I can't see any reason why a non-religious man who does not want a family ought to get married.

There's simply NO upside.

That goes for women, too. If you don't plan on having kids, what's the point? I was married once, and I will never, ever do it again. I like having my own house, where I can do exactly what I want, when I want. I'm in a committed relationship (8 years) and the reason it DOES work so well is that we don't live together.

I like being married. I'd do it again. I realize it's not for everyone.
Husband and I DO want kids; we'd have gotten married either way, though.
You're right, people are annoying. We know we don't have to be attached at the hip all the time, though. Husband has plenty of time with the guys, and I encourage that. I do my own thing, too. We have enough room in our house that we don't have to be in each others' laps all the time. The thing that annoys me most about him is his refusal to help keep the house clean. It's not worth fighting about, so I hired a cleaning service. Easy enough.
Our situation is unique to us, though. I can see not wanted to be married.

The first time I married, I did not marry well. I married a boy instead of a man. It ended badly. The man I am with now, if he wants to marry me, I will. For the legal and financial security, more than for emotional reasons. But for those (emotional reasons) too, I guess. I don't see our relationship ending badly, unless one of us were to cheat on the other, but in all honesty, I don't see that happening, either. While I enjoy being alone, I also like knowing that I'm not alone, totally. I dunno. Are people conditioned to want to marry, moreso than not? Because it's, what, expected? o.O

If my future financial risk is mitigated by what money she brings to the table. So, she should have a pretty good career or a dowry. And general hotness, of course.

Good luck with that, Tyler. Women don't tend to marry down. And as long as you have a better job than her, she's "entitled" to a share of your income when she gets tired of you and divorces you.

I have enough trouble leaving relationships with guys who started out independent and wound up clingy and needy (worse, needy in both emotional and financial ways) ....

Don't want to give him (a hypothetical him, at present) the additional ammunition of a vow to stick with him through better or worse.

I'd do it again in a heartbeat.

A cute girl left her family, country, culture, and language behind to start a family with me one third of the way around the world in a place she had never been. I'm still humbled by her courage and her trust and would do anything to remain worthy of it.

I can see why many of you might not be so happy with marriage. You couldn't possibly be as lucky as me.

I would marry my spouse again a million times! He's my best friend, our warped senses of humor dovetail perfectly, I adore the quirky ways his mind works, and the sex is, if anything, EVEN MORE SMOKIN' HOT after fifteen years together than it was when we started! There's no one I'd rather spend my life with.

Also, our entire wedding and honeymoon only cost about three thousand bucks!

That said though, I can totally understand why not everyone wants to get married. My husband and I are definitely the pair-bonding kind, but that just isn't for everyone, and even those who like the lifetime pair-bond don't necessarily need the marriage trappings, or even the shared dwellings.

My view is that what works for me doesn't necessarily work for everyone, and vice versa, and I completely support those glorious differences in people's pursuits of happinesses. And happy penises.

This is my second go-round. I doubt I'd ever do a 3rd. I like having someone "there", to discuss whatever nonsense is on TV, and make cookies with, whatever. A guaranteed date when I want to go somewhere. That's nice.

I do not like the working out who cleans what, and having someone "there" on the other side of the bed snoring and farting.

Being coparents, we'll probably be together till he dies (playing the statistical odds here) so it's a moot point. I would marry him again. I generally like our life, and love our kids. I think marriage is rather necessary for having kids. Less so for adopting, no need for the ideal situation there, anything is better than nothing.

@brian:

Well, women may want to marry up, but reality is getting in the way. One of the two fastest growing segments of unmarrieds in American society is highly educated women; the other group, of course, is poorly educated men.

So, there's really no way for these women to marry up, since the men who are their peers are marrying down. I guess they could be alone or they could settle for someone who earns equal or less money.

The odds are low of me marrying at this point. For personal reasons (nerdy guy etc.) and legal/societal reasons. The only reason I'd ever get married in our current society is to have kids. The problem is, that drive to have a family of my own, long term partner to share life with, give mom the grandkids she desperately wants is being systematically killed by the marriage/divorce laws/domestic violence and many women's attitudes towards men and marriage.

I watched my mom get hosed over financially when my folks divorced. I've lived thru my dad giving half of his stuff to his gf when he died in some fit of anger at me/my mother and/or drunken stupidity. I've seen and read the settlement papers of what my step-dad went through when he divorced his first wife, then watched him die mere months before his alimony was to end, giving his ex close to 75k after taxes in insurance after she got damn near everything but his retirement. Thats just the personal experiences, let alone all the mary winkler type horror stories you read in the papers/online.

BF and I are discussing this right now...We've discussed, in depth, the major topics. Of course, a conversation doesn't hold up to the reality at time. And, as was discussed the other day, sometimes people change and sometimes they aren't good on their promises.

I feel good about him, though, and the relationship. I am independent and so is he - after 3 years together that hasn't changed. In fact, being in a wonderful relationship has allowed me to really appreciate my time out with friends and being alone. We embrace the same things that begin with the letter F (fitness, food, friends, family, and uhh...) and treat each other well. We "fight nice". I think his family is great. He manages to deal with mine (they are nuts). We want two kids. And a big bath tub b/c we know that if our bath + wine nights are important now, they'll be even more important down the road.

Mostly I want to do it because I love him and he is amazing. God, I must sound naive right now. I can list all his great characteristics and why I think it'll work but who knows.

Marriage and kids was never a priority in my life. I never sought it out like some do. But this is where the relationship has brought us and I'm glad for it.

David Byrne could say it best for me:

Now I can take a joke,
I'm laughin at myself.
I faked my way through college,
and I faked my way through sex.

I've been falling down too long,
I've been banging up my head,
and if I could stand stand on my feet
I'd probably go right back again.

(I know three women I would be married to this weekend if I wasn't already married!)

I married "down", at least according to the standard list of social qualifications (education, money, attractiveness, famiy and social connections, etc).

But on my side, I not only had a pre-made kid (and wanted to provide a stable two parent household for the kid) but I also have a very strong bisexual slant. My husband has accepted that part of me and is okay with me acting out on those inclinations.

We're a very happy, outwardly normal family which was precisely the goal. My husband is also my best friend and I love him dearly (and the sex is very good). But we have a definite "behind closed doors" aspect to us.

>>> but I also have a very strong bisexual slant.

Make that 4 women!

My boyfriend and I have decided we want kids in a few years, so we will get married before then. I won't marry him or have children until I've paid off my Stafford loan debt, though; it's an unfair burden to connect to anybody else. Besides, if I'm not responsible enough to pay that off, I'm certainly not responsible (or financially stable) enough to have children.

I was married ... now widowed :-( ... no plans to marry again, but if the right person turned up, maybe. Marriage is a commitment for the future. At my age, I'm not likely to make a new life with anyone. I've already got a life.

I'm still getting used to being on my own. It has its good points: I can snore, fart, belch and hiccup all at the same time in bed if I wish (no mean feat, MomOf3!) but I also spend time with a friend. We're off to Milan, Venice and Paris in a few weeks.

(Actually you probably need to change the sheets if you snore, fart, belch and hiccup all at the same time in bed.)

"We're off to Milan, Venice and Paris in a few weeks." Norman...

yup, not interested in being married again, but I'd love to have a travelling companion.

OTOH, for the right woman...
That's just it, isn't it? For the right person we would do many things, bear many burdens. The problem is not marriage, but finding the right person to do it with. Figure out a good way to do that and the world beats a path to your door. I'm not totally agin' it just because I failed the first time, I don't hate women because I chose poorly. All the ruin didn't kill me. It did take a toll on the only thing positive about the marriage, my children. I wouldn't wish that on anyone.

Aye there's the rub. Getting married because you are going to have children does what exactly? If you are going to stay together, you will. If you are going to part, no amount of outside coercive force will do. Staying together for the kids only works if you are blah about your partner. If you have grown to hate them, everyone will only descend into misery. How does that help the kids?

I don't think either way is a good answer in itself. As is usual this depends very much an individual interaction, and no traditional institution, nor ancient law can change that.

If you don't have kids...now what are you living for? A long parade of self-indulgence, and enlightened evenings reading blog-poo-poo? Yet more nights at restaurants, discussing how you feel about yourself, and your feelings about your feelings?
Is your career really that important? Worse, past 50 most people begin to resent their careers. Face it, it ain't that important, being a real estate lawyer, or journalist. You drop dead, and bingo someone shows up and takes your place.
But children? Eternal rewards, love, happiness.
Shut up, get married, have kids. Put the kids first, and you will do fine, and never regret a moment.

Personally, I'm in a happy relationship, and I feel no need to marry, and, in fact, have no interest in getting married -- to anyone, ever. Of course, I don't have or want kids, which makes the difference.

There, fixed it for you.

Mr. Cole has it exactly right. Some of us here have to be adults and raise children who are going to support free-riding narcissists in their old age.

> A long parade of self-indulgence,
> and enlightened evenings reading

Amy, you wanna do this, or should I get it? Whatever, lemme know.

I was married to a man that I thought was my "soul mate." Turns out he was a lying con-artist, and some worse things besides. Basically, the only good thing he ever did was give me my two beautiful daughters. I didn't plan on having a man in my life after that, but then I met my bf, and that changed. My mom and my brother are starting to put the pressure on for us to get married. I'm thinking... no. At one time, I felt differently about marriage, but my view now is that it's just a piece of paper. When I tell my brother this he says, "It's a covenant in the eyes of God." Yeah, right. Not a religious person, so that's the wrong argument for me. My opinion is that if the relationship is not broke, don't "fix" it.

Wow. I had no idea I sounded so cynical. My mom told me a couple of years ago that I needed to do something about the chip on my shoulder. I told her I was going to name it "Herman." Thought he was gone, but I guess not.

My marriage was fantastic until it turned into a horrible nightmare.

So sure, I'd get married again. No point in letting my past become my future! This time I'll get it right for sure.

Marriage is something about which I've always been ambivalent. Despite 45 years of togetherness, my parents did not have a particularly good marriage. Likewise quite a few of my friends (of both sexes) tell me that they aren't happy in their marriages either, wishing that they hadn't married their current spouse or had waited a bit longer. For most of them, it seems that they married out of a sense of familial and/or societal obligation, or they were "feeling their age" and decided that it was time to get hitched and start a family.

I guess I've always been cut from different cloth. I knew from an early age that having my own kids didn't interest me much, and that didn't change in my 20's and 30's. Furthermore, despite the sometimes morbid co-dependence they displayed in their own marriage, my parents raised me to be very independent and self-sufficient. The thought of marrying for babies, for money, for a lifestyle, or even for a traveling companion, just doesn't compute. I've had two opportunities in my life to get married - the first right out of college (I was the one who said "no") and the second in my early 30's (both of us balked). I have no regrets about either.

I'm now in my early-mid 40's and children are no longer part of any equation for me (unwilling and, very likely, unable). I truly enjoy the life and the home that I've created for myself. I value my alone time just as much as the time I spend with the guy I've been seeing. At this point, marriage simply wouldn't add anything to my life.

Crid,

Damn straight. I'm not sure if Amy will comment specifically on this, but to suggest that life isn't worth living w/o having children is absurd, and downgrades humans to animals, not rational thinking beings. As for achieving all that I want to achieve in this lifetime, having children don't even come in the top ten. If anyone desires children, it should be out of selfishness, not altruism. It should not be about curing one's boredom w/ life and work and relationships.

Ben Cole, Where do you stand on adoption? Your comments sound like you are projecting.

so, BenC, the interesting thing about all this is that people have this thing called free will. Being free not to force a child to live on this earth is part of that, but most important to that is the same thing that is always important with free will. You Have To Decide. WHY you should have kids or not. Not because some religious book says, or your body says or whatever, but because you think it should be. You think it would be good to bring children here. You think you should be married to do so. Obviously Amy and many others here already have made up their minds. You might imagine that their position would be self limiting, since they will not reproduce, thus jumping out of the gene pool and making more room for people who want to have kids and such. So, you got that goin' for you, assuming it means something. [I doubt it does.]

The ultimate narcissism is forcing someone else to have life, just because you felt like it at the time. How much worse is it if you do that without intent? Without considering if being here is good for them. Without CHOOSING to do so.

"Put the kids first, and you will do fine, and never regret a moment." Are you telling me you have never felt regret or guilt over having kids? There are a thousand emotions involved in everything they do not just happiness, especially interesting is the one where they tell you they hate everything you ever stood for.

I don't regret mine, even under the circumstances, but Amy I will applaud for making a decision, and a good 'un. For her, and for the life of a child she won't have. Support free-riding narcissists in their old age? I'd say Amy is supporting somebody elses parents along with hers right now, that's somewhat of an empty argument. Was it selfish narcissism that started social security in the first place? If families were so strong and everything, we wouldn't need that, and you would live in large extended families of a by-gone era. But then they had large families because they needed more workers, and mortality was high.

Everyone has their choice to make. Even you.

BTW, Skipper and Mr. Cole, I understand the benefits of investing and long-term disability insurance, and have the wherewithal to make sure that I can cover my own expenses in old age. I won't need to HOPE that my spawn will be doling out the eternal rewards, love and happiness when I'm crapping all over myself at an assisted living facility.

Of course, I'd have even more $ in my accounts if I didn't have to pay the local and state taxes used in large part to support the education of other people's children, but I guess that's just the "free-riding narcissist" in me, thinking out loud.

OK, I'm off to go eat in restaurants and think about thinking, or feel about feeling, or whatever else it is that the childfree apparently do with their free time.

Thanks Cole and Skippy, for the best blog-poo-poo I've read all day!

BTW, Skipper and Mr. Cole, I understand the benefits of investing and long-term disability insurance, and have the wherewithal to make sure that I can cover my own expenses in old age.

No doubt, but that isn't what I was talking about.

So, when you are 64, and eating at a restaurant, who will be working there? Who will have got the food to your table?

Who will be repairing your car, fixing your roof, taking care of your medical needs?

Someone else's children, that's who.

Which is what I meant by being a free-rider.

So, congratulations, Ms. Ghandi, you win today's award for Missing the Glaringly Obvious.

I have no regrets for my marriage or my children, but I would never try to talk anyone into getting married or having kids. It might be great for me, but it could totally suck for you. The last thing this world needs is more broken marriages and more messed-up kids. I applaud anyone who is honest enough to know that it isn't for them. And anyone who says that having children is nothing but eternal rewards, love & happiness is LYING!!!! I say that as someone who loves my kids more than anything, but let's face it, it's about half love and happiness. The other half is shit-work, stress, worry, frustration, etc.

"you win today's award for Missing the Glaringly Obvious." Hey Skipper

hmm, wow, You saw the glaringly obvious tree, and missed the forest.

It won't be your children taking care of you Hey, it;ll be a lot of other people as well. Regardless where those people come from, that is true. Some of those people had kids and some didn't. It's that great circle of liffe thing or something.

Don't worry Ms. Ghandi you can borrow one of mine... he'll make you a nice little robo to take care of most stuff, and be around when that doesn't work. See when we get older and all live in some retirement place, it's maximisation. A few of the younger, children of people who wanted children, can come take care of the lot of us old curmudgeons at the same time while we have discussions over scones. And we'll use our money laid up while we were working to pay those caretakers so that they can go home and decide if they want to have children or not...

Swiss Army: "The life of the child she (Amy A.) won't have."
Sheesh. What a depressing thought. Amy A. is probably committing seppeku right now, after reading that.
"Forcing someone else to have life"? That's how you view family? Ouch. You need to get out more. A long hike in the Sierras is in order.
Okay, having kids is not for everybody. But is there not something sad about 20-somethings, turned 30-somethings, turned 40-somethings, still publicly sniveling about whether they should get married, would it make them happy, and how they feel about their feelings about themselves and marriage?
To others: Yes, I plan to adopt after I move to my wife's native country, Thailand. A local orphan or two would fit in fine with nieces and nephews and who knows what already there under roof. Children's laughter--need I say more?
I was a single professional for a long, long time, so I know the supreme importance singles can attach to their needs and desires.
How do such sinle concerns stack up to cuddling with wife and son? How about when you are typing and a little boy crawls into your lap and instantly falls asleep? Top that. You can't.
I only chanced upon this blog as I was reading a libertarian site. I am sorry for the intrusion.
I guess I am wrting hoping to help someone out there. I married late; I got lucky. Go for it while you can. Have kids. Don't marry for money or looks. Marry someone who wants to have kids.
Sure, I make mistakes. The great thing about being a parent is that you only have to be good, not perfect. Love takes care of the rest.

hmm, wow, You saw the glaringly obvious tree, and missed the forest.

You persist in missing the point, which is this: people who choose not to have children are, inescapably, free riders.

To make it even more clear, do a little thought experiment. Let's say all women Amy's age (late 20s, I'm guessing) and younger make the same choice Amy has made.

Why not? If Amy is free to do so, any other woman is just as entitled to make the same decision.

Forty years later, who's going to be building robos? Or even repairing your walker?

It's that great circle of life thing or something.

Bingo!

What? No upside?

Nonsense. All you have to do is look at probate court proceedings to discover just how easy it is to have an inheritance lost.

Now look at the tales of bad decisions. Are those of you saying your marriage was a bad decision really insisting that doing nothing is the answer? That's an invalid comparison; you should know that although you can hope that a different path leads to a different outcome, the path frequently is as horrible as the one you seek to avoid.

The set of things you do when married is markedly different from the things you do while single - even if you comb through the issues to make them as similar as possible. Even if the court decides your cohabitation constitutes the same thing as marriage.

To answer the question: I've been married three times. Two of these were for the wrong reasons, but I have been e x t r e m e l y lucky in those cases. The third consists of a promise to her, made convenient by registration with the State and the feds. The promise matters.

"publicly sniveling about whether they should get married, would it make them happy, and how they feel about their feelings about themselves and marriage"

What the hell are you talking about? I'm 38 and there is no sniveling regarding these matters. I know what I want. What is this angst and indecision of which you speak?

And this question of yours: "If you don't have kids...now what are you living for?" You know, if you had asked that question in a spirit of genuine curiosity, or any kind of sincere desire to actually listen to someone's answer, I'd natter on for a while about what I'm living for. (It's not marriage or kids.) But you clearly already have your mind made up. And no matter what I said, you'd never think it was as exhalted or worthy as what YOU're doing with YOUR life. So never mind what I'm living for - you just go on thinking the same thing. You will anyway.

"Let's say all women Amy's age (late 20s, I'm guessing) and younger make the same choice Amy has made."

Amy, you rock. Late 20s, did you hear that?

(Aside to Hey Skipper, regarding your question, what an insightful point. I've been worried about the planet running out of people for a long time now. The population just keeps getting smaller and smaller. Crid, do you suppose that's why so many people want to move to the US? It must be because there aren't enough people anywhere else.)

Nonsense. All you have to do is look at probate court proceedings to discover just how easy it is to have an inheritance lost.

What do I care what happens to my stuff? If a probate court is involved with my shit, I'm already dead.

Okay, having kids is not for everybody. But is there not something sad about 20-somethings, turned 30-somethings, turned 40-somethings, still publicly sniveling about whether they should get married, would it make them happy, and how they feel about their feelings about themselves and marriage?

I can answer that very quickly. I know that marriage would make me miserable, and probably homicidal. I can't stand children, and don't want them around me if I have any say in the matter.

Now, tell me again why I should procreate?

Jo -

The US is one of the few countries that won't be experiencing a major population crunch in the next 50 years.

By 2050, China will lose nearly 1/3 of its population to attrition. Japan is fading away. Europe is not having babies to death - and the slack is being picked up by people who are completely at odds with Western Civilization.

The difference between me and people like Mr. Cole is simple - he cares, I don't.

The only reason the US won't suffer a population reduction is immigration -- our wealth will hide our freeloaders, by transferring the consequences elsewhere.

The reason the US won't suffer a population crunch is due to our country's religiosity, which is unique among industrialized countries (full disclosure: I am an atheist). The US TLF for greater than 2nd generation native born American women is 1.85. Enough to avoid a crunch, but not enough (absent immigration) to avoid some painful consequences.

Among the countries brian listed (who is admirable in is forthrightness, at any rate), Russia is notably absent. Their TLF is (IIRC) around one. Russia is depopulating at roughly 750,000 people per year now (out of a total population of some 143,000,000), and that rate is increasing every year.

Demographics is destiny.

Ahem ....

> A long parade of self-indulgence,
> and enlightened evenings reading

Thinking it over, it's not worth fighting about. The comment is too weird, too obviously a sour-grapes fantasy. The comment itself is self-indulgent.

It's like how people hate Paris Hilton or something... "I bet that on the inside, she's not really a happy person..."

If having kids was so reliably noble and rewarding, you wouldn't have to denigrate the lives of others to enjoy it, or teach the kids to do it too.

In a nutshell: I am not *planning* to get married. I am *planning* to go to Europe this year. I am *planning* to go to grad school. But I'm not *planning* to get married. Someday, if there is something I want to accomplish that I can't do without being married, I will get married. Until then, I'm tabling it.

This is actually something I've been thinking about a lot lately. My relationship with my boyfriend of 4.5 years ended a couple months ago. And a lot of well-meaning friends and family are acting like the worst part is that I apparently got "cheated out" of a wedding. That is the least of my concerns. Sure, I always saw a "future" with him, and hearing him say that there is not really stings. But since we both had a lot we wanted to accomplish before marrying ANYONE, it wasn't like I was scoping out Tiffany's and picking bridesmaids.

On one hand, I am terrified, mourning, and an emotional open sore, alternating between despondency and mania. On the other, I recognize that our attraction had fizzled into comfortable friendship and I understand, respect, and even admire the bravery of his choice. I want him to be happy because I intend to be. But all I hear from people is how I must *love* that new Beyonce song (chorus: "If you like it then you shoulda put a ring on it"). Or "don't worry, you know, your cousin Kelly didn't get married til she was 29." (Successful) marriage is a wonderful thing--too bad it's been relegated to a default setting.

If having kids was so reliably noble and rewarding ...

There goes the narcissism again.

Just like Amy who is too wrapped up in her annoyingness to use her free will to change it, you are perfectly willing to have others do the heavy lifting for you.

Regardless of whether it is reliably noble or rewarding, it is absolutely essential to you narcissists that others make sacrifices that you are too selfish to make yourselves.

So, let's be clear: the reason for marriage is children. The continuation of a society you would care to live in relies upon enough people being selfless enough to take on a task (being parents, as opposed to litter bearers) that you refuse.

By all means, think about your selfish desires. Just remember whose sacrifice is making it possible.

"Just remember whose sacrifice is making it possible."

Jesus? It's Jesus, right? The guy who sneaked across the border and works for next to nothing so I can have cheap lettuce and spend my afternoons drinking chocolate malted Vulcans and giving away free high schools?

MarkD, I hope she feels fortunate to have someone like you who appreciates the sacrifices she made to be with you. Sadly, I too did what your wife did for my husband and it's been nothing but heartache and regret for me.

On topic, my dad is dating a nice woman and they both have their own households. She lives an 8 hour drive from him. He has no intention on marrying or moving in with her. It's so nice to see him happy.

Last time I checked, there were a lot of f*cked up, emotionally abandoned children of "self-indulgent" career-oriented people who got married because.... well, because they WANTED TO - and didn't have the maturity or sense of responsibility that Amy has.

I'm an Orthodox Jew, I feel that marriage is important and sacred - and I dearly wish a bright lady like Amy would get married and reproduce - but that doesn't mean single people have a monopoly on narcissism.

> Just remember whose sacrifice
> is making it possible.

That's all really silly. Listen, I'm sorry if the wife's a crabapple and the mother-in-law's a harridan and the kids are getting Gothy or whatever, but it's just not possible that anyone's going muster actual gratitude for your courageous, burdensome life choices on the basis of this kind of comment.

...Going TO muster...

Sorry.

Amy in her late 20s? That's my point. From her photo and bio, probably into her 40s -- but still stuck on the marriage question, and publicly wallowing in self-appraisal, and her world, and her feelings etc etc etc.
If Amy is still reading (I assume she took sleeping pills after reading the line "she did the right thing for the life of the child she didn't have" ), I have no hard feeling towards you, I never even met you. I wandered into this site, as it was linked to a libertairan site.
But crickey, Amy, get married and have some kids, and have some fun. Time to eat at the adult's table. Don't you feel trapped in some sort of 20-something world? Who are dating now? Are you getting to that next oh-so-important stage of your career? Were you snubbed at a party etc etc etc.
No, I am not saying kids are the only thing. If you have them, they should be almost the only thing, while they live with you. When they are grown, then fine, back to the wine and classic music in the evening, and (if affordable) vacations sans kids. If you are lucky, you will have time in your life for the full-cycle.
Good luck to everybody. I just worry some singles are out there, so concerned with their petty problems, they don't realize they are missing the real stuff. They are going to miss one of the best stages in life, as I almost did.
Like I said, find someone who loves kids, and have them. Every penny invested yields a dollar, and I am not talking about money.

> publicly wallowing in self-
> appraisal, and her world, and
> her feelings etc etc etc

Dude. She's an alt-weekly advice columnist. This is her blog, the one she uses to market her work.. Look at the color scheme, look at the little gay dog on the side over there.

This isn't meant to certify your condemnation in any way, because several of us have been hashing out some of the most challenging topics we can handle in great detail for many years...

But, like, who did you expect to find here when you loaded the page?

"What do I care what happens to my stuff? If a probate court is involved with my shit, I'm already dead."

Thanks for the reminder that it's all about you.

Probate court is the consequence of laws regarding the disposition of the property of the dead. These laws must apply to everyone, not just you, and so they are set up so that your inheritors will be treated fairly.

I can't make you care, and neither can the State, but your heirs will be buffered against your apathy, and properly, when clear lines of succession are drawn.

Skipper - there was no intent behind my failure to mention Russia, I had a few examples, and it said all I wanted to say. Russia is fucked. There's no other way to put it. Most of the women there have had several abortions, the bulk of the men are alcoholics, and there's no social fabric. People had kids in the USSR because they were told to. They did EVERYTHING because they were told to. Then the wall came down, and there was nobody left to tell them what to do, and they were utterly incapable of living. I find myself hoping that Russia fizzles out rather than going down in a paroxysm of nuclear fire.

Ben:

But crickey, Amy, get married and have some kids, and have some fun. Time to eat at the adult's table.

Here's something I've never understood: how people can consider children "fun". They're a burden, and one that many of us choose not to bear. As I've said before, I am glad I live in a society where being "married with children" is NOT a prerequisite to being considered an acceptable member of the community. I am an adult. I have no desire to be around children, whether those of others or those of my own creation.

Rad - when are you gonna learn? It's my world, you just live in it.

Oh, and way to miss the point. I don't care precisely because I have no heirs. The Future™ is meaningless to me because I have no dog in the fight. Once I'm gone, it can all burn. All I ask is that it wait until after I die to do so.

Brian, unremitting boasts of nonchalance others would be more convincing if they weren't so enthusiastic. Who cares if we know you don't care?

Hey Skipper sez: Regardless of whether it is reliably noble or rewarding, it is absolutely essential to you narcissists that others make sacrifices that you are too selfish to make yourselves.

By all means, think about your selfish desires. Just remember whose sacrifice is making it possible.

I'd like you to have a little looky-loo at your tax return. And then at mine (I'm married and childfree). Skippy, I'm probably paying more for your kid(s) than you are. You get deductions, and I make up the difference. If parents and parents only had to pay ALL their child's costs, the shrieks of indignation would be heard 'round the globe.

So, Skippy, o noble parent, are you willing to make the "sacrifice" and pay back the money I pay in education taxes? That I pay unselfishly despite not having a little proto-me in the system? I'm guessing not. And you know what? I'm not going to fight for it. Because I'm not the selfish narcissist you imagine me to be.

But hey, that word, "selfish". Can you please give me three reasons that you chose to have kids that don't include the words "I wanted"? Hint: If you say you had kids to fund future Social Security and make sure that us mature folks have roofers and waiters, I won't believe you. You had kid(s) because you WANTED to. That's selfish. Selfish ain't a bad word.

Frankly, I'd make a shitty parent, so I rather consider it a responsible, unselfish choice to not have kids. Not liking or wanting them is also a pretty pertinent point.

Brian:

Skipper - there was no intent behind my failure to mention Russia, I had a few examples, and it said all I wanted to.

Apologies -- I should have been more clear. My only intent was to add to your list of examples.

Larisa:

So, Skippy, o noble parent, are you willing to make the "sacrifice" and pay back the money I pay in education taxes?

Wow -- distilled essence of freeloader.

Your clear assumption you get no benefit out of others' children getting an education is preposterous. Presumably you would prefer that your pharmacist, car mechanic, etc be able to, oh, you know, read and write.

So, you want to benefit from people who you didn't help raise, and their education, for which you don't want to help pay.

I guarantee you that the additional tax deductions I get are not a drop in the bucket compared to what I spend, and the compensating taxes you pay don't come close to covering your freeloading.

My motives for having children are beside the point of this thread which is this: the only reason people marry is to have children. For those who do not want kids, why bother?

Just keep in mind that there is absolutely no escaping the point that those who do not want to have children are narcissistic freeloaders -- you are unwilling to make real sacrifices that others must make in your stead.

I don't mean to pile on Amy, but her reasons make my point for me. She is obviously extremely intelligent and talented, with abundant free will. Yet she chooses not to use her free will to curb her innate temperament in order to succeed as a wife and mother.

That is fine; however, the civilization from which she, and you, benefit so much, is dependent upon others taking on that burden that you yourselves are too special to be bothered with.

"Presumably you would prefer that your pharmacist, car mechanic, etc be able to, oh, you know, read and write."

Flawed logic, Skip - if Larisa must pay for your kid's education so that he can be her mechanic someday, then she shouldn't have to pay him when he fixes her car.

Skip -

Let me clue you in to an uncomfortable truth. There are some of us who are not fit to be parents. No matter how much you or Mr. Cole cajole us, we will NEVER grow into the role.

We are doing you and society a favor by not reproducing.

The least you could do is thank us instead of calling us freeloaders.

Hey Skipper sez: I guarantee you that the additional tax deductions I get are not a drop in the bucket compared to what I spend, and the compensating taxes you pay don't come close to covering your freeloading.

You know, parents keep trotting this out, and I can't figure the hell out WHY. You chose to have kids. Kids are expensive. Yeah, and what does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

You also say: Wow -- distilled essence of freeloader.

I notice that you not-so-cunningly edited out the part where I said that I wasn't a selfish narcissist, so I wasn't going to actually try to make you. Goodness, do you not think people will read? Perhaps all those education taxes my own parents paid to educate you were for naught.

Which reminds me: You can shout "selfish freeloader!" as often as you want, but it doesn't make it true. I'd tone back the hysteria just a smidge if you're actually trying to make a point besides that you spit froth when you debate.

Anywhoo, as Pirate Jo pointed out, I'll be paying my roofer and waiter and whatnot when I age, just as I do now. I'm HARDLY freeloading. As I said, I pay far more in taxes than you, so I'm likely helping pay for the police and fire departments that protect you, on top of everything else. We're symbiotic. I pay extra for your kid, they serve me breakfast when I retire to Arizona.

Hon, breeding is a biological function. And, in the same way that people with little imagination ascribe everything to deities, parents try to ascribe some sort of superpower to the act of reproducing - something that rats and spiders and worms are all capable of doing. How sad that you believe the culmination of human existence is being able to say "yay, our reproductive organs work!" But then, many people try to seek a grander meaning in our mundane lives and behaviors. How sad that you believe the culmination of human existence is being able to say "yay, our reproductive organs work!" Look upon my works, ye mighty, and despair! Yadda yadda.

Oh, and by the way? You say: My motives for having children are beside the point of this thread which is this: the only reason people marry is to have children. For those who do not want kids, why bother?

Er, sorry Skippo. You fail again. Maybe the only reason YOU married was to have kids. Maybe YOU consider your relationship with your spouse a "bother". But please don't try to paint me with your sad little ant farm breeding-uber-alles brush. *I* married because I love my spouse and we want to spend our lives together. And we don't consider it a bother at all.

You wanted kids. Hooray for you. Enjoy the bejeezus out of 'em. I'll be sure to toss an extra tip their way when that Grand Slam Breakfast arrives just how I ordered it.

so, lets explode that freeloader myth... Brian is currently paying lots of taxes, some of which are for social security. The fact that Brian isn't paying forward to his own retirement is hardly his fault, that is the construction of the government. He IS in fact paying the tab of current retireees, who may or may not be his parents, and other people. So when Brian retires, Skips kids will be paying what Brian is already OWED. money he already paid in. Then Brian does what all humans do. He dies. The government will likely fight over his estate and liquidate it, using the money to support people currently alive, ie. Skip's kids. Skip's kids probably have kids of their own and so forth, and when Skip's kids go to retire, they discover that there is no money because this pay foreward system is entirely dependent on a constantly growing population. And when that population doesn't change right because people live too long from having good healthcare, or there aren't enough resources in the world to deal with that constant expansion, the whole thing implodes like a house of cards.

Because of people who chose to not have kids? No, because of people who always have kids regardless of the need to have them. Because that's what humans do. Except for the part where when an animal overpopulates it's environment, a catastrophe is usually on the way to take care of that. Regardless of that catastrophe being war, pandemics or some other cause.

Beasically, the whole thing is mental hopscotch simply because the number of people who choose not to have children is astoundingly small, compared to the number who have them normally. They are more than offset by people who have more than 2. {I stopped at 2 so far, but if I father more, I'll make sure they pay for Brian and Amy, so they don't have to worry}

Pirate Jo:

Flawed logic, Skip - if Larisa must pay for your kid's education so that he can be her mechanic someday, then she shouldn't have to pay him when he fixes her car.

Umm, no your logic is flawed. Larisa pays for a very small portion of my child's education. Let's change the system a little to demonstrate. Larisa (and all others who choose not to have children) reduce their taxes by the amount represented by their per capita portion of education costs, and transfer that entire burden to parents.

In return, the Larisas of the world may no longer avail themselves of the services of educated people.

Doesn't work, does it? Now, to the extent that Larisas contribute to education costs, that only lessens the degree to which they are freeloading.

Brian:

Let me clue you in to an uncomfortable truth. There are some of us who are not fit to be parents. No matter how much you or Mr. Cole cajole us, we will NEVER grow into the role.

I am not trying to cajole you into anything. Rather, I am noting that there is a very real cost to your decision that is only bearable in inverse proportion to the number of people who do the same. If enough people decide not to have children, there won't be plumbers or roofers at any price.

Therefore, I am calling you freeloaders because that is precisely what you are; if you don't believe me, do some research into the concept.

Larisa:

I notice that you not-so-cunningly edited out the part where I said that I wasn't a selfish narcissist ...

No cunning involved; it is just that one remark in particular stood out.

However, you fundamentally are narcissistic. You say you would be a lousy parent. But why is that? Because you are constitutionally incapable of being a good parent, or because you have decided not to bother with the self discipline you would require to be a good parent?

If the latter -- which I suspect it is, otherwise you are lacking the free will department -- then your decision to not have children is essentially self-centered; i.e., narcissistic.

Maybe the only reason YOU married was to have kids. Maybe YOU consider your relationship with your spouse a "bother" ...

My motives don't count, because free loading is not about motives, it is about the distribution of costs and benefits.

The only reason you will be able to I'll be sure to toss an extra tip their way when that Grand Slam Breakfast arrives just how I ordered it is because there will be a their, to which you are making no contribution.

SwissArmyD:

As I noted above, this is not about money, this is about people.

Why don't you read up on, say, Italian demographics, then get back to me on the cost of freeloading.

It exists even if only one person does it; the cost is bearable so long as a sufficient number are insufficiently selfish.

Skip -

Given the state of the government schools, I've got a 50/50 chance that I'll still be supporting any given child after they graduate and are incapable of doing anything beneficial to society. Your children's education costs me more than I will ever recover in my lifetime.

And anyway, has it occurred to you that perhaps some of us are far more valuable to society by remaining childless?

I can promise you that I would not be in the position I am professionally were I to have followed your preferred vector of getting married and started creating babies. In fact, I'd probably be one of those assholes on the receiving end of a bailout because I'd not be able to live in an 1100 sq. ft. 2 bedroom house and drive a Jetta.

I certainly wouldn't have been able to tell my last job to go piss up a rope and spend 5 months getting my own business going.

When you've got children, your risk tolerance drops significantly.

I always thought marriage was for tax breaks not breeding.

Kendra, the "tax breaks" are far offset by the costs of child-rearing.

And if you are married without children, and both partners make a sufficient amount, you pay MORE in taxes, not less, than if you were both single.

If marriage is in your plans, tax considerations should not even enter your mind.

just thought I'd mention:

free·load
Pronunciation: \-ˌlōd\
Function: intransitive verb
Date: circa 1934
: to impose upon another's generosity or hospitality without sharing in the cost or responsibility involved : sponge
— free·load·er noun

sounds like it's not so much about people as about money and responsibility thereof, eh, skip?

>>>However, you fundamentally are narcissistic. You say you would be a lousy parent. But why is that? Because you are constitutionally incapable of being a good parent, or because you have decided not to bother with the self discipline you would require to be a good parent?

Oh, that's rich. I would venture to say having to have your own DNA-replica is the height of narcissism.

Children are a CHOICE. YOU chose to have them, YOU pay for them.

Brian:

Given the state of the government schools, I've got a 50/50 chance that I'll still be supporting any given child after they graduate and are incapable of doing anything beneficial to society. Your children's education costs me more than I will ever recover in my lifetime.

Nice rant, but you are pulling that one out of your hat. Whether we could spend public education money better, or provide education vouchers to all parents, is in interesting subject (and on which I'll bet I would agree with you), but it is OT here.

You do not stand a 50/50 chance of supporting any given child, and kids do graduate capable of doing things beneficial to society.

Perhaps, though, you could show how much income transfer there is from childless people to parents for education, then compare that with the economic benefit to all society of literate workforce. How does that work out?

And anyway, has it occurred to you that perhaps some of us are far more valuable to society by remaining childless?

I can promise you that I would not be in the position I am professionally were I to have followed your preferred vector of getting married and started creating babies.

It is not my preferred "vector". Rather, it is absolutely essential that enough people choose that vector sufficiently often. If they don't -- that is, if they opt for the self-satisfying option -- then society collapses.

Of course it is easier to do some things without children to worry about (BTW, you have my deep admiration; I'm not brave enough to be an entrepeneur). However, that doesn't get around the fact that if your decision to not have children is permanent, then you will ultimately be freeloading upon others. There is no way to finesse that conclusion.

SwissArmyD:

sounds like it's not so much about people as about money and responsibility thereof, eh, skip?

Wrong. Let me argue from a very close analogy.

All vaccines have a risk of complications. Some parents choose, therefore, to not vaccinate their children. They do not share in the cost (i.e., risk), but -- so long as sufficiently few others make the same choice -- the gain all the benefits of vaccination: the disease cannot propagate if most people are vaccinated.

Therefore, those who do not vaccinate their children are free riding upon those who do.

In exactly the same way that people who choose not to have children are free riding upon those who do.

Ann:

Children are a CHOICE. YOU chose to have them, YOU pay for them.

Perfect example of narcissistic thinking. You deserve the benefits that derive from the existence of other people's children, and the education they have gotten, yet feel you deserve to get it for free.

Nice.

Like I suggested above, check up on the demographics facing Italy, Spain, eastern Germany, etc. With respect to having children, there are so many freeloaders in those societies that utter collapse is certainly possible.

The de-population at 1.12 TLF could exceed that of the Black Death.

So, yeah, go ahead and make that choice. Just pray that there aren't too many people around as selfish as you.

DISCLAIMER: It has only been a year and a half, so we are still honeymooners.

I love it. I love being married. Is it always perfect? Of course not, and we have our little difficulties we have to overcome. But all in all, I love it.

I love attacking my husband when he walks through the door. I love pestering him for a kiss when he's on the computer. I love falling asleep beside him and waking up next to him. I love having someone there, all the time. I love doing my thing, knowing he is in the next room doing his thing. I love bringing him a cup of tea when he's working at home. I love making him dinner. It's more fun and rewarding than anything I could have imagined.

I don't quite understand the "marriage is a piece of paper" argument.

Imagine you're the guardian of a child. And you say to the child, "Adoption is just a piece of paper. You know I love you, so I don't need to adopt you. As your guardian, I can still take care of you. We're going to be family forever, we don't need a piece of paper to prove it." I'm guessing the child would call bullshit.

At the end of the day, if you're not willing to stand up in front of your community and say "I love this person and want to stay with him/her", then you probably don't.

Hey buddy, I have no problem paying for education. I believe in an educated society. I DO, however, have a problem with YOU paying the same amount as I do for health insurance when you have 2 or 3 kids on the policy and I don't. I DO have a problem with you getting tax breaks for the product of a biological function that makes you no more special than any other creature on the planet. And I DO have a problem with you giving off the impression that you are somehow superior because you can reproduce.

And I'll tell you something else. If one of your special snowflakes ends up in prison, I want a refund. You want me to educate the kid, you'd better make sure he stays out of trouble and doesn't become a burden on society in the form of a FREELOADER sitting in prison, who benefited from taxpayer-funded education but did not make good use of it.

Ann:

I DO, however, have a problem with YOU paying the same amount as I do for health insurance when you have 2 or 3 kids on the policy and I don't.

Then, by all means, talk to your insurance provider. My policy would be cheaper without children.

I DO have a problem with you getting tax breaks for the product of a biological function that makes you no more special than any other creature on the planet. And I DO have a problem with you giving off the impression that you are somehow superior because you can reproduce.

It sounds like you are viewing my statements emotionally rather than analytically.

In order for a society to continue its existence, a sufficient number of its members MUST have children. There is no issue of superiority here, that is a simple, inescapable, mathematical fact.

Consequently, having children is in the society's interest; so much so, in fact, that it is a society's most fundamental interest.

It should come as no surprise that societies reward parents (now that people have the choice) at the expense of non-parents. Some countries in Europe are increasing their subsidies of parents precisely because so many people are making the narcissistic decision to remain childless that the future of the society itself is at risk.

Therefore, I can say with certainy, and ithout any sense of superiority, that if enough people make the self-centered decision to remain childless, their society will collapse because there will not be enough people to keep it running.

You want me to educate the kid ...

Oh, come off it. The income transfer from you to me is vanishingly small; you are getting huge returns on your investment.

And when we are 64, am I going to get a refund from you because the cost of services is higher than it would be if you decided to have children?

"Rad - when are you gonna learn? It's my world, you just live in it.

Oh, and way to miss the point. I don't care precisely because I have no heirs. The Future™ is meaningless to me because I have no dog in the fight."

Incorrect. To a large extent, your current tax position and social status depend right now on inheritance law.

It is not possible for you to interact with society without being affected by its laws, however much you might pretend to be aloof.

Not much of a chance I will ever get married. At best, I may get a civil union for legal security, but even that's unlikely. After the current relationship is entirely closed, I am definitely taking a very long step back. As a full time, basically single dad, who refuses to parade women through the lives of his kids, the odds of me actually developing a relationship are slim to none. I won't entirely discount it ever happening, but it would require a series of very unlikely events.

I am incredibly happy not being married, and never plan to marry again. I am also very much in love with my boyfriend, and have no intention to ruin my relationship.

BTW, I can't breed anymore (menopause) so according to the religious types, I'm probably not allowed to marry (oh goodie!)

If guys want to marry so bad to have kids, then they can do 100% of the work involved.