Unmarried parents

July 19th, 2013 at 11:00 am by David Farrar

The Dom Post reported:

New Zealand society is near tipping point, with the number of children born outside wedlock fast approaching those born to married parents for the first time.

Statistics New Zealand figures show there were just 1000 more children born to married parents in the March quarter.

That is well down on the year 2000, when children born to unwed parents were outnumbered by more than seven to one.

In 1980 the gap was close to 30,000, while in 1951 the number of children born to unmarried parents was just 2000, compared to the 48,000 born to married parents.

It is unclear if civil unions are included in “wedlock” for the purposes of this data.

I’m quite traditional personally when it comes to and children, and think ideally parents should be married to each other if they are having kids together. I like the fact it is a life-long commitment (even though of course many fail). If you have kids with someone, you are connected to them for the rest of your lives.

However many adults have long-lasting relationships, and are not married. They just don’t believe in the institution. I don’t think there is a huge difference between them and married couples when it comes to welfare of children.

Where there is a big disparity, is when the parents do not stay together.  On average (so not all kids), kids raised in a one parent household do far far worse in almost every social and economic indicator.

So I’m not worried if parents are married to each other or not. What concerns me is whether they will stay together while their kids are young – and need both parents.

Tags:

64 Responses to “Unmarried parents”

  1. Redbaiter (9,657 comments) says:

    “They just don’t believe in the institution.”

    Why would they?

    Its been attacked by progressive / Marxist anti-family propagandists for some decades now, and naturally there is a result to this white anting.

    In fact the institution of marriage is not alone in undergoing this attack. The progressives have steadily undermined everything that was ever good about traditional western society, and hence the disintegration of our culture that is so apparent today.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 29 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. slightlyrighty (2,475 comments) says:

    The issue is not if parents are married, but if children are planned and/or wanted, or the result of a fling that the relationship is not ready for.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. BeaB (2,148 comments) says:

    It is all to do with class, however un-PC that may sound.
    A middle-class, educated couple eschewing marriage will probably do their kids no harm at all but if we were able to see who these parents are I suspect we would find far too many poor, ill-educated, young, unemployed, unskilled, low wage, low IQ. poor health (physical and mental) etc etc.
    Even married, these parents struggle and they are a recipe for disaster.
    I was horrified to see in the recent Maori by-election, there were 5000 recipients of the DPB in the electorate.
    Those poor kids and the poor taxpayer!

    I see the UK is considering extending benefits to the first two kids only. There are lots of responsible parents limiting the number of children to what they can afford. Perhaps we need to spread that message further and not provide unlimited support.

    Vote: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Kea (13,359 comments) says:

    We pay unmarried unsupported women to have kids, then wonder why unmarried unsupported women have kids !

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 32 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Redbaiter (9,657 comments) says:

    Our society needs less narcissism and more sacrifice.

    Ideas like feminism for a pertinent example are rooted in self infatuation and immaturity. They are immensely destructive to society in taking the focus of women away from maternalism and turning it to fatuous and trendy ideas relating to sexual “equality” and the rest.

    Fatherhood has been similarly diminished. So we end up with less and less children growing up in stable family environments. Marriage is a good idea and is a big part of this stability, but it too has been attacked and denigrated.

    Without fatherhood, motherhood and family, and a commitment to those concepts, (as realised in legal marriage) then society is just narcissistic squalor.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 28 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. duggledog (1,589 comments) says:

    ‘They just don’t believe in the institution’

    The institution is having the courage to stand there in front of all your respective friends and family and say ‘I do’, and then go through with it. I well remember the solemnity of the occasion and how big a fucking deal it was and still is.

    My girls know Beyonce’s song ‘if you liked it then you should have put a ring on it’ and they know what it means. I reckon they’ll grow up wary of guys that just want to shack up. Hopefully!

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Kea (13,359 comments) says:

    Ideas like feminism for a pertinent example are rooted in self infatuation and immaturity. They are immensely destructive to society in taking the focus of women away from maternalism and turning it to fatuous and trendy ideas relating to sexual “equality” and the rest.

    Well put Reddy. The core of feminism is the destruction of traditional family and gender roles. That is why feminists are such strong advocates of gay issues, like marriage reform. Anything that undermines gender roles and family is seen to benefit the cause and will be supported.

    I am all for equall opportunity for women and if they want no kids and choose to focus on career, then good on them. But feminists are unable to accept that some women choose to be mums and loving wives. I think being a good mum and wife is very under rated by many feminists.

    Vote: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Pete George (23,687 comments) says:

    A large number of married people have also been in the “just want to shack up” club. I’ve done both.

    Getting married didn’t change the sort of parent I was and am.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. RRM (10,034 comments) says:

    :lol: Beyonce…!??!


    You must not know ’bout me
    You must not know ’bout me
    I could have another you in a minute
    Matter fact he’ll be here in a minute, baby

    You must not know ’bout me
    You must not know ’bout me
    I can have another you by tomorrow
    So don’t you ever for a second get to thinking you’re irreplaceable

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Redbaiter (9,657 comments) says:

    “I think being a good mum and wife is very under rated by many feminists.”

    Women once took pride in raising families and they were good at it. Now we have two or three generations of indoctrinated “progressive” women who on an individual basis haven’t progressed much past being silly little girls. These urban liberals often have more regard for their designer handbags than they do for the upbringing of their children.

    Vote: Thumb up 20 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Andrei (2,668 comments) says:

    I’m quite traditional personally when it comes to marriage and children, and think ideally parents should be married to each other if they are having kids together. I like the fact it is a life-long commitment (even though of course many fail). If you have kids with someone, you are connected to them for the rest of your lives.

    Then why did you support the absolute abomination that is gay “marriage”, they aren’t marriages of course, they are just sick parodies of what a real marriage is but serve to undermine the institution and its societal purpose which is of course family formation ie parents taking on the responsibility for their own children

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 18 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Scott (1,821 comments) says:

    Thanks for your comments DPF. I would generally agree with you. Apart from the “many adults have long-term relationships that are not married”.
    The statistics are out and they are very clear. Unmarried couples who have a child have a 90% chance of breaking up before the child is 15. This cannot be good for anybody.

    I believe we need to restore marriage as the covenant that it is. We need to reconsider no fault divorce which has fatally weakened marriage over the last few decades. People need to commit together for life in marriage which ensures that their children have got the best possible foundation for a good upbringing.

    So I would be radical about this. I believe we have made a mistake in recognising de facto couples and giving them the rights of marriage. It is clearly not so. They are just not stable.

    So I would like to see marriage raised up as the recognised beginning of a family and the institution in which we raise children.And I would like to see the end of no fault divorce. At the moment people can opt out of marriage for any reason and there are no consequences.

    Our marriage law is actually weaker than business law. In business if you reneged on a contract there is a penalty. However in marriage one partner can walk out and there is no consequence. I believe our laws regarding marriage need to be strengthened to encourage people to stay together. This will strengthen the family and help the upbringing of the next generation of New Zealanders which are the future of our country.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. rightoverlabour (114 comments) says:

    In the good old days a father had a penis and married a mother with a vagina. The father hunted and gathered and the mother breast fed and cooked. And they generally stayed together. And society developed, survived wars, iceages and pandemics. Society created cities and countries and strove to protect them. And then came along Marxism and communism and feminism and all sorts of bullshit psycho babble about human rights and gay marriage .. and we are surprised that the human species is slowly moving towards extinction????

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Kea (13,359 comments) says:

    I got plunged back into the dating game at 40, having been married in my early 20’s. I am a pretty liberal minded guy, but conservative in my own habits. The attitudes of women are terrible and indeed appear to be informed by pop-culture and a narcissistic outlook. Surprisingly the older women are among the worst. Up until about 35 they are not too bad. Women my own age are often very promiscuous and shallow.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. gump (1,662 comments) says:

    @Redbaiter

    There’s no such thing as a traditional western society.

    Unless you’re talking about Europe during the middle ages. Which – given your Taliban like ranting – you probably are.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 15 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. gump (1,662 comments) says:

    @rightoverlabour

    If we are “slowly moving towards extinction” then why is the human population higher than at any point in human history?

    And why is it continuing to grow?

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Pete George (23,687 comments) says:

    @Scott

    At the moment people can opt out of marriage for any reason and there are no consequences.

    I take it you have no expreince of that.

    Just about everyone who “opts out of marriage” has reasons, and most of the time I think they will be substantial reasons.

    And there are certainly consequences, some of them major.

    Initial consequences can be very difficult to deal with. It can be hugely daunting considering and deciding to end a marriage. I’d guess that this is similar for most people.

    There are ongoing consequences, especially if children are involved. It can be far more complicated than remaining married.

    And some of the consequences are positive. It is better to be in a new relationship (and marriage) with love and comitment than a failed relationship fraught with angst. And it is often better for the children as well, after they adjust.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. RRM (10,034 comments) says:

    In business if you reneged on a contract there is a penalty. However in marriage one partner can walk out and there is no consequence. I believe our laws regarding marriage need to be strengthened to encourage people to stay together.

    What would Homer say?

    http://www.celebquote.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/306293_274442279232861_139814722695618_1237486_2291515_n_large.jpg

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Kea (13,359 comments) says:

    And why is it continuing to grow?

    gump, the DPB

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Redbaiter (9,657 comments) says:

    “why is the human population higher”

    Its not about the human population moron, its about western civilisation. The Roman empire fell and the human population was a lot less. No wonder you can’t do basic multiplication.

    Check out the birth rates of white European western women. Its all over already.

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Andrei (2,668 comments) says:

    And why is it continuing to grow?

    It isn’t in the Western world where the population is only being maintained by mass immigration. In New Zealand in some regions there are more deaths than births and it is South Auckland that keeps the numbers up

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. scrubone (3,105 comments) says:

    “New Zealand society is near tipping point”

    The implication being that if over half of children are born out of wedlock, society will suddenly collapse?

    I don’t think anyone is actually suggesting that. It’s possible society may collapse suddenly for some reason, but I don’t think 50% of parents being married is that point.

    Though it is a concern that so many people are prepared to raise children without first making a formal legal commitment.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Redbaiter (9,657 comments) says:

    “The implication being that if over half of children are born out of wedlock, society will suddenly collapse?”

    Black society in the US is essentially broken beyond repair. Once (1950s) they had about a 95% marriage rate. Now the marriage rate is about 25%. Any connection do you think?

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. gump (1,662 comments) says:

    @Redbaiter

    “Check out the birth rates of white European western women. Its all over already.

    ——————-

    Fertility rates have nothing to do with being white and European. They fall in response to increasing wealth and education.

    Why do you think that Singapore has one of the lowest rates of fertility in the world? Its population is neither white nor European.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Redbaiter (9,657 comments) says:

    “They fall in response to increasing wealth and education.”

    Women were well (better) educated in times past and still had many more children than they do today. Go away you silly tiresome little crosswired prog bore.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. ben (2,384 comments) says:

    That is well down on the year 2000, when children born to unwed parents were outnumbered by more than seven to one.

    We’ve gone from 7:1 to 1:1 in 13 years? I doubt that very much tbh.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Warren Murray (314 comments) says:

    When I read the report I wondered if the stat excluded defacto relationships. Shouldnt these be included?

    Also it occurred to me that many people for financial reasons (amongst others) choose to marry after having children.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. dime (10,134 comments) says:

    Its amazing just how much progress angry feminists have made in this country.

    when Dime isnt sleeping with hookers he is usually dating a reasonably high caliber of chick. (unless im banging some gutter trash for fun. judge not lest you be judged my friend!)

    anyway, it amazes Dime that intelligent awesome chicks apologise for the crime of… being a normal girl.

    they have been raised with so much feminist crap they feel guilty when they let the man be the man, or in Dimes case “supreme alpha male” haha

    off topic a bit but thought id mention it after reading red & keas comment.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Harriet (5,145 comments) says:

    As a Family Court Judge in Australia said about no-faults divorce and Marriage breakdown:

    ” When something becomes optional, people will concentrate on the negatives rather than the positives.”

    Marriage has been taken from it’s rightful pedistal in society and relegated to that of any other relationship, which in turn has lead people to consider it less meaningful.

    Time and time again within the last 30yrs we have heard young people say things such as ‘it’s only a piece of paper’ confirming that Marriage has lost it’s major purpose:

    The binding and legal agreement between a man and a women to HONOR eachother and their children.

    As I have said before:

    Marriage has been the greatest form of welfare for women and children that mankind has ever known – and it’s free!

    A government that does not respect Marriage as an institution for the welfare of it’s citizens, and it’s next generation of citizens, is one which is foolish with money.

    The cost of welfare, policing, mental health, alcoholism, drug addiction, and low economic output -can for the most part- be put down to the failure of governments to support Marriage in general, and while it has been under attack.

    And that’s cost NZ billions and billions and billions -but more importantly- the lives of the Nia Glassies!

    John Key, Helen Clarke, Jenny Shipley, Jim Bolger & David Lange should all be ashamed of themselves.

    Give the Conservatives your party vote -at least for the sake of children- and put a stop to the Big Porn parties from playing politics with children’s lives.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Redbaiter (9,657 comments) says:

    “Its amazing just how much progress angry feminists have made in this country.”

    Progress? Yeah well.

    My grannie had eight kids and can do the Herald cryptic crossword in about 3 minutes flat.

    Few so called wimmin today running around childless and selling real estate or behind some government desk somewhere are so poorly educated they wouldn’t even know what a cryptic crossword was.

    As for silly little progs like Gump and the like, (presuming that somewhere inside of them there are enough male hormones to produce a spoonful of spunk, and there is some dimwitted ugly prog female desperate enough to shack up with him), their female offspring are all going to be married to swarthy Islamists from Remuera, because by that time there’ll be fuck all other choices available.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. dime (10,134 comments) says:

    “Progress?”

    for their cause… not actual progress. mainly they have turned out some unsexy, selfish bitches :D

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Redbaiter (9,657 comments) says:

    Correction-

    Most so called wimmin today running around childless and selling real estate or behind some government desk somewhere are so poorly educated they wouldn’t even know what a cryptic crossword was.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. RRM (10,034 comments) says:

    Surely the problem is uncommitted parents, and marriage is one frequently-upheld emblem of commitment?

    I know a few people over the years who’ve said they wish their parents had just separated and found happiness, instead of sticking together to make home life toxic for everyone…

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Pete George (23,687 comments) says:

    I know what cryptic cross words are, there’s plenty of examples from you Reddy.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Paulus (2,672 comments) says:

    Moslems do not have Divorce for Women – only Men.
    Women are only there to dramatically increase the birth of new Moslems – male specie preferred, but as soon as a girl is old enough say 12, she will married and be expected to be totally subservient to the continued procreation of Moslems.
    Moslem men can do no wrong in marriage – it is their role to outbreed other races.
    Look at the UK birth rate.
    Non Muslim 1.8 to 1
    Muslim 10 to 1.
    In less than 30 years UK will be totally Muslin dominated and with Sharia Law – which is already in in some Cities.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Longknives (4,889 comments) says:

    “In less than 30 years UK will be totally Muslin dominated and with Sharia Law ”

    Yep- Sadly I think the horse has well and truly bolted for old Mother England…..

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2279972/Anjem-Choudary-Hate-preacher-pocketing-25-000-year-benefits-calls-fanatics-live-state.html

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. wf (466 comments) says:

    Pack of mysogynists the lot of you (except for Dime :) )

    Men went to war. Women picked up the work they left behind, found that they rather enjoyed being out of the kitchen and being paid, in stead of waiting for the pay packet or what was left of it after the pub shut on pay day.
    Men came back from war, wanted their jobs back, couldn’t understand why the women didn’t want to go back to their kitchens and scrubbing boards.

    So there you have it. Freedom was there for the taking and the girls took it. Stop moaning.

    (but while they have the freedom to get pregnant I don’t believe that the state should encourage them in any way)

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. RightNow (7,013 comments) says:

    ben (2,370) Says:
    July 19th, 2013 at 12:32 pm
    “That is well down on the year 2000, when children born to unwed parents were outnumbered by more than seven to one.

    We’ve gone from 7:1 to 1:1 in 13 years? I doubt that very much tbh.”

    You’re right. I looked up the stats:
    ……….Ex-nuptial: Nuptial: Total
    2000Q1: 6,449: 8,329: 14,778
    2013Q1: 7,144: 8,169: 15,313
    http://www.stats.govt.nz/infoshare/ViewTable.aspx?pxID=d0890b55-f44d-45f0-9a05-571b714eb825

    So much for the quality of reporting in the MSM huh?

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. gump (1,662 comments) says:

    @Redbaiter

    Women were well (better) educated in times past and still had many more children than they do today. Go away you silly tiresome little crosswired prog bore.

    —————

    Women were better educated in times past?

    I am gobsmacked that your argument has reduced to simply “making shit up”.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Twinkletoes (54 comments) says:

    The fact that muslim males are allowed polygamous marriages in UK certainly does not help the disparity. The second, third and fourth wives are entitled to solo mother’s benefits plus council houses etc. etc. Huge drain on education, health, housing etc. Tony Blair and Labour have a lot to answer for as the muslim population becomes more politically and demographically powerful off the back of the British taxpayer.

    Only 50% of muslim males are in work and the women are much too busy breeding to even think about financially contributing to the economy. But to point out the fact in UK one is ridiculed (especially by the BBC luvvies), arrested or excommunicated for Islamophobia or racism. PC and fear have overtaken the politicians who do not want to upset the applecart and admit there is a huge problem in UK. It will end in tears before bedtime.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Kovac (29 comments) says:

    With all this talk of women sacrificing their choice and freedom for the good society it would be easy to think that this discussion was filled with a bunch of communists.

    Personally I feel that the traditional family unit is a fantastic thing and should absolutely be encouraged however wouldn’t it be better for people to live their lives more according to what they are suited to and how they choose to live their lives?

    It doesn’t have to be the extreme of forcing all women back into the kitchen or all women out of the household into the workforce. Let people make up their own minds.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Scott Chris (6,177 comments) says:

    Women were better educated in times past?

    What I think he means Gump, is that women were better conditioned in the past to know their place.

    All this science and sociology has given them ideas above their station in life – well at least according to likes of Redbaiter.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Kea (13,359 comments) says:

    it amazes Dime that intelligent awesome chicks apologise for the crime of… being a normal girl.

    I have found that too. Many women feel pressured to conform to radical feminist doctrine, which attempts to shame them into compliance. They are force fed this in womens magazines and in pop culture. No wonder so many and conflicted and unhappy.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. RRM (10,034 comments) says:

    I have found that too. Many women feel____________

    RRM tried many times to develop generalized, all-encompassing, uniform theories about “women” and what they wanted, did and thought … when RRM was about 13 or 14.

    Needless to say, all were wrong :-P

    Some people are women too, that’s all you really can know OR need to know…

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. leftyliberal (651 comments) says:

    @RightNow: Yup, numbers in 2000 were 25,046 and 32,987. This compares to 29,111 and 31,920 in 2012. The second number includes marriage and civil-unions. You have to go back to the 70’s to get close to a 1:7 ratio.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. dime (10,134 comments) says:

    “In less than 30 years UK will be totally Muslin dominated and with Sharia Law – which is already in in some Cities.”

    So, at what point to we take the nukes off em?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Chuck Bird (4,928 comments) says:

    Woman who had baby after sleeping with son’s young friend pleads guilty
    2:52 PM Friday Jul 19, 2013

    A32-year-old woman who became pregnant by her son’s 13-year-old friend
    has pleaded guilty to having sexual connection with him and supplying
    him with cannabis.

    Auckland woman Cecelia Rona Hale was remanded in custody when she
    appeared before Manukau District Court this afternoon, with Judge Anna
    Johns indicating she faced a term of imprisonment.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10900321

    This is good to see that she does not get name suppression and is likely
    to get a term of imprisonment.

    We will have to wait and see what sort of sentence she gets. A man would get a absolute minimum of 5 years.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. Pete George (23,687 comments) says:

    Chuck – at least they are aware of and sound interested in trying to address the gender disparity. Getting this to court and having her kept in custody seems to be a significant change of approach.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. Andrei (2,668 comments) says:

    This is good to see that she does not get name suppression and is likely
    to get a term of imprisonment.

    No Chuck – she is being punished to perpetuate the lie that there is no difference between the genders and that their isn’t an asymmetry between the costs of child rearing between men and women.

    She hasn’t actually harmed the boy who is father of that child to any extent, she has harmed the child she has conceived and herself. In a sane society would bear the costs of raising it herself with whatever charity people felt inclined to give.

    The reason why we come down hard upon men who have sex with very young women is that if they become pregnant it is the young women who will bear the costs of raising that child physically, emotionally and most likely financially.

    Biology rules all and our cultural artifacts such as marriage with all its boundaries exist to manage biological realities in a hamane and as fair as possible way

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. projectman (229 comments) says:

    Just about everyone who “opts out of marriage” has reasons, and most of the time I think they will be substantial reasons.

    The real issue is not about opting out of marriage, but of opting out of responsibilities and obligations.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. leftyliberal (651 comments) says:

    “The reason why we come down hard upon men who have sex with very young women is that if they become pregnant it is the young women who will bear the costs of raising that child physically, emotionally and most likely financially.”

    Yeah, sex with a minor (statuatory rape) is OK as long as the man pays for and takes care of the resulting kid, right?

    FFS.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. cha (4,084 comments) says:

    This is good to see that she does not get name suppression and is likely to get a term of imprisonment.

    A prurient interest in children and bum sex, revolting.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. Andrei (2,668 comments) says:

    Yeah, sex with a minor (statuatory rape) is OK as long as the man pays for and takes care of the resulting kid, right?

    No it is not – an appropriate punishment for doing this would be the complete removal of said man’s genitals

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. RRM (10,034 comments) says:

    The reason why we come down hard upon men who have sex with very young women is that if they become pregnant it is the young women who will bear the costs of raising that child physically, emotionally and most likely financially.

    AND because rape [being a form of assault] is wrong in and of itself, right?

    Right…?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. Chuck Bird (4,928 comments) says:

    She hasn’t actually harmed the boy who is father of that child to any extent

    Andrei, I am surprised you have this point of view. I am against ALL adult – child sex. She should not be allowed alone near any child under 16 when she gets out of jail. What do you base your opinion on?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Chuck Bird (3,639) Says:
    July 19th, 2013 at 4:55 pm
    ——————————–

    Of course the woman has harmed him. A persons first sexual experiences should be with their ‘equals’, that is the same level of maturity. Any other type of relationship, where one is much older or more mature is unequal and prone to problems of vulnerability and manipulation. Of course as people get older, the gap decreases but at this age you have a pubescent male with a mature experienced female.

    The child is unlikely to say no, even if he wanted to – of course at that age he wasn’t going to turn it down, for many reasons, fear of being ‘teased’ by other boys, the ability to skite about his conquest and so on – but being psychologically immature, he was not old enough to be in a position to make those decisions. Especially regarding contraception.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    The reason why we come down hard upon men who have sex with very young women is that if they become pregnant it is the young women who will bear the costs of raising that child physically, emotionally and most likely financially.

    Rubbish. The reason we reject such relationships is the power imbalance between the immature and mature minds. A young person is vulnerable and easy to coerce simply by the fact the person is much older. Also the person that is older, is more experienced and able to use that to manipulate the young person.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. Dazzaman (1,146 comments) says:

    Marriage is a covenant agreed between a man & woman in front of witnesses, sanctioned by higher authority to create the basic natural haven for child rearing & most importantly establishing a single entity called the family. Shacking up doesn’t come close…it’s a lousy counterfeit without any real sanctioned commitment. I’ve experienced both too….

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. Bingo99 (88 comments) says:

    I love it when Redbaiter and Andrei display their ignorance and fundamental lack of knowledge about things. Particularly gratifying when everyone else points it out too. But let’s summarise shall we?

    1. Assumption that marriage is the basis for human advancement
    2. Ergo, human collapse imminent given changing patterns of marriage
    3. Evidence? Declining birth rates in western societies

    Makes sense if you have the intellectual curiosity of a broom handle, I suppose. In reality, western civilisation has grown in wealth and wellbeing at such a rapid rate, particularly in the past 50 years when marriage patterns have been changing rapidly, that the need for reproduction has declined as people become more confident in the survival of their offspring and the requirement for sprogs to care for you and provide in your dottage has diminished with pension and superannuation schemes. And, the general improvement in wealth and services afforded by government.

    So, in fact, what the broom handles see as the end is nigh, is actually a reflection of how good things really are in this godless, progressive world we live in.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. Pete George (23,687 comments) says:

    Bingo Bingo99.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. big bruv (14,165 comments) says:

    “Our society needs less narcissism and more sacrifice.”

    Ha ha ha…this from the man who talks about himself in the third person.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. Reid (16,634 comments) says:

    So, in fact, what the broom handles see as the end is nigh, is actually a reflection of how good things really are in this godless, progressive world we live in.

    and

    Bingo Bingo99.

    It’s not marriage you moron two morons it’s the act of raising a family which requires two parents to which RB et al refer above. With accuracy and truth.

    THAT’s what has changed and THAT is what feminism attacks. Marriage is the VEHICLE feminism seeks to destroy in order to destroy the family.

    To see this you need to be able to understand social engineering. Because that’s how they do it, you fuckwits.

    Because most people can’t see past their stupid little noses and think the only thing that matters is what happens the day after tomorrow, most people don’t see social engineering in fact they don’t even fucking know it exists. Which is profoundly stupid of them because to see it all you have to do is understand history. Because social engineering works in large timeframes and that’s why, fucking morons, you won’t see a result from gay marriage for sixty years. After twenty you’ll start to and after forty it’ll be obvious to many but not all, but after sixty even the thickest village idiot knows it’s happened. But it’s too fucking late then isn’t it, because the frog is already cooked.

    And if, fuckheads, you think the frog isn’t getting cooked, then pray tell explain how come we see today such social detritus today as is arising from – duh – no fault divorce they put into place almost 50 years ago and understand history – duh – that no fault divorce was ENABLED by contraception, which was put in place after WWI. See, it’s fucking obvious morons, IF YOU UNDERSTAND HISTORY.

    But that seems rather a challenge to useless dildos like you, who probably thinks life comes about by just a bunch of random stuff that simply happens with absolutely no cause and effect whatsoever.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. Bingo99 (88 comments) says:

    Oh look, Reid goes apoplectic and contradicts himself over and over and over, drowning in a sea of invective and rage.

    Now calm down, breathe and drop Leighton Smith a line, because I have zero doubt you’re historical insights will change the world. Relaxed yet? Good. Now get some fucking perspective. Western society has never been wealthier and healthier. We will live longer better lives. And, nuclear holocaust aside, it was inevitable.

    Your “social engineering”, the conspiracy of which you are convinced is out to ruin you and explains all the pitiful events of your mundane life, is actually the social contract that we (and you) have all participated in, willingly, since representative democracy took hold across western societies. Government systems our forefathers (and mothers) created and which you so apparently despise have created an environment in which economies have boomed and technological innovation has flourished like never before. This has created a cycle where long-standing, and for some, dysfunctional and fundamentally fucked social customs, like marriage, are no longer suitable. So they change. You fear that change. But that change is inevitable.

    So you thrash about looking for someone to blame. The gays, or the divorced, it seems, are the most visible. You conveniently ignore your own ignorance of history, when traditional marriage was treated effectively as a property transaction, when women had dick all choice, when some arsehole in Rome could dictate how you can lead your life, no matter how fucked the situation you’re in. You ignore the contradiction of the Right’s support for individual choice but abhorrence of one’s choice to end a marriage or enter one (THE GAYS!) and you presume to lecture everyone else that somehow, despite your own ignorance, you know how history will play out, and that you were never part of the system that enabled it, all the while enjoying the myriad benefits that system afforded you.

    So no, Reid. I don’t think life “comes about by just a bunch of random stuff”. I look back and see how where we are today was inevitable. And it’s great, I love it. We’re so lucky to live in the age we do. Now watch as things get better. Few bumps along the way, sure, but if you truly are a student of history (which, you’ve demonstrated you actually aren’t) you’ll recognise that the only way is up. Now… breathe.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. gump (1,662 comments) says:

    Thank-you Bingo99.

    I hope that other people here will actually read your post and reflect on it.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote