super liberal area. It was more of a " oh, well, duh, of course that makes sense why cousin Ann always brings her friend Stacey everywhere for the past 10 years. And why Spinster Aunt left her house to her long time companion Martha". If that was now, instead of in the 80 s - 90 s , I'm sure they would of had weddings so it would of been more clear from the beginning.

A Boston marriage!