Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ttidcc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!ttidca!ttidcc!regard
From: regard@ttidcc.UUCP (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: net.singles
Subject: marriage |= (necessarily) commitment
Message-ID: <650@ttidcc.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 7-Aug-85 17:21:24 EDT
Article-I.D.: ttidcc.650
Posted: Wed Aug  7 17:21:24 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 10-Aug-85 23:25:30 EDT
Organization: TTI, Santa Monica, CA.
Lines: 57

>> Adrienne Regard:
>> Just why is this a situation that confronts married couples more often than
>> "live ins"?...
>
>  Rance Cleaveland
>I think you should reread the header of the original article kicking off
>this discussion. "Marriage = commitment", right?  And it takes a hell of a
>commitment between two people for them to raise children and do it well.
>Among my married friends, ALL of them talk about having children, while
>among my friends who are living together, ALL of them fear having children.

Rance, dear, I STARTED the "marriage = commitment (?)" header.  I KNOW
where the original discussion began.  What I was pointing out was that
UNmarried people are not necessarily LESS committed to each other, and/or
parenting and married people are not necessarily MORE committed to each
other and/or parenting. And bully for your friends -- let me tell you what
ALL my DIVORCED or UNMARRIED friends have to say about having children
(Nah, let's not.)

>> One of the suppositions about marriage that is often imposed upon the
>> couple is that marriage somehow means the question of parenting arises,
>> when non-marriage means the question will never arise.  Neither of these
>> suppositions are true.  Marrying someone is creating a certain kind of
>> relationship between two adult people.  Having kids is creating a certain
>> kind of relationship between adults and children.  They may correlate,
>> but they are NOT synonomous.

>No, I think having kids creates a certain kind of relationship between
>adults also; your SO suddenly becomes a parent in addition to a lover.

Yes, whether you and the SO are married or not.

>Furthermore, I think the correlation between marriage and childrearing is
>pretty damn high.

Yes, the correlation is high.  Some people even think that bearing children
is a _reason_ (in a pre-determined reasonless relationship) _for_ marriage.
And, frankly, this is one of the suppositions I'm challenging.  My own little
private war for August, to which you are invited.

>You can question why this is so, but not that it is so,
>and while they are not synonomous, you must deal somehow with the fact that
>society sees them as pretty much synonomous. (Notice I'm not saying how to
>deal with this.  No flames for me! :-))

I deal with the fact that society sees them synonomously every day -- I'm
not married, and I am a parent, and about to parent another (with what
"society" apparently assumes is an "uncommitted" other person (-:).

For the purposes of generalization, the high correlation certainly serves.
But I've become aware that very few people separate these issues, not
recognising the fact that certain legal contracts in effect under state and
federal laws DO separate the issues, and certain other contracts do not.

After all, there USED to be a high correlation between a woman marrying and
a woman leaving the workplace.  We don't feel the need to reinforce _that_
stereotype anylonger, do we?