I’ve been wondering about this since yesterday when I heard that Republican Vice-Presidential Candidate Sarah Palin’s 17 year old pregnant daughter Bristol will be marrying the father of her child.
Maybe, maybe not. I don’t think there is a hard and fast answer, it really depends on the two people involved. Generally speaking, it is better for the child to have married parents – even if it is not a perfect marriage. The exception to that is an abusive marriage.
Being older or having a long, deliberative courtship are no guarantees of a successful marriage – in fact, arranged marriages have a better success rate! I think that marrying for a child CAN be a good enough reason to get married, so long as there aren’t other reasons that suggest it is a bad idea.
No. Is bowing to any kind of social pressure a good reason to get married?
I think not.
Then again I’ve yet to hear a compelling reason to get married at all. The only one I put any credence in is “We wanted to” and that speaks of personal choice more than anything else.
If the pregnancy alone is the reason I’d say no. As Amy mentioned it depends on the people though. Love is a commitment, not just a feeling. You get married because you are committed to that person to the point where you want to spend your entire life with and for them. If someone really has that level of commitment in mind then getting married makes sense. If you are truly committed to each other and the child is born out of that commitment then I believe you owe the child the potential stability that a marriage commitment taken seriously can bring.
Your post raises the question that most news sources (or evangelical sources) seem to not be asking. Our oldest daughter was 21 years old when she informed us she was pregnant (yes both are Christians). They did not get married right away. And we did not encourage them to do so. I think the “why” you get married can and does have an imprint on the marriage itself. When they did marry their son was 6 mos. old. During those months we witnessed a restoration in their relationship, growth individually and together. Their marriage affirmed their commitment to one another and together to their son and to what might be and would be.
All of those things may be part of what the Palin family is experiencing. I don’t know. I am wondering just a bit at the media attention and even the “evangelical” response which seems to focus on the child’s birth and impending marriage as a contrast to abortion.
You get married because you are committed to that person to the point where you want to spend your entire life with and for them.
I disagree. Marriage is a statement or a confirmation of a commitment, not the commitment itself. It is not necessary for the commitment to be a fact and most certainly does not ensure that the commitment is actually there.
What is marriage? In addition to the legalities and tax incentives that have been put in place or removed by various governments you have a social contract and a religious contract. You stand before the other members of your social circle and family and announce a joining of two people and a commitment to remain together. Children are an expectation of that announcement but not a requirement.
I see no reason to announce to my social circle anything regarding my private life. That includes who I commit. It’s nobody’s business but ours.
I disagree. Marriage is a statement or a confirmation of a commitment, not the commitment itself. It is not necessary for the commitment to be a fact and most certainly does not ensure that the commitment is actually there.
The ceremony may be a confirmation/statement, but the ensuing 50 years afterward are something you live and do together, that’s a commitment. And it’s more than a statement to the public, it’s a statement to the person you marry. The marriage is the relationship, not the ceremony that kicks it off or the public sentiments the go with it.
Notice when I was talking about it there were two qualifying statements “taken seriously” and I said can bring not will bring. It may fail or it may stand the test of time. Only the sincerity and willingness of the participants ensures that the commitment can succeed. But the fact that they chose to get married can be an encouraging factor in the sustainability of the relationship.
You can certainly have a commitment apart from marriage. And if you feel the need to keep your love for that person a secret between the two of you, that is nobody’s business but yours. But if you feel compelled to enter into a marriage there’s nothing wrong with that either. It’s just a different way to approach the commitment.
I agree, Jason, that marriage is not the commitment itself. It can, however, be a chance to share private joy with those people care about and who care about them. And some couples do benefit from the outward show of support they receive. The social and legal aspects of marriage can be a blessing or burden depending upon the situation and viewpoint.
IMO teenage marriage because of pregnancy is usually not a good decision. That is not to say there are never positive outcomes, of course. Teenage pregnancy brings enormous pressure beyond the wisdom of most in their adolescence. In this particular case the young woman is dealing with it in the public spotlight, with what I’m sure she feels is the fate of the nation hanging in the balance. This doesn’t seem like an optimum environment for decision making, let along a joyous occasion.
Amy, I was thinking of arranged marriages and how (as best I know) they can work out pretty well. That indicates that it’s possible for marriages to work when you don’t know the other person well.
Jason, your answer doesn’t surprise me :)
Bob I like how you brought up commitment. It’s hard for me to imagine teenagers being ready to make that sort of commitment. But perhaps they can grow into it. People used to marry younger in this culture and presumably some of those marriages worked (and they still do marry young in some other cultures, I think?)
Carol your daughter’s approach of not rushing into marriage makes more sense to me.
You asked what I’m thinking. I’m thinking that it’s probably better not to be married than in a bad marriage; so marriage is not something to rush into even if you are pregnant. I’m also thinking that it’s easy for a guy to get a girl pregnant; it’s much harder to have the character to be a good husband and father.
Staci wrote:
Teenage pregnancy brings enormous pressure beyond the wisdom of most in their adolescence.
That’s my concern too.
In this particular case the young woman is dealing with it in the public spotlight, with what I’m sure she feels is the fate of the nation hanging in the balance. This doesn’t seem like an optimum environment for decision making, let along a joyous occasion.
It sounds like they’d already decided how to proceed before Sarah Palin’s family was thrust into the VP spotlight.
It’s hard for me to imagine teenagers being ready to make that sort of commitment. But perhaps they can grow into it.
Yes, that’s definitely a longshot in the case of people being so young, particularly in our culture. I’m not advocating it for people that have no desire to be married or don’t genuinely care for each other. That can be pretty disastrous. But young marriages sometimes work,especially in cultures where it is more common like you mentioned.
It is interesting how arranged marriages can work and I do believe it is because the people are willing to commit to it. I think too many marriages here are disadvantaged because the “well if it doesn’t work out I’ll just get a divorce” mentality is present from day one. Don’t get me wrong, marriage (and commitments) are hard work and sometimes they just don’t work out, but I think people can give up too easily sometimes.
I do feel sorry for this young lady though. It’s a mistake that plenty of people make but the public nature of her situtation is unfortunate. It doesn’t lend itself to a healthy decision when so many other peoples’ interests are seemingly at stake.
in and of itself, pregnancy is not enough of a reason to marry. perhaps in earlier times, when unwed women/mothers were without the ability to care for themselves or their child, yes..,but not now in 21st century America.
I am glad to see that the child has the support of her parents and family as she goes through this. One of the loveliest stories I ever heard about this type of situation was a family whose 17 y/o dtr got pregnant…with twins. The boys parents threatened to withhold his college $ if he married her (okay, thats not the lovely part) but the girls parents told her this did not have to derail her future–they built an addition to the house, and helped her with the babies as she went thru college and pharmacy school–she’s a PharmD now, she and the daddy did marry eventually, and now the kids are almost ready for college…it can work, but it takes alot of love, patience and support. And a willingness to think outside of convention, and determine what is best for your family.
The ceremony may be a confirmation/statement, but the ensuing 50 years afterward are something you live and do together, that’s a commitment….The marriage is the relationship.
I maintain that the marriage isn’t a necessary component to many years of commiting to one another. The relationship is the relationship. The marriage is the public confirmation of that. I don’t think it is necessary at all but may be desirable for some people.
I maintain that the marriage isn’t a necessary component to many years of commiting to one another.
I don’t think we actually disagree about that. Althought I do think it’s a good thing, it is certainly possible to have a long term committed relationship without it. There are people that are unmarried that are more committed than their married counterparts and vice versa. My point is that marriage is more than the public confirmation of the commitment. That’s the marriage ceremony, the ring, the physically, publically visible aspect of the wedding itself. The marriage is also the relationship that nobody sees but the two of you as well as the public perception. It is the contents and substance of your married life.
If I say have a good marriage, I’m not saying I have a good public confirmation of my relationship, I’m saying I have a good relationship. Would you say your degree is the graduation ceremony and certificate that made it official, or is it the many years of schooling you had to go through to earn it? It is both. But the substantial part of it is the actual doing and learning. Is adoption merely a legal recognition of giving a child your name, or is it making someone a real part of your family and sharing your lives together? It is both but the latter is the more important aspect.
Jason, if you can find someone who will commit to you without a legal document, good luck to you. I’m not saying I would have walked out without our a public legal statement, but maybe I would have been tempted.
Statistics clearly show that unmarried relationships last far shorter than marriages, for what it is worth.
Anyway, back to Sarah Palin. My perspective is that we conceived before getting married. It was not intentional, nor convenient, nor pleasant as we were completing University degrees and living 500 miles apart at the time. Whilst we take full responsibility for our actions (and in our early twenties, we were obviously more capable of doing that than a 17 year old), initial responses from our families made it even more difficult. Thankfully, they have been a considerable support since and our daughter continues to be a source of light and love in our family.
So I guess that colours my perspective. I would doubt that many teenage marriages survive – certainly the few we know have not. Seventeen is not a sensible age to be married or to have a child in my experience and opinion.
That said, given it has happened, I am very hesitant about supporting the right of parents to force their children into marriage. I really doubt that the pressure to get married, particularly from a conservative Christian family, is helping matters. I’m not sure what else to say. It would have been better if it hadn’t happened. Given that it has, I’m not sure what I would do or advise.
Thanks Bob, I agree with you except that the relationship aspects that you describe don’t require marriage. They can be independent. That said I think we largely agree.
Joe said:
Jason, if you can find someone who will commit to you without a legal document, good luck to you
Thanks, we’re still going strong after more than 16 years together.
Statistics clearly show that unmarried relationships last far shorter than marriages, for what it is worth.
Not a lot I’m afraid. A marriage is easy to define in terms of length because it has a defined beginning and sometimes a defined ending. What constitutes a relationship for the purposes of the statistical study? I had dozens of girlfriends at school who lasted only a day or two. Does a snog behind the bike sheds count or are we comparing cohabiting couples only?
It would have been better if it hadn’t happened. Given that it has, I’m not sure what I would do or advise.
Well you could blame that on the abstinence only education promoted by her mother, restricted access to contraceptives or even removal of abortion as an option for someone so young.
Not a lot I’m afraid. A marriage is easy to define in terms of length because it has a defined beginning and sometimes a defined ending. What constitutes a relationship for the purposes of the statistical study? I had dozens of girlfriends at school who lasted only a day or two. Does a snog behind the bike sheds count or are we comparing cohabiting couples only?
Well those are good questions, although I think you’d find they were taken account of in the analysis.
There is some interesting analysis on marriage and cohabiting by the Office of National Statistics (a British government agency) and there has been a lot of academic research (for example this from Rutger University). Of course it is great when people co-habit for a long time, but the evidence suggests that is a minority and a far smaller percentage of people than are married for a long time.
Thanks Bob, I agree with you except that the relationship aspects that you describe don’t require marriage. They can be independent. That said I think we largely agree.
I do understand what you mean — you can have a very similar relationship minus the legal entanglements. In terms of marriage as only the public confirmation, I think you’d find very few married people who look at it the way you’re presenting it. Unless they’re looking for citizienship :) I guess that’s as close as we’ll get, thanks for looking at it together.
Joe, I work about 5 miles from one of the ONS offices and catch the train with one of the staff there, Jeremy. That’s not relevant but I thought I’d throw it in anyway.
One thing about statistics that should be accounted for is that cohabitation is still a relatively recent phenomena. Most people married historically. We’ve seen a increase in cohabitation in the last 10 years from 9% to 14% and a reduction is married couples from 76% to 71%. It seems that marriage is losing out to people just living together. Of course, that’s only the last decade, we can’t tell how stable these relationships are in comparison yet.
However in terms of marital status the ONS says this:
Overall, Hindus and Sikhs are the least likely to be divorced, separated or re-married. This pattern was the same across most age groups in Great Britain in 2001. For example, among 45 to 54 year olds, one in ten Sikhs (10 per cent) and Hindus (11 per cent) who had ever been married described their current marital status as divorced, separated or re-married. This compares with 17 per cent of Muslims, 34 per cent of Christians and 43 per cent of those with no religion in the same age group.
It seems that religion is certainly a factor in the divorce rate. Of course you can only get divorced if you marry first. People with no religion are most likely to cohabit. Also families with no religion were the most likely to be cohabiting couple families with dependent children, 18 per cent, compared with 10 per cent of Christian and 2 per cent of Hindu families.
There’s no living in sin if you don’t accept sin as something real.
My wife is a statistician and has worked on marriage statistics. Of course, that isn’t relevant either.
Of course, I accept that historical acceptable behaviour was to get married and that cohabitation is a relatively recent form of acceptable behaviour. I not sure that affects the facts that suggest people from the same cohort are more likely to split if they are in a cohabiting rather than a married relationship. Whilst marriage (arguably) has some definition, presumably cohabitation just means two people living together. Hence, I can’t really see how if it was a historical cultural phenomena that would be any different. But YMMV of course.
I suppose it all goes back to the reasons people have for committing to one another or on the foundation that they build that commitment on. If two (or more) people have a mutual respect and love they can can build on that and grow together. If they have just sex, just peer pressure, or just parental pressure, even just religion then their foundation is necessarily weaker than if they have a strong, broad base. You can miss a few components but two many make the relationship fragile.
For me and Hil we look upon marriage as a purely religious institution, a confirmation before God and the congregation that you make a commitment to one another and to the community. Not putting any stock in gods or churches we feel that religious ceremonies won’t enhance our relationship. Indeed it would be a lie to try to include religion in our lives. I understand that not many have that same opinion and many are led by a romantic idea of marriage. That’s up to them.
What I am pleased to note here is not outright condemnation of our choice. Many people, particularly Christians seem to think that their ideas are the only “right” ones. They think that because it works for them and is supported in their religion then it is the only acceptable choice. It isn’t
I wonder if Sarah Pailn’s family are pandering to this. Either consciously to win votes or unconsciously as a kind of social conformance. Marriage may be right for her daughter, it may also be a terrible idea. Basing an ongoing relationship on a child may not be a strong enough base to last without other factors. Someone of 17 may not be emotionally mature enough to have a developed view of life to build a happy relationship. These aren’t insurmountable problems but they don’t represent the best beginning.
For me and Hil we look upon marriage as a purely religious institution, a confirmation before God and the congregation that you make a commitment to one another and to the community. Not putting any stock in gods or churches we feel that religious ceremonies won’t enhance our relationship.
That explains your position even better, particularly if you feel it would be untrue to what you believe. If it is a bond consecrated by a god you don’t believe in, for you it really is just a ceremony and the whole idea would seem without substance. It wouldn’t mean the same thing to you that it might to someone else.
What I am pleased to note here is not outright condemnation of our choice. Many people, particularly Christians seem to think that their ideas are the only “right” ones. They think that because it works for them and is supported in their religion then it is the only acceptable choice. It isn’t
Perhaps what we need to be more careful about saying “based on what my beliefs are, this is what I think is right”. If people don’t share our beliefs, we can’t expect them to respond in the same way we would because we don’t have that commonality. It’s not logical to expect people to respond the same way. We can have our convictions and still respect somebody else’s right to have theirs as well. And we’ll be better off for trying to understand that person instead of trying to cram them into our worldview.
I wonder if Sarah Pailn’s family are pandering to this. Either consciously to win votes or unconsciously as a kind of social conformance.
Since we don’t really know the people involved and the specifics or the situtation it’s really hard to say, but the cynic in me thinks it’s likely. I just hope it works out well for the child whatever transpires.
Another question raised by the pregnancy in question is: “Is teenage pregnancy a great reason to teach teenagers the proper usage of condoms, birth control pills, etc.?”
There’s an interesting passage in the Christian Old Testament which requires, in the case of unwed pregnancy, that the young man marry the young woman, and he is never allowed to divorce her. or something like that.
Actually, I do not consider marriage to be a religious duty. But then I have a low theology – if there are God-given institutions, they are for our own good.
The ‘married before God’ thing is total nonsense in my opinion – if God is all-seeing, then why does he need a special ceremony in a special building? He doesn’t.
On the other hand, rituals are important for people. A special ritual in public and surrounded by friends and family, claiming to leave an old form of living and enter into a new form with someone is valuable on its own terms IMO.
Regarding the Palin thing, I am wondering how many of the people who are so keen to talk about the family’s ‘love and care’ of their pregnant daughter are the same people who talk loudly about teenage pregnancy, one parent families and so on. Maybe I am just being cynical.
B said:
Another question raised by the pregnancy in question is: “Is teenage pregnancy a great reason to teach teenagers the proper usage of condoms, birth control pills, etc.?”
Isn’t the plain truth that whilst it might be exciting and enjoyable to experiment with sex at an early age, it can seriously fuck your life chances up? I am not convinced that discussing the mechanics of sex and contraception in more detail is going to change the fact that many young people are unable to understand the benefits of committed relationships.
Another question raised by the pregnancy in question is: “Is teenage pregnancy a great reason to teach teenagers the proper usage of condoms, birth control pills, etc.?”I think it’s too late by then. We should teach our children the options available to them, the risks and precautions and allow them to act on the responsibility that we have instilled in them. If we’ve done a good job of parenting and they’re not unlucky then their mistakes won’t be life changing.
It is interesting to me to hear men talking about safe sex – It used to be considered the woman’s responsibility as she has the most to risk. Are men now more engaged in taking responsibility for this?
While we can preach all sorts of birth control options – none of them are 100% – except abstinance – And I don’t expect abstinance to become a popular option. There are plenty of children out there from failed contraception methods.
Which brings me to perhaps the more important thing to teach our children is to take responsibility for their own actions and the consequences of those actions…this is not limited to sex.
Comment by: Amy
1Maybe, maybe not. I don’t think there is a hard and fast answer, it really depends on the two people involved. Generally speaking, it is better for the child to have married parents – even if it is not a perfect marriage. The exception to that is an abusive marriage.
Being older or having a long, deliberative courtship are no guarantees of a successful marriage – in fact, arranged marriages have a better success rate! I think that marrying for a child CAN be a good enough reason to get married, so long as there aren’t other reasons that suggest it is a bad idea.
Comment by: Jason Horton
2No. Is bowing to any kind of social pressure a good reason to get married?
I think not.
Then again I’ve yet to hear a compelling reason to get married at all. The only one I put any credence in is “We wanted to” and that speaks of personal choice more than anything else.
Comment by: Bob
3If the pregnancy alone is the reason I’d say no. As Amy mentioned it depends on the people though. Love is a commitment, not just a feeling. You get married because you are committed to that person to the point where you want to spend your entire life with and for them. If someone really has that level of commitment in mind then getting married makes sense. If you are truly committed to each other and the child is born out of that commitment then I believe you owe the child the potential stability that a marriage commitment taken seriously can bring.
Comment by: Carol
4Your post raises the question that most news sources (or evangelical sources) seem to not be asking. Our oldest daughter was 21 years old when she informed us she was pregnant (yes both are Christians). They did not get married right away. And we did not encourage them to do so. I think the “why” you get married can and does have an imprint on the marriage itself. When they did marry their son was 6 mos. old. During those months we witnessed a restoration in their relationship, growth individually and together. Their marriage affirmed their commitment to one another and together to their son and to what might be and would be.
All of those things may be part of what the Palin family is experiencing. I don’t know. I am wondering just a bit at the media attention and even the “evangelical” response which seems to focus on the child’s birth and impending marriage as a contrast to abortion.
Just some thoughts … What are you thinking?
Comment by: Jason Horton
5Bob said:
I disagree. Marriage is a statement or a confirmation of a commitment, not the commitment itself. It is not necessary for the commitment to be a fact and most certainly does not ensure that the commitment is actually there.
What is marriage? In addition to the legalities and tax incentives that have been put in place or removed by various governments you have a social contract and a religious contract. You stand before the other members of your social circle and family and announce a joining of two people and a commitment to remain together. Children are an expectation of that announcement but not a requirement.
I see no reason to announce to my social circle anything regarding my private life. That includes who I commit. It’s nobody’s business but ours.
Comment by: Bob
6Jason wrote:
The ceremony may be a confirmation/statement, but the ensuing 50 years afterward are something you live and do together, that’s a commitment. And it’s more than a statement to the public, it’s a statement to the person you marry. The marriage is the relationship, not the ceremony that kicks it off or the public sentiments the go with it.
Notice when I was talking about it there were two qualifying statements “taken seriously” and I said can bring not will bring. It may fail or it may stand the test of time. Only the sincerity and willingness of the participants ensures that the commitment can succeed. But the fact that they chose to get married can be an encouraging factor in the sustainability of the relationship.
You can certainly have a commitment apart from marriage. And if you feel the need to keep your love for that person a secret between the two of you, that is nobody’s business but yours. But if you feel compelled to enter into a marriage there’s nothing wrong with that either. It’s just a different way to approach the commitment.
Comment by: Staci
7I agree, Jason, that marriage is not the commitment itself. It can, however, be a chance to share private joy with those people care about and who care about them. And some couples do benefit from the outward show of support they receive. The social and legal aspects of marriage can be a blessing or burden depending upon the situation and viewpoint.
IMO teenage marriage because of pregnancy is usually not a good decision. That is not to say there are never positive outcomes, of course. Teenage pregnancy brings enormous pressure beyond the wisdom of most in their adolescence. In this particular case the young woman is dealing with it in the public spotlight, with what I’m sure she feels is the fate of the nation hanging in the balance. This doesn’t seem like an optimum environment for decision making, let along a joyous occasion.
Comment by: Helen
8Amy, I was thinking of arranged marriages and how (as best I know) they can work out pretty well. That indicates that it’s possible for marriages to work when you don’t know the other person well.
Jason, your answer doesn’t surprise me :)
Bob I like how you brought up commitment. It’s hard for me to imagine teenagers being ready to make that sort of commitment. But perhaps they can grow into it. People used to marry younger in this culture and presumably some of those marriages worked (and they still do marry young in some other cultures, I think?)
Carol your daughter’s approach of not rushing into marriage makes more sense to me.
You asked what I’m thinking. I’m thinking that it’s probably better not to be married than in a bad marriage; so marriage is not something to rush into even if you are pregnant. I’m also thinking that it’s easy for a guy to get a girl pregnant; it’s much harder to have the character to be a good husband and father.
Staci wrote:
That’s my concern too.
It sounds like they’d already decided how to proceed before Sarah Palin’s family was thrust into the VP spotlight.
Comment by: Bob
9Helen wrote:
Yes, that’s definitely a longshot in the case of people being so young, particularly in our culture. I’m not advocating it for people that have no desire to be married or don’t genuinely care for each other. That can be pretty disastrous. But young marriages sometimes work,especially in cultures where it is more common like you mentioned.
It is interesting how arranged marriages can work and I do believe it is because the people are willing to commit to it. I think too many marriages here are disadvantaged because the “well if it doesn’t work out I’ll just get a divorce” mentality is present from day one. Don’t get me wrong, marriage (and commitments) are hard work and sometimes they just don’t work out, but I think people can give up too easily sometimes.
I do feel sorry for this young lady though. It’s a mistake that plenty of people make but the public nature of her situtation is unfortunate. It doesn’t lend itself to a healthy decision when so many other peoples’ interests are seemingly at stake.
Comment by: Julie Marie
10in and of itself, pregnancy is not enough of a reason to marry. perhaps in earlier times, when unwed women/mothers were without the ability to care for themselves or their child, yes..,but not now in 21st century America.
I am glad to see that the child has the support of her parents and family as she goes through this. One of the loveliest stories I ever heard about this type of situation was a family whose 17 y/o dtr got pregnant…with twins. The boys parents threatened to withhold his college $ if he married her (okay, thats not the lovely part) but the girls parents told her this did not have to derail her future–they built an addition to the house, and helped her with the babies as she went thru college and pharmacy school–she’s a PharmD now, she and the daddy did marry eventually, and now the kids are almost ready for college…it can work, but it takes alot of love, patience and support. And a willingness to think outside of convention, and determine what is best for your family.
Comment by: Jason Horton
11Helen, am I getting that predictable? ;)
Bob said:
I maintain that the marriage isn’t a necessary component to many years of commiting to one another. The relationship is the relationship. The marriage is the public confirmation of that. I don’t think it is necessary at all but may be desirable for some people.
Comment by: Bob
12I don’t think we actually disagree about that. Althought I do think it’s a good thing, it is certainly possible to have a long term committed relationship without it. There are people that are unmarried that are more committed than their married counterparts and vice versa. My point is that marriage is more than the public confirmation of the commitment. That’s the marriage ceremony, the ring, the physically, publically visible aspect of the wedding itself. The marriage is also the relationship that nobody sees but the two of you as well as the public perception. It is the contents and substance of your married life.
If I say have a good marriage, I’m not saying I have a good public confirmation of my relationship, I’m saying I have a good relationship. Would you say your degree is the graduation ceremony and certificate that made it official, or is it the many years of schooling you had to go through to earn it? It is both. But the substantial part of it is the actual doing and learning. Is adoption merely a legal recognition of giving a child your name, or is it making someone a real part of your family and sharing your lives together? It is both but the latter is the more important aspect.
Comment by: joe
13Jason, if you can find someone who will commit to you without a legal document, good luck to you. I’m not saying I would have walked out without our a public legal statement, but maybe I would have been tempted.
Statistics clearly show that unmarried relationships last far shorter than marriages, for what it is worth.
Anyway, back to Sarah Palin. My perspective is that we conceived before getting married. It was not intentional, nor convenient, nor pleasant as we were completing University degrees and living 500 miles apart at the time. Whilst we take full responsibility for our actions (and in our early twenties, we were obviously more capable of doing that than a 17 year old), initial responses from our families made it even more difficult. Thankfully, they have been a considerable support since and our daughter continues to be a source of light and love in our family.
So I guess that colours my perspective. I would doubt that many teenage marriages survive – certainly the few we know have not. Seventeen is not a sensible age to be married or to have a child in my experience and opinion.
That said, given it has happened, I am very hesitant about supporting the right of parents to force their children into marriage. I really doubt that the pressure to get married, particularly from a conservative Christian family, is helping matters. I’m not sure what else to say. It would have been better if it hadn’t happened. Given that it has, I’m not sure what I would do or advise.
Comment by: Jason Horton
14Thanks Bob, I agree with you except that the relationship aspects that you describe don’t require marriage. They can be independent. That said I think we largely agree.
Joe said:
Thanks, we’re still going strong after more than 16 years together.
Not a lot I’m afraid. A marriage is easy to define in terms of length because it has a defined beginning and sometimes a defined ending. What constitutes a relationship for the purposes of the statistical study? I had dozens of girlfriends at school who lasted only a day or two. Does a snog behind the bike sheds count or are we comparing cohabiting couples only?
Well you could blame that on the abstinence only education promoted by her mother, restricted access to contraceptives or even removal of abortion as an option for someone so young.
Comment by: joe
15Well those are good questions, although I think you’d find they were taken account of in the analysis.
There is some interesting analysis on marriage and cohabiting by the Office of National Statistics (a British government agency) and there has been a lot of academic research (for example this from Rutger University). Of course it is great when people co-habit for a long time, but the evidence suggests that is a minority and a far smaller percentage of people than are married for a long time.
Comment by: Bob
16Jason wrote:
I do understand what you mean — you can have a very similar relationship minus the legal entanglements. In terms of marriage as only the public confirmation, I think you’d find very few married people who look at it the way you’re presenting it. Unless they’re looking for citizienship :) I guess that’s as close as we’ll get, thanks for looking at it together.
Comment by: Jason Horton
17Joe, I work about 5 miles from one of the ONS offices and catch the train with one of the staff there, Jeremy. That’s not relevant but I thought I’d throw it in anyway.
One thing about statistics that should be accounted for is that cohabitation is still a relatively recent phenomena. Most people married historically. We’ve seen a increase in cohabitation in the last 10 years from 9% to 14% and a reduction is married couples from 76% to 71%. It seems that marriage is losing out to people just living together. Of course, that’s only the last decade, we can’t tell how stable these relationships are in comparison yet.
However in terms of marital status the ONS says this:
It seems that religion is certainly a factor in the divorce rate. Of course you can only get divorced if you marry first. People with no religion are most likely to cohabit. Also families with no religion were the most likely to be cohabiting couple families with dependent children, 18 per cent, compared with 10 per cent of Christian and 2 per cent of Hindu families.
There’s no living in sin if you don’t accept sin as something real.
Comment by: joe
18My wife is a statistician and has worked on marriage statistics. Of course, that isn’t relevant either.
Of course, I accept that historical acceptable behaviour was to get married and that cohabitation is a relatively recent form of acceptable behaviour. I not sure that affects the facts that suggest people from the same cohort are more likely to split if they are in a cohabiting rather than a married relationship. Whilst marriage (arguably) has some definition, presumably cohabitation just means two people living together. Hence, I can’t really see how if it was a historical cultural phenomena that would be any different. But YMMV of course.
Comment by: Jason Horton
19I suppose it all goes back to the reasons people have for committing to one another or on the foundation that they build that commitment on. If two (or more) people have a mutual respect and love they can can build on that and grow together. If they have just sex, just peer pressure, or just parental pressure, even just religion then their foundation is necessarily weaker than if they have a strong, broad base. You can miss a few components but two many make the relationship fragile.
For me and Hil we look upon marriage as a purely religious institution, a confirmation before God and the congregation that you make a commitment to one another and to the community. Not putting any stock in gods or churches we feel that religious ceremonies won’t enhance our relationship. Indeed it would be a lie to try to include religion in our lives. I understand that not many have that same opinion and many are led by a romantic idea of marriage. That’s up to them.
What I am pleased to note here is not outright condemnation of our choice. Many people, particularly Christians seem to think that their ideas are the only “right” ones. They think that because it works for them and is supported in their religion then it is the only acceptable choice. It isn’t
I wonder if Sarah Pailn’s family are pandering to this. Either consciously to win votes or unconsciously as a kind of social conformance. Marriage may be right for her daughter, it may also be a terrible idea. Basing an ongoing relationship on a child may not be a strong enough base to last without other factors. Someone of 17 may not be emotionally mature enough to have a developed view of life to build a happy relationship. These aren’t insurmountable problems but they don’t represent the best beginning.
Comment by: Bob
20That explains your position even better, particularly if you feel it would be untrue to what you believe. If it is a bond consecrated by a god you don’t believe in, for you it really is just a ceremony and the whole idea would seem without substance. It wouldn’t mean the same thing to you that it might to someone else.
Perhaps what we need to be more careful about saying “based on what my beliefs are, this is what I think is right”. If people don’t share our beliefs, we can’t expect them to respond in the same way we would because we don’t have that commonality. It’s not logical to expect people to respond the same way. We can have our convictions and still respect somebody else’s right to have theirs as well. And we’ll be better off for trying to understand that person instead of trying to cram them into our worldview.
Since we don’t really know the people involved and the specifics or the situtation it’s really hard to say, but the cynic in me thinks it’s likely. I just hope it works out well for the child whatever transpires.
Comment by: benjamin ady
21Another question raised by the pregnancy in question is: “Is teenage pregnancy a great reason to teach teenagers the proper usage of condoms, birth control pills, etc.?”
There’s an interesting passage in the Christian Old Testament which requires, in the case of unwed pregnancy, that the young man marry the young woman, and he is never allowed to divorce her. or something like that.
Comment by: joe
22Actually, I do not consider marriage to be a religious duty. But then I have a low theology – if there are God-given institutions, they are for our own good.
The ‘married before God’ thing is total nonsense in my opinion – if God is all-seeing, then why does he need a special ceremony in a special building? He doesn’t.
On the other hand, rituals are important for people. A special ritual in public and surrounded by friends and family, claiming to leave an old form of living and enter into a new form with someone is valuable on its own terms IMO.
Regarding the Palin thing, I am wondering how many of the people who are so keen to talk about the family’s ‘love and care’ of their pregnant daughter are the same people who talk loudly about teenage pregnancy, one parent families and so on. Maybe I am just being cynical.
B said:
Isn’t the plain truth that whilst it might be exciting and enjoyable to experiment with sex at an early age, it can seriously fuck your life chances up? I am not convinced that discussing the mechanics of sex and contraception in more detail is going to change the fact that many young people are unable to understand the benefits of committed relationships.
Comment by: Jason Horton
23Another question raised by the pregnancy in question is: “Is teenage pregnancy a great reason to teach teenagers the proper usage of condoms, birth control pills, etc.?”I think it’s too late by then. We should teach our children the options available to them, the risks and precautions and allow them to act on the responsibility that we have instilled in them. If we’ve done a good job of parenting and they’re not unlucky then their mistakes won’t be life changing.
Comment by: Elaine
24It is interesting to me to hear men talking about safe sex – It used to be considered the woman’s responsibility as she has the most to risk. Are men now more engaged in taking responsibility for this?
While we can preach all sorts of birth control options – none of them are 100% – except abstinance – And I don’t expect abstinance to become a popular option. There are plenty of children out there from failed contraception methods.
Which brings me to perhaps the more important thing to teach our children is to take responsibility for their own actions and the consequences of those actions…this is not limited to sex.