Well said.

 

Ditto

But to answer the question, I assume you mean unmarried long established couple both bringing up the child?

That was the case for us and our daughter has daddies surname on the birth certificate.

At the time I felt marriage is just an expensive certificate to confirm what both of us already know wrt our choice of life partner, however fatherhood changes a persons outlook on life - and in my case my view on marriage changed, as did my car collection and bank account

 

No, what we are talking about is childrens surnames. That's what this thread is about. Other worries and issues about kids are for another thread. Nor are we talking about parent skills.

I think as a man you should be quite concerned that your offspring aren't carrying your surname and therefore a mark of your family line. In fact men who say they don't care or aren't bothered come across as quite pathetic.

At this point in time, until proven otherwise, our sole reason for existence is to propagate the human race. The reality is our existence is reasonably pointless if we don't produce offspring. So there is massive psychological reason for seeing your offspring carrying your name forward.

I feel sorry for you that you will never experience the true essence of a father-child relationship, the hints of immortality with the child continuing in life with the father's name, his line and possibly his dreams.

Some social examples of the importance of the relationship :

"Like father, like son"
"Dance with my Father" - Luther Vandross
"Father and Son" - Cat Stephens
The relationship between God and Jesus

Contrast these with what society views are of the "mother and son" relationship which are often of a more negative tone.

"Mummy's boy"
Freud's Oedipus complex.

I just can't understand why you wouldn't want you children to carry your surname.

 

Yes, its interesting that all of the people who have said that the kids carry the Father's surname all intend to marry anyway.

I have a son (and a daughter on the way ) and currently my son carries his Father's surname.....however, we have no intention of marrying.

 

The original answer to it all was to be married in the first place!

Les

 

See, this all well and good, until you have , say, only daughters. At that point assuming everyone should have children named after the Father, your family name dissapears anyway. So much for "carrying the family name". Your family name will only continue if

(i)You have sons(s) and
(ii)They actually have kids themselves

See, thats the thing, it really doesn't matter

Am I getting this right, one of the primary reasons for procreation is to carry you surname forward???

I beg to differ.

I agree, the purpose of existance is to procreate, but I would suggest such urges are due to natural impluse and desire to reproduce, rather than any absurd desire not to have your surname dissapear.

Of course, cultures that do not have surnames are obviously doomed to extinction.

As I said before The true essence of a father son relationship is defined by the actual relationship between said father and son, not the fact they do, or do not, share the same surname.

Example, My Step brother hates his old man with a passion. Hasn't spoken to him in 10 years. I am closer to my Step father than my real father, and despite having not sharing the same blood, or even *shock* having a different surname, I see him as a father and turn to him when I need the fatherly thing. I.e. he has always been there when I need him, ergo, he is my Father.
What does this have to do with surnames?
Evidently!

 

For the record, my child had my surname, and any children I have will have my surname - because of the reason you state, continuing the family name.

However, I think it's a little unfair to brand those that decide otherwise as 'pathectic'.

 

Well, the latest trend is apparently merging names - so if yours is Smith and the other's is Jones, the child will be given the name Smones (or Jith?)...

But knowing both of you and your history, very very slightly, via SN, I can guess at reasons behind, and I'd say you need to talk to someone a bit more knowledgeable than the NSR crew. But maybe I'm reading too much into it...

Hope you get it sorted

PS good luck for no.2

 

B2Z

I know where you're coming from. Although married now, at the time of our 1st born I had no intention of getting married and every intention of spending the rest of our lives together. So when the subject of the surname came up, the reasoning was that of the traditional family tree - in that the father's surname is taken. You don't need to be married to have a child, you don't need to be married to combine families through a new generation, so you don't need to be married for the child to assume the fathers family name.

 

There is no one person or group of people more knowledgeable than the scoobynet NSR massive.....

Not married, then take the mothers name..... married, then take the husbands...... (unless his name is *******)

 

Amen to that Reverend Dibble

 

We BOTH have no intention of marrying before you get carried away

 

Weapon, personally I'd shop the toerag to the CSA.

 

Why do people object to getting married though?

Les

 

Might have something to do with the high divorce rate and the guy getting a shafting. Some blokes have a lot to lose if a marriage goes south.

I would have thought that was obvious TBH.

 

Usually people are worried about losing out when they get divorced

Men particularly object because its easier to bin a g/f than a wife!

 

Substitute 'easier' with 'cheaper'

 

I thought that the law was such now though that it does not make much difference if you split either married or not. It seems a pity to get into a relationship to the degree of having children with the forethought that you may split up in the future. Hard on the children for certain.

Les

 

Unfortunately Les it seems like there are many people in the UK that don't think that way. Symtomatic of our "I want it now" culture I feel.

 

Dave's asked me, we've just got to get round to it. It's a case of spending money on the house which we're going to have lots of benefit from, or spending it on a wedding which in reality, doesn't change anything apart from my name!

I do want to get married, but there's always something else to pay for!

 

Surely, it is sensible to think 'what if?' ESPECIALLY when there are children involved. Its the people with the rose tinted specs on that seem the hardest hit if it all goes wrong. Also, what is wrong with knowing that my other half is with me because he really wants to be and not because he's afraid to lose half the house because we're married?!

 

Spot on.

Just because one party will do 'the for better or for worse' bit, doesn't mean the other will.

 

Not so, they want to change the law, but as it stands now it's by far worse for a bloke to be married and split up than just co-habit and split. If you co-habit you can turf them out and never have to deal with them again. Of course if there are kids involved that differs.

I'd consider the fact that I'd split up as part of any normal relationship, anything can happen down the road and it's prudent IMHO to make sure you won't be fcuked over.

 

Yes, thanks for all the explanations. You have to remember that I come from an era where marriage was the normal and expected course by people who wanted to live together and have children. Religious expectations apart, it was regarded as the best way to safeguard any children from the marriage. Please don't think I am trying to be judgemental in any way.

Les

 

load of twaddle - kids are fun to have around, i dont want kids to populate the earth....i want them for my own reasons of personal happiness.

i couldnt care less what their surnames are.