From: kapa@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (k.a.perkins)
Subject: Re: raising children
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 05:12:29 GMT
Followup-To: misc.kids
Summary: required relationship courses

In article <1992Nov19.191028.25147@radian.uucp>, markbr%radian@natinst.com (markbr) writes:
> In article <92323.235320SXW103@psuvm.psu.edu> S. Wukovitz <SXW103@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
> >In article <1992Nov19.000618.19319@radian.uucp>, markbr%radian@natinst.com
> >(markbr) says:
> >>ABSO-FUCKING-LUTLY!!!!! Isn't marriage & creating kids, to be inserted into
> >>society, at *least* as requiring of training as getting a drivers' license?
> >>
> >>I want there to be a *requirement* for a marriage license that you have
> >>taken an approved course (like the defensive driving courses) on parenting,
> >>and one on relationships.
Actually, I don't know that there is a required driver's ed course
before you get a license.  It's been a while, but I think that in
Wisconsin, where I got my first license, you had to have such a course
to get a license at age 16, but if you waited until 18, you didn't
need to take the course.

In the church that I got married in (Roman Catholic), we had to take
a compatibility test and discuss the results with a priest, plus we
had to take relationship classes.  The goal of the test was to present
the couple with many situations and let them think about whether they
had actually considered those issues or not.  The priest who administered
it told us that he had never refused to marry a couple based on their
results, but that several couples had decided to postpone their 
marriages after going over the tests.  There were about 150 questions,
and I don't remember many of them, but they were of the form, " We
have discussed X" where X might be whether you would have kids, where
you would live, how you would divide household chores, or somesuch,
and the answers were of the form, "agree, disagree, don't know".  As
I said, the goal was to remind couples of issues they would have to
face, not push the Church's positions on them.  I thought this was a
fairly useful exercise.  The classes vary from place to place.  Both
my husband and I thought ours was fairly useless.  He thought it was
geared for 18 year olds who met last week and were getting married 
next month, without knowing each other or thinking things through.
On the other hand, friends of ours who took a similar class found it
very useful.  It was at the class that she realized and they confronted
how much she disliked his mother and how they would handle that
situation.

I have heard of many churches that required something by way of
counseling prior to marriage.  I don't know any stats on how useful it
is.  Parenting classes would be a great idea!  We had one at work that
talked about how to take care of an infant.  Of course it was too late
by then, since everyone in the class was an expectant mom or dad.

I don't think parenting classes should be required prior to marriage.
For one thing, many parents aren't married when they become parents.
For another, many married people don't want to become parents.  For us,
getting married happened several years before becoming parents.  We
probably would have forgotten whatever we learned anyway.

This is also a radical thought, here in the 90's, but there's a
difference between thinking something is a good idea and thinking that
there should be a law enforcing it.  I think it would be a great idea
if everyone took the same test that Kent and I took prior to our 
marriage.  I have even mailed copies of it to people who expressed an
interest in it.  I found it useful, but other people might not, and
I don't feel like shelling out my tax money to pay for a bureaucracy
to make other people take it.

Kate Perkins
Xref: sparky alt.polyamory:1868 soc.singles:31573 alt.pagan:13231 misc.kids:28982