A hundred years ago, if you had a child out of marriage, you'd be a social disgrace. Today women feel comfortable enough economically and culturally to bring up a child without a recognized commitment from a man.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
I'm not that big a fan of marriage as an institution and I don't know why women need to have children to be seen as complete human beings.
The stigma of being an unmarried mother was something we can't comprehend today. It was not uncommon that you'd go off somewhere to have your child, then give it up for adoption.
With children no longer the universally accepted reason for marriage, marriages are going to have to exist on their own merits.
My argument is simple, which is, that for several thousand years in Western civilization, marriage has been the union of one man and one woman. Research is overwhelming that children need mothers and fathers.
I didn't marry to have children. I married to have a relationship, and I was blessed with one child. I was an only child, too - my mother was smarter than most women today; she just had me.
Maintaining marriage seems to be tougher than fatherhood: apparently it's the most difficult thing in the world.
It's hard enough to be in a marriage and then have a kid, then kids: it changes everything.
The marriage of a man and woman is the most enduring human institution, honored in all cultures and by every religious faith. It's in this institution that children are meant to be nurtured. We know this after thousands of years of human experience.
So many women waited until later to get married and then even later after they got married to have children. And then they have problems, and it takes them five, six, seven years to have children.
I think people need to commit to one another before they commit to bringing children into the world because that's the optimum arrangement for children, not to take anything at all away from women who have to rear their children by themselves.