NationStates Jolt Archive


The Children Suffer the Most

Greenlander
20-09-2005, 17:08
The Hedonist Elitists have been campaigning against the intrinsic strength that is built into people via the institution and encouragement of their Family society upbringing. For over eighty years (post W.W.I.) family standards have been attacked in one fashion or another, weakening the communities in which they occur. These attacks are always disguised as something other than what they are, perhaps disguised as individual liberties, choices, or some other nice sounding “sheep’s clothing” argument for the advancement of whatever weakens society. The long term strategy of attacking and causing the erosion of family values in our communities (western society particularly) was chosen as just one of the methodologies for the advancement of the soviet’s political agenda and ideology, pre-world war II. Although the Soviet Union is long since gone, their legacy remains because some of their arguments, doctrines and philosophies have completely duped and “taken in,” a large number of people that continue to endorse and campaign in favor of them, oblivious or uncaring of their original intent.

Take, for example, the arguments for “no fault divorce” in the 1950’s, how it was presented as a needed measure to protect abused wives and children, and the easement of hardships caused by ‘justifying’ their case for a divorce in a court of law. The argument for easier divorces then was that only the most deserving individuals would need to use it and it would not a weaken the institution of Marriage nor of the healthy family in the community. Most people agreed and it was instituted. After fifty years, the divorce rates have skyrocketed to nearly 50% and the percentage of children reared in single parent households compounded like a loan shark’s interest rate…

* The evidence also shows that although the differences between children reared by married biological parents and children reared by only one biological parent are modest in percentage terms, these small differences translate into surprisingly large numbers when applied to the entire population of children. Amato reports that if the same share of
children lived with their biological parents today as did in 1980, about 300,000 fewer children between the ages of twelve and eighteen would repeat a grade, 485,000 fewer would be suspended from school, 250,000 fewer would need psychotherapy, 210,000 fewer would be involved in violence, and 30,000 fewer would attempt suicide every year.

* The nation’s teen birth rate, which finally began to take a downward turn a decade ago, nevertheless exceeds that of other industrialized nations; marriage has declined precipitously, especially among minority groups; divorce has stabilized, but at one of the world’s highest levels; and one of every three children—and seven of every ten black children—are born outside marriage.
http://www.brookings.edu/es/research/projects/wrb/publications/pb/200509foc.pdf

The solution to these types of dilemmas is to first recognize them for what they are, the eroding of the human character. As the generations have passed, and the condition of the children has suffered, people often say in a derogatory way, “Look at what children are like today!” but what they should be saying is, “Look at what their parents are doing!”

In addition to government controlled aspects of social life, the community wide abandonment of attending and participating in a regular religious community has been detrimental to the community as well. The counseling and support individual families and parents used to receive from their church group has been eliminated from a large number of family households when compared to the 1950’s, 1970’s and today (and especially true in urban areas) and this support asset has not been replaced by any other community group (s), to the detriment of the psyche of the individuals in the community. They no longer have the resources and support gained from unions and communities of people of a similar ideology and outlook. They no longer look to their neighbors for help and they may not even know them, they feel the pressures of life undiluted on their shoulders and the communities we live in have suffered because of it.

Solutions:
Pre-marriage counseling should be mandatory in all states. Divorces with children involved should never be ‘no-fault.’ Government programs encouraging biological parents to both get married AND stay married while raising their children need to be developed and expanded. Individual families should consider joining the Church, Synagogue or Mosque (of their choice) for moral and social support and educated people should stop refusing to raise families and consider choosing to have children and raising them again.



EDIT: Adding data snippets about 'why' dual parenting is better than one...
* Children in two-parent households are less than half as likely to have emotional or behavioral problems.

* Children in two-parent households are a third as likely to use illegal drugs, alcohol or tobacco.

* Children in two-parent households are 44% less likely to be physically abused or neglected.

* Boys in two-parent households are only half as likely to commit a crime leading to incarceration by their thirties.

* Fifteen year old girls in two-parent homes are one-third less likely to be sexually active.

* Children in two-parent households have higher grades, higher college aspirations, better school attendance and lower school drop-out rates.

* Children in two-parent households are less likely to cohabit prior to marriage, become a single parent, or teen parent, and to become separated or divorced themselves.
Potaria
20-09-2005, 17:13
What's your problem?

Is it that you love to repress others?

Is it that you wish to have everyone live in your perfect little world, where nobody ever frowns and always smiles?

Or, is it that you just can't see the world as it really is?
Laerod
20-09-2005, 17:23
Solutions:
Pre-marriage counseling should be mandatory in all states. Divorces with children involved should never be ‘no-fault.’ So basically parents that can no longer stand eachother should stay together and let their children watch until something does happen?
Government programs encouraging biological parents to both get married AND stay married while raising their children need to be developed and expanded.Not adopted children?
Individual families should consider joining the Church, Synagogue or Mosque (of their choice) for moral and social support and educated people should stop refusing to raise families and consider choosing to have children and raising them again.You completely alienate athiests and agnostics with that.
Swimmingpool
20-09-2005, 17:24
What's your problem?

Is it that you love to repress others?

I don't even see why you posted this. All it comes down to is a shrill accusation of "you hate freedom!"

Greenlander's analysis is exhaustive but is naive and alarmist. It is true that societal breakdown has happened, but I doubt that most of what you blame is responsible. Let's take that note on how US teen pregnancy rates are higher than other countries': the US has some of the worst sex education, while the Netherlands, with the most extensive, has the lowest teen pregnancy rates.
Messerach
20-09-2005, 17:24
The Hedonist Elitists have been campaigning against the intrinsic strength that is built into people via the institution and encouragement of their Family society upbringing. For over eighty years (post W.W.I.) family standards have been attacked in one fashion or another, weakening the communities in which they occur. These attacks are always disguised as something other than what they are, perhaps disguised as individual liberties, choices, or some other nice sounding “sheep’s clothing” argument for the advancement of whatever weakens society. The long term strategy of attacking and causing the erosion of family values in our communities (western society particularly) was chosen as just one of the methodologies for the advancement of the soviet’s political agenda and ideology, pre-world war II. Although the Soviet Union is long since gone, their legacy remains because some of their arguments, doctrines and philosophies have completely duped and “taken in,” a large number of people that continue to endorse and campaign in favor of them, oblivious or uncaring of their original intent.


Er, what? People actually do believe in individual liberties and the right to make choices, they are not just conveneient excuses to "attack society". If the institution of the nuclear family has been weakened by the fact that women are no longer bullied and coerced into staying married, it just shows that the "Golden age of the family" was always a lie. There used to be an enormous stigma attached to divorced women, not to mention the fact that they had trouble supporting themselves.

Anyway, problems in society are complicated and can't just be blamed on one thing, such as divorce. And religion may work for some, but religion is a personal matter and it is no-ones business to tell anyone else what to believe or how to go about following that belief.
Kryozerkia
20-09-2005, 17:29
Solutions:
Uhmm... <.<

Pre-marriage counseling should be mandatory in all states.
This won't fix anything. Love is blind; marriage itself is an eye opener. Or so it's the way I've heard it. But, in all fairness, counselling won't help. A trial in which the couple lives together for a month on a typical budget (ie - one that reflects their means) would be the best indication of their marriage. A counsellor can only do so much. After all, spoken word doesn't contain as much merit as action.

Divorces with children involved should never be ‘no-fault.’
I was the child of such a divorce and there was no issue with the 'no-fault'. After all, while the child will suffer to a degree, so do the parents. They bear the brunt of it. The child just feels it.

Government programs encouraging biological parents to both get married AND stay married while raising their children need to be developed and expanded.
No, the government needs to butt the hell out. They will only make matters worse and no one likes the bureaucratic arm of the government reaching further into their lives. Plus, staying married while unhappy fosters extremely negative household conditions, and thus prove to be detrimental to the overall development of the child.

It is actually healthier for the parents to divorce because it shows the child that there is a choice in life. It also teaches the child that if they are caught in such a situation, they can walk away - aka: if they are in a bad relationship, they aren't stuck there forever. They have the choice; they can walk away.

Marriage isn't necessarily for everyone. I was raised by divorced parents and I actually walked out of my mother's house because she remarried, and elected to live with my dad while I was still a minor because he proved to be the parent who could do what was needed to take care of his child.

Individual families should consider joining the Church, Synagogue or Mosque (of their choice) for moral and social support and educated people should stop refusing to raise families and consider choosing to have children and raising them again.
No because religion is too backward in meeting the needs of the evolving family. The family isn't what it was many years ago. A family doesn't consist of a man and wife with their child. It is much, much more these days.

Religious institutions don't help foster a positive environment for something other than the traditional family. It is too restrictive and the 'moral support' is too dated for the needs of the families of today. After all, morals are relative.

Social support can come from friends and family. You don't need some religious arrogant twat to tell you what you can and cannot do. They don't know you as well as your friends and family. Only your friends and family can truly provide the kind of support that you really need.

This is ignoring the fact that some people will refuse said support, but they can get secular support that reflects their needs as a human and attempts to address them in a way that will be overall good for them.
Potaria
20-09-2005, 17:36
I don't even see why you posted this. All it comes down to is a shrill accusation of "you hate freedom!"

Actually, it isn't. Read any of his older posts. My comment was warranted.
Kroisistan
20-09-2005, 17:41
Mmmmm-MMmm! Nothing like the smell of fresh-from-the-oven Moralism!

Preperation time: ... Dubyas still got 3 years left...

Ingredients: Social issues without easy solutions, willingness to submit to oppression, Christianity, traditionalism

Dob with theocracy, dash with an emotive appeal to our love of kids, serve hot.
Kryozerkia
20-09-2005, 17:43
Mmmmm-MMmm! Nothing like the smell of fresh-from-the-oven Moralism!

Preperation time: ... Dubyas still got 3 years left...

Ingredients: Social issues without easy solutions, willingness to submit to oppression, Christianity

Dob with theocracy, dash with an emotive appeal to our love of kids, serve hot.
You didn't include 'traditionalism' in your ingredients.
Cabra West
20-09-2005, 17:48
While I can't tell you for exactly what percentage of western society I can speak, I can assure you that "pro-marriage couseling" is the absolutely worst thing you can do to many of the already disfunctional families there are. You would really have counselors out there telling wives to stay with their violent, abusive, unloving husbands? For the sake of the children?

You have NO idea how much the mere thought enrages me. I grew up in a family like that. And I know fully well that had it not been for the well-meaning advise of family and friends to "stay with him for the sake of the children", my mother would have left my father years sooner, thus sparing me an eternity of violence and abuse, both physical and verbal. And no, I don't have psychological problems because my mother left my father. I have them because she didn't leave him sooner!

While it is true that families and marriages are no longer as long-lived as they were 100 years ago, I wouldn't really look to communism for a reason for that. Rather, the reason is that once the economic and social need to stay together till either of them finally dies is removed, many (both male and female) take the opportunity to rid themselves of the unnecessary and hurtful burden of a loveless, abusive, distant, disfunctional or otherwise negative relationship.
I had more than one talk about society both with my grandmother and, while he was alive, my great-grandfather. Family back then was not a safe haven to peacefully raise your beloved children. It was a plain necessity, same as kids were simply necessary both to work and to provide for you in old age. and if you really think children had a better chance in such an environment, think again. If their parents didn't beat them black and blue, the teachers at school did. But it's so much nicer to imagine the good old time in the soft light of nostalgia, isn't it? :rolleyes:

Looking at those statistics you provided, I can't help but ask if it isn't really the fact that the children who failed school and/or needed psychological treatment later in life had all these problems because their parents did have obvious problems and if in turn these problems wouldn't have been even worse if the parents had stayed together? I know that was the case with me, anyway. Maybe we are looking at a group of people who could have fared a lot worse if their parents hadn't taken the sensible decision to get a divorce?
Swimmingpool
20-09-2005, 17:51
Actually, it isn't. Read any of his older posts. My comment was warranted.
I'm well aware of his political biases. In any case, what you said was wholly unconstructive.
UpwardThrust
20-09-2005, 17:52
Mmmmm-MMmm! Nothing like the smell of fresh-from-the-oven Moralism!

Preperation time: ... Dubyas still got 3 years left...

Ingredients: Social issues without easy solutions, willingness to submit to oppression, Christianity, traditionalism

Dob with theocracy, dash with an emotive appeal to our love of kids, serve hot.
Lol I think I am falling in love

Want to have pre-marital sex with me? :fluffle: :fluffle:
Smunkeeville
20-09-2005, 17:53
yes marriage is pretty much a joke now

yes families are suffering

yes something needs to be done

no, I don't agree with your solutions.....
Potaria
20-09-2005, 17:54
I'm well aware of his political biases. In any case, what you said was wholly unconstructive.

Of course it wasn't constructive. It still needed to be said.
Kryozerkia
20-09-2005, 17:54
-- SNIPPITY-SNIP-SNIP --
I couldn't agree more with you. You make really good points as well (I made goods ones too! :D yay! Unabashed arrogance!).

It is overall healthier to do what you think is good for you and your family - ie divorce for the sake of the child - rather than give into status quo and live a lie. It is not only detrimental for the children's well-being but for the parents as well.
Kroisistan
20-09-2005, 17:58
Lol I think I am falling in love

Want to have pre-marital sex with me? :fluffle: :fluffle:

... perhaps... :fluffle: :fluffle:
Liskeinland
20-09-2005, 17:58
Greenlander, what you seem to be saying is that the decline of the family is due to post-Soviet ideology. I'm not quite sure how the two are linked, to be honest.
yes marriage is pretty much a joke now

yes families are suffering

yes something needs to be done

no, I don't agree with your solutions..... Yes, I agree with you. The problems are real and urgent; it saddens me that my country is taking after the US the most with regards to these problems (1/3 of UK marriages end in divorce… that is so fecked up). However, there are no easy solutions. And to blame the problems on strawmen and easy targets won't help anything, even if you do "get rid of" these supposed causes.
UnitarianUniversalists
20-09-2005, 18:01
* The evidence also shows that although the differences between children reared by married biological parents and children reared by only one biological parent are modest in percentage terms, these small differences translate into surprisingly large numbers when applied to the entire population of children. Amato reports that if the same share of
children lived with their biological parents today as did in 1980, about 300,000 fewer children between the ages of twelve and eighteen would repeat a grade, 485,000 fewer would be suspended from school, 250,000 fewer would need psychotherapy, 210,000 fewer would be involved in violence, and 30,000 fewer would attempt suicide every year.


1) Ok that is all well and good but how does it compare to other countries with even lower marriage rates and higher divorce rates? Take Sweeden or Norway for instance, their country is "better" by almost any standard: Quality of life, life expectancy, education standards, unemployment, crime rates. Perhaps we need better birthcontrol.

2) compare the ratios between those raised by a single parent with those raised in an abusive relationship and I think you will find that the single parent is much better. No fault divorce allows marriages to break up before "the shit hits the fan"



* The nation’s teen birth rate, which finally began to take a downward turn a decade ago, nevertheless exceeds that of other industrialized nations; marriage has declined precipitously, especially among minority groups; divorce has stabilized, but at one of the world’s highest levels; and one of every three children—and seven of every ten black children—are born outside marriage.[/indent]
http://www.brookings.edu/es/research/projects/wrb/publications/pb/200509foc.pdf


As you said it exceeds most industrialized nations, including nations with higher divorce rates and more single parrent than us. Sixty percent of first-born children in Denmark have unmarried parents, and yet the teen birthrate is much lower than in America.


The solution to these types of dilemmas is to first recognize them for what they are, the eroding of the human character. As the generations have passed, and the condition of the children has suffered, people often say in a derogatory way, “Look at what children are like today!” but what they should be saying is, “Look at what their parents are doing!”

Maybe, but why do countries with a worse stance on "moral values" have less problems than us? You need to seperate the variables before identifying a cause.


In addition to government controlled aspects of social life, the community wide abandonment of attending and participating in a regular religious community has been detrimental to the community as well.

America is one of the most religious nations in the world, much more religious than countries like Denmark, Sweden, etc. And yet, by nearly any measure, their communities and societies are healthier than ourts.



Solutions:
Pre-marriage counseling should be mandatory in all states.


Pre-marriage counseling is a great idea (mine helped us to a great degree), but making it mandatory is going to far. It's like sterolizing everyone until they have taken a class on parrenting.

Divorces with children involved should never be ‘no-fault.’ Government programs encouraging biological parents to both get married AND stay married while raising their children need to be developed and expanded.

Sometime divorces are indeed no fault. Isn't it better for a child to grow up in a household that is supportive than one that is arguing constantly?

Individual families should consider joining the Church, Synagogue or Mosque (of their choice) for moral and social support and educated people should stop refusing to raise families and consider choosing to have children and raising them again.

What happens with a mixed faith marriage like the one I'm in? (though it is less mixed than it could be) Or a family that wishes to raise their children completely free of religion. I think religious communities are wonderful, but for the government to encourage it is crossing the line.

Once again, America is one of the most religious nations in the world, but you point out problems that many less religious nations do not have.

As for educated people refusing to raise families, I don't know think this is the case. They might have less children than those who have not been as educated, but I think this points to better birth control not wanting no children. Besides, are you actually ENCOURAGING people who DO NOT want children to have them anyway? It seems clear to me that children will be better cared for if they are wanted and valued instead of the result of societal preasure.
Greenlander
20-09-2005, 18:04
*snip*
Looking at those statistics you provided, I can't help but ask if it isn't really the fact that the children who failed school and/or needed psychological treatment later in life had all these problems because their parents did have obvious problems and if in turn these problems wouldn't have been even worse if the parents had stayed together? I know that was the case with me, anyway. Maybe we are looking at a group of people who could have fared a lot worse if their parents hadn't taken the sensible decision to get a divorce?

Now that's just it... I didn't defend an abusive person, not at all. As far as I'm concerned, a physically violent person (parent or otherwise) should be locked in jail. Zero tolerance policy strictly enforced.

Perhaps your parents would have done better with the 'pre-marriage counseling' I suggesting, and you Mom might have avoided the first mistake (not blaming, just saying).
Cabra West
20-09-2005, 18:04
Besides, are you actually ENCOURAGING people who DO NOT want children to have them anyway? It seems clear to me that children will be better cared for if they are wanted and valued instead of the result of societal preasure.

Seconded... SO seconded.
Liskeinland
20-09-2005, 18:06
Seconded... SO seconded. So the people who like children are the ones who have them… hmm, over a period of several generations that could benefit society. Interesting.

Actually, I'm intrigued. If the US is such a "religious country" - why does it have one of the highest divorce rates? I mean, a successful marriage needs both partners to be tolerant and forgiving… and the US is supposed to be mainly Christian - or possibly that's total BS and it's hardly Christian at all. I haven't really been there.
Cabra West
20-09-2005, 18:08
Now that's just it... I didn't defend an abusive person, not at all. As far as I'm concerned, a physically violent person (parent or otherwise) should be locked in jail. Zero tolerance policy strictly enforced.

Perhaps your parents would have done better with the 'pre-marriage counseling' I suggesting, and you Mom might have avoided the first mistake (not blaming, just saying).

Sure, that WOULD have been way better, I won't argue there. But you will find that "would have been" situations are no answer to the family once it has become disfunctional and once the children suffer from it.

The fact is, if you look at those divorce statistics, and on the whole situation of those families, you will find an enormous amout of violence that happened or that will definitely happen should the situation continue. And you ar esaying they should stay together for the kids sake??? I'm sorry, but that sounds neither practical nor desireable to me at all.

Edit : It's not very practicable to send all abusive people to jail. If Germany's legal system hadn't forced my father to pay for us, I seriously doubt either me nor any of my brothers could have finished our education.
Cabra West
20-09-2005, 18:11
So the people who like children are the ones who have them… hmm, over a period of several generations that could benefit society. Interesting.

Actually, I'm intrigued. If the US is such a "religious country" - why does it have one of the highest divorce rates? I mean, a successful marriage needs both partners to be tolerant and forgiving… and the US is supposed to be mainly Christian - or possibly that's total BS and it's hardly Christian at all. I haven't really been there.

*lol
I'm from a country that is largely Christian as well. That says nothing at all about the compassion or general behaviour of the population...
Liskeinland
20-09-2005, 18:12
Edit : It's not very practicable to send all abusive people to jail. If Germany's legal system hadn't forced my father to pay for us, I seriously doubt either me nor any of my brothers could have finished our education. You could do both, work in jail to pay for your education. But I'm sidetracking.

Does anyone think that there are actually any things APPROACHING solutions for the decline of family and that part of society? Or do you think it's not a problem?
Vegas-Rex
20-09-2005, 18:12
Now that's just it... I didn't defend an abusive person, not at all. As far as I'm concerned, a physically violent person (parent or otherwise) should be locked in jail. Zero tolerance policy strictly enforced.

Perhaps your parents would have done better with the 'pre-marriage counseling' I suggesting, and you Mom might have avoided the first mistake (not blaming, just saying).

Then how do you propose to deal with abusive relationships? What do you do when the abusive parent gets out of jail and gets back together with their spouse? If they can't divorce easily, how are you going to break up abusive marriages?

As for the premarital counseling thing: I agree that it's a good idea, but making it mandatory is going a bit too far. After all, counseling is one of the most inexact sciences in existence. Perhaps making counseling free, anonymous, and easy to access is a better option.
UnitarianUniversalists
20-09-2005, 18:19
Actually, I'm intrigued. If the US is such a "religious country" - why does it have one of the highest divorce rates? I mean, a successful marriage needs both partners to be tolerant and forgiving… and the US is supposed to be mainly Christian - or possibly that's total BS and it's hardly Christian at all. I haven't really been there.

Hehe... it's one of the irornies of the US. In fact, the Souther Baptists have a worse divorce rate and less children born out of wedlock than atheists.

If you doubt it: The Institute for Social Research at the University of Michigan periodically conducts the World Values Survey. It polls a statistically valid sample of adults from a total of 60 nations. Some of their findings from their 1995-1997 survey:

The United States has a higher level of church attendance than any other country which is "at a comparable level of development."
53% of Americans consider religion to be very important in their lives. This compares with 16% in Britain, 14% in France and 13% in Germany.


Percent of adults who attend religious services at least once a week:

Ireland 84%
United States 44%
Belgium 44%
Canada 38%
Netherlands 35%
Austria 30%
Britain 27%
France 21%
Switzerland 16%
Germany 14%
Denmark 5%
Norway 5%
Sweden 4%
Japan 3%
(Maranatha Christian Journal, "Study: Fewer Americans Seek Spiritual Answers From Church)
Greenlander
20-09-2005, 18:19
1) Ok that is all well and good but how does it compare to other countries with even lower marriage rates and higher divorce rates? Take Sweeden or Norway for instance, their country is "better" by almost any standard: Quality of life, life expectancy, education standards, unemployment, crime rates. Perhaps we need better birthcontrol.


No, that's not a realistic assessment. The population of Sweden is less than 10 million. The population of Sweden should be compared to something like just Minnesota, in which case, the comparison would be more meaningful.

In addition to that though, ethnic and racial diversity also have a great affect on such studies, I could easily change my entire argument to show how anti-family policies are ultimately anti African American policies (for example) because they are statistically and without any doubt the most severely harmed by single parent non marriage households...
Cabra West
20-09-2005, 18:21
You could do both, work in jail to pay for your education. But I'm sidetracking.
I seriously doubt it. Getting 3 kids through school and supporting them at university is nothing you can pay for on a prison salary...


Does anyone think that there are actually any things APPROACHING solutions for the decline of family and that part of society? Or do you think it's not a problem?

Personally, I don't see it as a real problem. Society is changing, the traditional family is no longer vital and therefore it will slowly disappear. The problem is that people tend to get nostalgic and put way to much weight on antiquated family values. In my opinion, we should stop to desperately cling to the old model with two parents of opposite sex, and open up to all alternatives.
Smunkeeville
20-09-2005, 18:22
*lol
I'm from a country that is largely Christian as well. That says nothing at all about the compassion or general behaviour of the population...
It is important to remember that not everyone who calls themselves a Christian actually is one. In my experience a lot of people have figured out that if the say they are a Christian that the evangelicals will leave them alone.


I think one of the big problems in America has been the feeling that marriage is the "next logical step" so a lot of people get married because "well, we were dating for a long time and have been living together, and anyway why not get married?"

Although, I don't believe in cohabitating I think that getting married when one doesn't understand the life long commitment or feels that they 'have' to because they have been together so long is almost always a disaster waiting to happen.

Pre-marital counseling is good, but most people don't get as indepth as needed. A good premarital counselor will break up quite a few engagments. I went through pre-marital counseling and it was so far the most emotional time of my entire marriage. I don't think it should be forced on couples, that just wouldn't be American.... besides if you aren't willing to put work into a marriage, then why get married in the first place?
Cabra West
20-09-2005, 18:23
No, that's not a realistic assessment. The population of Sweden is less than 10 million. The population of Sweden should be compared to something like just Minnesota, in which case, the comparison would be more meaningful.

In addition to that though, ethnic and racial diversity also have a great affect on such studies, I could easily change my entire argument to show how anti-family policies are ultimately anti African American policies (for example) because they are statistically and without any doubt the most severely harmed by single parent non marriage households...

He was talking about rates, not absolutes. The comparisson is valid...
Vegas-Rex
20-09-2005, 18:24
No, that's not a realistic assessment. The population of Sweden is less than 10 million. The population of Sweden should be compared to something like just Minnesota, in which case, the comparison would be more meaningful.

In addition to that though, ethnic and racial diversity also have a great affect on such studies, I could easily change my entire argument to show how anti-family policies are ultimately anti African American policies (for example) because they are statistically and without any doubt the most severely harmed by single parent non marriage households...

As in there are more of them, or as in there are worse ones?

You're right that most of the "look, Europe is better than the US" analogies ignore the fact that Europe also has less poor people.
Liskeinland
20-09-2005, 18:27
It is important to remember that not everyone who calls themselves a Christian actually is one. In my experience a lot of people have figured out that if the say they are a Christian that the evangelicals will leave them alone. I've heard it's more fun to say you're a death cultist and brandish an ornate knife.
Personally, I don't see it as a real problem. Society is changing, the traditional family is no longer vital and therefore it will slowly disappear. The problem is that people tend to get nostalgic and put way to much weight on antiquated family values. In my opinion, we should stop to desperately cling to the old model with two parents of opposite sex, and open up to all alternatives. That's a little harsh - "antiquated". You seem to be implying that it's out of date and dying - which isn't true. A great deal of people still go for the "old" (for want of a better term) family. Also, it's more stable for society (of course, so was militaristic fascism), and biologically is the best environment for children - at least, the best which has been found.
Trust me, you still find a lot of people who like the idea of the traditional family (like me), although it's actually different and rebellious now! And believe me, I'm in no way nostalgic about the "bygone era".
Greenlander
20-09-2005, 18:29
Edit : It's not very practicable to send all abusive people to jail. If Germany's legal system hadn't forced my father to pay for us, I seriously doubt either me nor any of my brothers could have finished our education.

... No, violent people should be jail, what would stop him from re-marrying and doing it to another spouse and kids? Nothing. Physically violent/abuse adults need to be treated as criminals because that's what they are. Society should not tolerate any level of abuse in or outside of the home. And thus, I consider that a different issue altogether, outside of 'no-fault' divorce, because that would be 'fault divorce with penalties,' which I do advocate.
UnitarianUniversalists
20-09-2005, 18:29
Does anyone think that there are actually any things APPROACHING solutions for the decline of family and that part of society? Or do you think it's not a problem?

Inexpensive birth control and good education on how to use it. Reduce societal preasure on adults to have children making sure that only those who want them do have children. Legalize gay marriage, this will help make the orientation more acceptable and therefore less closeted people will feel preasure to enter into marriages that are doomed to failure. Honest and responsible talk about what marriage involves: It's hard work, you shouldn't get into it if you aren't ready to sacrifice some of what you want. You will not always feel love ever day toward your spouce but then it's even more important to act in a loving way towards them when you aren't getting along.
Fass
20-09-2005, 18:29
Percent of adults who attend religious services at least once a week:

Sweden 4%

Woohoo! I so like living here. :)
Liskeinland
20-09-2005, 18:32
Inexpensive birth control and good education on how to use it. Reduce societal preasure on adults to have children making sure that only those who want them do have children. Um… what? It's VERY expensive to have children - there aren't any pressures (as far as I know). Developed countries tend to have low birthrates - in Britain the population is likely to actually go down.

I really don't see why people can't just be nice and patient and tolerant and forgiving in marriages. It's not much to ask. :(
UnitarianUniversalists
20-09-2005, 18:32
No, that's not a realistic assessment. The population of Sweden is less than 10 million. The population of Sweden should be compared to something like just Minnesota, in which case, the comparison would be more meaningful.

In addition to that though, ethnic and racial diversity also have a great affect on such studies, I could easily change my entire argument to show how anti-family policies are ultimately anti African American policies (for example) because they are statistically and without any doubt the most severely harmed by single parent non marriage households...

But my point stands: You have not seperated your variables, you have identified the problem but it have much more than one cause.
Cabra West
20-09-2005, 18:35
... No, violent people should be jail, what would stop him from re-marrying and doing it to another spouse and wife? Nothing. Physically violent/abuse adults need to be treated as criminals because that's what they are. Society should not tolerate any level of abuse in or outside of the home. And thus, I consider that a different issue altogether, outside of 'no-fault' divorce, because that would be 'fault divorce with penalties,' which I do advocate.

Fault needs to be proven first. It would have been an impossible ordeal for my mother, who found the divorce hard enough as it were, shunned by her family. I don't care who's fault it was, I was glad it was over. And over soon. If she had been forced to prove my father's fault, it would have taken an immense amount of time and would have traumatised me even further. All that happened 17 years ago, and I'm only now begining to slowly come to terms with it. If I had been forced to give evidence against him at that time, chances are I would have ended up in a mental institution.
Stephistan
20-09-2005, 18:35
http://www.brookings.edu/es/research/projects/wrb/publications/pb/200509foc.pdf

Just look at the source, this are where little Neo-Cons are made. ;)
Cabra West
20-09-2005, 18:38
Um… what? It's VERY expensive to have children - there aren't any pressures (as far as I know). Developed countries tend to have low birthrates - in Britain the population is likely to actually go down.

I really don't see why people can't just be nice and patient and tolerant and forgiving in marriages. It's not much to ask. :(

"It's easy to love mankind, but it's hard to love a human being" - Berthold Brecht

Just look around you - why do you think people would be any different in a marriage than they are anywhere else?
Greenlander
20-09-2005, 18:41
But my point stands: You have not seperated your variables, you have identified the problem but it have much more than one cause.

Your point does not stand. Both Minnesota and Sweden can be shown to be better than Mississippi (for example) already, but my point is that they both can and should improve their own rates when compared to themselves. By doing more of what I suggested.
Liskeinland
20-09-2005, 18:42
"It's easy to love mankind, but it's hard to love a human being" - Berthold Brecht

Just look around you - why do you think people would be any different in a marriage than they are anywhere else? I don't have much trouble with loving human beings, but I find it hard to love mankind, personally.

I don't think they would. I just wish people would be more kind and thoughtful and less inclined to pass judgement. And - ooh, look, that pig's growing wings!
Cabra West
20-09-2005, 18:44
Your point does not stand. Both Minnesota and Sweden can be shown to be better than Mississippi (for example) already, but my point is that they both can and should improve their own rates when compared to themselves. By doing more of what I suggested.

And you could improve unemployment rates by forcing people to work for a dollar a day. That won't improve their quality of life, it only would improve your numbers. That same is true for those suggestions you made there...
UnitarianUniversalists
20-09-2005, 18:45
Um… what? It's VERY expensive to have children - there aren't any pressures (as far as I know). Developed countries tend to have low birthrates - in Britain the population is likely to actually go down.

It may be different in Britian than it is here, but I can't count the number of times that I've heard a radio talkshow host saying that it is God's will for married couples to have children and those who do not are being selfish.

Developed countries usually do have low birthrate, do to access to birth control and less presure for women to have children.

I really don't see why people can't just be nice and patient and tolerant and forgiving in marriages. It's not much to ask. :(

I think that many people expect marriage to be a wonderful, worry-free, relationship where you don't have any problems except cute little arguements about what movie to go see. Marriage is wonderful, and it's exhausting, and it's full of tough compromises on important subjects (like where to live, how to spend money, etc), and it involves giving more to someone than you ever have before which many people are not ready for.
Greenlander
20-09-2005, 18:47
Just look at the source, this are where little Neo-Cons are made. ;)

You are kidding right? Yale, Columbia and Harvard are somehow better than Princeton University?
Cabra West
20-09-2005, 18:47
I don't have much trouble with loving human beings, but I find it hard to love mankind, personally.

I don't think they would. I just wish people would be more kind and thoughtful and less inclined to pass judgement. And - ooh, look, that pig's growing wings!

http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b24/cabrawest/flyingpig.gif
Liskeinland
20-09-2005, 18:49
I think that many people expect marriage to be a wonderful, worry-free, relationship where you don't have any problems except cute little arguements about what movie to go see. Marriage is wonderful, and it's exhausting, and it's full of tough compromises on important subjects (like where to live, how to spend money, etc), and it involves giving more to someone than you ever have before which many people are not ready for. Hence, marriage counselling. Or just trying to imagine living with this person and sharing everything with them for the rest of your life. And IMO, pre-nups really are starting things off on the wrong foot… it's not good to go into a life-long committment assuming you are likely to split.
Yes, society and people are too selfish nowadays. :(
UnitarianUniversalists
20-09-2005, 18:49
Your point does not stand. Both Minnesota and Sweden can be shown to be better than Mississippi (for example) already, but my point is that they both can and should improve their own rates when compared to themselves. By doing more of what I suggested.

But marriage rates are not the only thing that has changed in our society. There is a bigger gap between the rich and poor, and many other things.
Cabra West
20-09-2005, 18:50
Hence, marriage counselling. Or just trying to imagine living with this person and sharing everything with them for the rest of your life. And IMO, pre-nups really are starting things off on the wrong foot… it's not good to go into a life-long committment assuming you are likely to split.
Yes, society and people are too selfish nowadays. :(

Forgive me, but at what time exactly have they ever been less selfish?
Greenlander
20-09-2005, 18:52
I think that many people expect marriage to be a wonderful, worry-free, relationship where you don't have any problems except cute little arguements about what movie to go see. Marriage is wonderful, and it's exhausting, and it's full of tough compromises on important subjects (like where to live, how to spend money, etc), and it involves giving more to someone than you ever have before which many people are not ready for.


:eek:

You better be careful, you are starting to say stuff that I agree with! :D
UnitarianUniversalists
20-09-2005, 18:55
Hence, marriage counselling. Or just trying to imagine living with this person and sharing everything with them for the rest of your life. (edit to fix quote)

Yes, but I think a big part of it is we've lost our established roles in a family with the father as head of the household. (mind you I think this is a GREAT thing since I can be a stay at home dad and my wife can continue being a doctor when we have kids) Since we have moved into more of a partnership form of marriage, the husband has realized that he can't get everything he wants and the wife realized she doesn't have put up with things she doesn't want. This means we have to learn a new way to settle disagreements, since the old way modled by many of our parrents (I know mine are included) does not work anymore.
Greenlander
20-09-2005, 18:57
But marriage rates are not the only thing that has changed in our society. There is a bigger gap between the rich and poor, and many other things.


Marriage affects the financial standing of the children in the household. Married couple tend to have more income in the household than non-married single parents. The economics of raising children goes hand in hand with marriage.
UnitarianUniversalists
20-09-2005, 19:00
:eek:

You better be careful, you are starting to say stuff that I agree with! :D

:p yes that's why I want to keep divorce the way it is. People make mistakes when do not realize what marriage entails, we need to be able to fix those mistakes instead of forcing people to live (unhappily) with them.

I think marriage is going through a transition right now, the old ways do not work for many couples but we haven't been shown new ways so we are wading through a period of trial and error until we can adjust to this new form of "partnership marriage"
Stephistan
20-09-2005, 20:07
You are kidding right? Yale, Columbia and Harvard are somehow better than Princeton University?

No, it's the tie to Brookings..
Kryozerkia
20-09-2005, 21:12
Hence, marriage counselling. Or just trying to imagine living with this person and sharing everything with them for the rest of your life. And IMO, pre-nups really are starting things off on the wrong foot… it's not good to go into a life-long committment assuming you are likely to split.
Yes, society and people are too selfish nowadays. :(
If there is a pre-nup, it should be used for postive reasons - to ensure that both spouses will serve in the marriage as equals and both take responsibility et cetera...

You know... a trial in which the two live together for a month or two would be better than having counselling, as experience equates to more in this case.
Muravyets
20-09-2005, 21:17
Family structures are changing. This is only a temporary problem. It is scary to those who fear change and need society to approve norms for them to conform to in order to feel secure within their group (this describes most of humanity, more's the pity).

I wish we could abolish marriage altogether, as a legal/societal concept. It's not an inevitable system. The Mosuo people, an ethnic minority within China, don't use it. In their system, couples don't marry and don't cohabit. They visit each other. It's neverending dating, essentially (like a woman I met once who had been dating the same man for 46 years! Wow!). Children are raised by the woman and her family. Her brothers, uncles, etc. provide male role models and perform the duties we associate with fathers. I'm sure the biological father is allowed to participate in the raising of his children, but he is not required to. Apparently, domestic violence is unknown among them. Obviously, so is divorce. How's that for a solution?

A google search came up with a lot of articles. Here's an introductory piece with further links:

http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/rough/2005/07/introduction_tolinks.html
Swimmingpool
20-09-2005, 21:20
Just look at the source, this are where little Neo-Cons are made. ;)
Pfft, I bet you consider Pope Benedict 16 to be a Neo-con. What does that word even mean to you?

Forgive me, but at what time exactly have they ever been less selfish?
Before capitalism became a god. That's my least faovurite thing about modern Ireland. People are so much more selfish now.
Smunkeeville
20-09-2005, 21:23
If there is a pre-nup, it should be used for postive reasons - to ensure that both spouses will serve in the marriage as equals and both take responsibility et cetera...

You know... a trial in which the two live together for a month or two would be better than having counselling, as experience equates to more in this case.
there are studies that show that couples who cohabitate before marriage have a higher divorce rate than those who don't


*still trying to find a link
Cabra West
20-09-2005, 21:54
there are studies that show that couples who cohabitate before marriage have a higher divorce rate than those who don't


*still trying to find a link

Given that the number of couples that don't cohabit is extremely small (almost nonexistant, I would say) in most western countries, and given also that those couples who decide not to cohabit before marriage do so for religious reasons which in turn are a very strong reason for them not to get a divorce, that doesn't really surprise me.
However, I don't think that advocating non-cohabitation before marriage as a way to prevent divorces shows an understanding of the social situation, nor do I think it would be a viable course of action....
UnitarianUniversalists
20-09-2005, 21:57
there are studies that show that couples who cohabitate before marriage have a higher divorce rate than those who don't


*still trying to find a link

Again, need to seperate variables. It can well be that couples that don't cohabitate are more religious and stay in a loveless, disfunctional relationship because of preasure too.
Smunkeeville
20-09-2005, 22:49
Given that the number of couples that don't cohabit is extremely small (almost nonexistant, I would say) in most western countries, and given also that those couples who decide not to cohabit before marriage do so for religious reasons which in turn are a very strong reason for them not to get a divorce, that doesn't really surprise me.
However, I don't think that advocating non-cohabitation before marriage as a way to prevent divorces shows an understanding of the social situation, nor do I think it would be a viable course of action....
I see your point about the study being unreliable.
I don't advocate cohabitation at all, I think it is asking for trouble but, I am unable to scientifically prove that, just my opinion from my own observations.

I found an interesting website that has part of the study on it that I was talking about and a lot of other interesting stuff too. In case anyone is interested here ya go (http://www.divorcereform.org/cor.html#anchor2348930)
Greenlander
20-09-2005, 23:13
Given that the number of couples that don't cohabit is extremely small (almost nonexistant, I would say) in most western countries, and given also that those couples who decide not to cohabit before marriage do so for religious reasons which in turn are a very strong reason for them not to get a divorce, that doesn't really surprise me.
However, I don't think that advocating non-cohabitation before marriage as a way to prevent divorces shows an understanding of the social situation, nor do I think it would be a viable course of action....

I don't think I agree with that. Co-Habitating couples do not seem to have any measurable benefit to encourage a better marriage, in fact, statistically speaking, they seem to do more harm than good...

Illinois statistics show that there is:
* Greater rates of unhappiness, dissatisfaction, and dysfunctional relationship behavior (domestic abuse, unfaithfulness, high amounts of conflict) exist in cohabiting relationships.

*Couples living together before marriage have a greater rate of divorce than those who did not live together.

*Over one-third of all cohabiting relationships involve children. These children are at greater risk to be physically and/or sexually abused, and they are more likely to repeat the high risk relationship behaviors of their parent(s).
http://www.chicagolandmarriage.org/marriagestatistics.htm

And forgoing marriage at all with just the intent of co-habitating perpetually is not any better. Among the findings in other reports are that: unmarried cohabitations overall are less stable than marriages. The probability of a first marriage ending in separation or divorce within 5 years is 20 percent, but the probability of a premarital cohabitation breaking up within 5 years is 49 percent. After 10 years, the probability of a first marriage ending is 33 percent, compared with 62 percent for cohabitations.
Greenlander
20-09-2005, 23:26
Again, need to seperate variables. It can well be that couples that don't cohabitate are more religious and stay in a loveless, disfunctional relationship because of preasure too.

No, that's supposition. You can theorize that but then you need to go and find if that is happening as you predict.

I suggest that it is not happening like that, but that the data shows that because the religious person is 'statistically' more likely to have married someone of the same mind as themselves AND that they are more likely to have gone through pre-marriage counseling courses before marriage (dissolving the unhappy marriages before they occur), AND that they are more likely to have more devotion to making their marriage work (before giving up), creating a more favorable environment for the odds of them actually achieving and being a successful marriage...

However, I did not prove my supposition either, just pointing out that we are both supposing with the same data source results.


EDIT: p.s., added new data snippets to first post for clarity about 'why' divorce (or no marriage at all) is bad for kids.
Ph33rdom
21-09-2005, 01:32
I read ahead (but not all the way) I didn't see anyone answer this, thought I'd give it a stab.

So basically parents that can no longer stand eachother should stay together and let their children watch until something does happen?

It seems to me that people who cannot 'stand' each other should still be able to co-exist with each other without developing into an abusive situation. So, I think, from the sake of the children, a third, fourth and fifth (whatever) voice in the relationship should have 'some equal protection from the law. Child custody rights maybe should mandate a higher level of punishment from the divorcing parents if they to say why they want a divorce.

Someone asked something like this the other day, in regards to adultery. And like I said there, perhaps children should be able to sue the parent who cheats or otherwise 'causes' the unhappy family/divorce./abuse etc., for damages above and beyond child support.

Not adopted children?

Wouldn't adopted children already live with parents who have gone through pre-child counseling and established their homes as financially ready and themselves as emotionally ready? If adoptive parents aren't 'really' ready and seek a divorce while the child is still at home, then they should fall into the category above too, IMO. Sue the lying bastards... :p
Muravyets
21-09-2005, 03:44
I read ahead (but not all the way) I didn't see anyone answer this, thought I'd give it a stab.



It seems to me that people who cannot 'stand' each other should still be able to co-exist with each other without developing into an abusive situation. So, I think, from the sake of the children, a third, fourth and fifth (whatever) voice in the relationship should have 'some equal protection from the law. Child custody rights maybe should mandate a higher level of punishment from the divorcing parents if they to say why they want a divorce.

Someone asked something like this the other day, in regards to adultery. And like I said there, perhaps children should be able to sue the parent who cheats or otherwise 'causes' the unhappy family/divorce./abuse etc., for damages above and beyond child support.



Wouldn't adopted children already live with parents who have gone through pre-child counseling and established their homes as financially ready and themselves as emotionally ready? If adoptive parents aren't 'really' ready and seek a divorce while the child is still at home, then they should fall into the category above too, IMO. Sue the lying bastards... :p
Oh, yeah, that's a GREAT idea. It'll keep them all busy at any rate.

My grandparents couldn't stand each other but stayed together (nobody knows why). Their relationship was one of mutual resentment and malicious interference. The only activity they shared was trying to destroy all of each other's endeavors. The poison spread to all their other relationships, including my mom and me. I spent most of my childhood watching them plot against each other, and against my mom, and against me (it got to be a habit with them). Neither of them ever cheated or raised a hand against the other, but it was a psychological hell nobody in the house could escape. I blame them for not divorcing. My mom married and divorced several times. I'm opposed to marriage as an institution. That's the effect of being raised by a couple who stay together without love.
Ph33rdom
21-09-2005, 05:15
*snip*

I doubt that their only problem was that they stayed together without love... You think they both only need to have separated and then they both would have lived happily ever after? I think not.

It is more likely that they would lead their lives of misery from one place to the next. People can find a way to be miserable wherever they are, and if they insist, nobody can stop them. This is not likely a marriage issue though, it is not the fault of marriage at all. What they have is an issue that requires somebody to stop choosing to be miserable anymore and to choose to live in a new way.
Cabra West
21-09-2005, 09:43
I don't think I agree with that. Co-Habitating couples do not seem to have any measurable benefit to encourage a better marriage, in fact, statistically speaking, they seem to do more harm than good...

Illinois statistics show that there is:
* Greater rates of unhappiness, dissatisfaction, and dysfunctional relationship behavior (domestic abuse, unfaithfulness, high amounts of conflict) exist in cohabiting relationships.

What are the numbers here?
I can only talk of personal experience, and I have to say that cohabiting couples normally simply split up if the situation turns negative, unlike married couples who have to go through a legal and costly process in order to rid themselves of the negative influence they have on each other.


*Couples living together before marriage have a greater rate of divorce than those who did not live together.

Again, the number would be interesting, as there is a vast imbalance in the number of people who cohabit to the number of people who don't.
And yes, people who don't cohabit are in most cases religiously motivated and therefore will consider divorce only in the utmost extreme cases, after suffering much damage and causing more damage to their children (see my mother)


*Over one-third of all cohabiting relationships involve children. These children are at greater risk to be physically and/or sexually abused, and they are more likely to repeat the high risk relationship behaviors of their parent(s).
http://www.chicagolandmarriage.org/marriagestatistics.htm

Again, no numbers...
Please keep in mind that, due to divorce, you are looking on the one side at children from functional marriages, from parents who still have a good relationship and who can concentrate fully on their children. On the other side, you are looking at children who suffered from their parents disfunctional relationship while they were still married, then from the effects of the divorce (and let me tell you, even if you hate your father as much as I do, seeing through a divorce is a physically and mentally draining process) and then suffer from the consequences of having one parent who is emotionally less stable due to the process they went through, and who is due to current legislation not as financially secure as the parent who doesn't have custody...
However, this is still the better option than forcing people to live in disfunctional families, surrounded by people they hate and despise.


And forgoing marriage at all with just the intent of co-habitating perpetually is not any better. Among the findings in other reports are that: unmarried cohabitations overall are less stable than marriages. The probability of a first marriage ending in separation or divorce within 5 years is 20 percent, but the probability of a premarital cohabitation breaking up within 5 years is 49 percent. After 10 years, the probability of a first marriage ending is 33 percent, compared with 62 percent for cohabitations.

Of course they are lass stable. That's the whole point, isn't it? They are so much more flexible to react to changes, they don't have to first get the money for lawyers to get a divorce, they are so much more honest and therefore better for both partners...
Mesatecala
21-09-2005, 09:46
Look don't argue with greenlander. He's not worth the wasted energy. He won't change his mind and sticks to a few highly disputable, incorrect sources. I've already dealt with him on the falsehoods he spread about gay people.
Cabra West
21-09-2005, 09:48
I doubt that their only problem was that they stayed together without love... You think they both only need to have separated and then they both would have lived happily ever after? I think not.

It is more likely that they would lead their lives of misery from one place to the next. People can find a way to be miserable wherever they are, and if they insist, nobody can stop them. This is not likely a marriage issue though, it is not the fault of marriage at all. What they have is an issue that requires somebody to stop choosing to be miserable anymore and to choose to live in a new way.

I think you are being extremely naive here.
Yes, some people are miserable. Some may be miserable whatever the circumstances. But you will find that there are a lot of situations in life that WILL make any person miserable, and a loveless marriage as described by Muravyets is one of them.
Nobody appreciates to be caged in with another person he/she despises and begins to hate in time, and it is nothing but a normal reaction to vent that frustration on others.
Cabra West
21-09-2005, 09:49
Look don't argue with greenlander. He's not worth the wasted energy. He won't change his mind and sticks to a few highly disputable, incorrect sources. I've already dealt with him on the falsehoods he spead about gay people.

I know, but it's fun ;)
Laerod
21-09-2005, 09:56
I don't think I agree with that. Co-Habitating couples do not seem to have any measurable benefit to encourage a better marriage, in fact, statistically speaking, they seem to do more harm than good...Statistically speaking religion seems to do more harm than good. Remember the Spanish Inquisition, 30 Years War, Witch Hunts, genocide of the American Indians, the Mormon wars, the conflict in Northern Ireland, the crusades, pogroms against the Jews, the KKK? And that's only Christianity. And yet you clearly advocated that couples should join a religious community, even though, statistically speaking, that would be harmful.
I don't believe that religion should be abolished, since the case for doing so rests on as shaky ground as your case for going against co-habitating.
Mesatecala
21-09-2005, 09:58
Statistically speaking religion seems to do more harm than good. Remember the Spanish Inquisition, 30 Years War, Witch Hunts, genocide of the American Indians, the Mormon wars, the conflict in Northern Ireland, the crusades, pogroms against the Jews, the KKK? And that's only Christianity. And yet you clearly advocated that couples should join a religious community, even though, statistically speaking, that would be harmful.
I don't believe that religion should be abolished, since the case for doing so rests on as shaky ground as your case for going against co-habitating.

I normally don't say this when having a conversation with you.. but BULLS EYE. Religion shouldn't be abolished as it is good for some people in its moderate forms, but it has been responsible for massares and atrocities.
Laerod
21-09-2005, 10:10
I normally don't say this when having a conversation with you.. but BULLS EYE. Religion shouldn't be abolished as it is good for some people in its moderate forms, but it has been responsible for massares and atrocities.Well, I wasn't arguing against (or for) religion, I was just pointing out a flaw in his logic against cohabitation. But it's nice for you to agree with me for once :)
Now, I question his logic that people shouldn't find out whether they are capable of living together before getting married. I get along fine with my siblings, for instance... IF WE DON'T SHARE THE SAME LIVING SPACE. Cohabitation is technically a good way of preventing marriages that would end in divorce because the two people wouldn't be able to get along.
Greenlander
21-09-2005, 15:15
Statistically speaking religion seems to do more harm than good. Remember the Spanish Inquisition, 30 Years War, Witch Hunts, genocide of the American Indians, the Mormon wars, the conflict in Northern Ireland, the crusades, pogroms against the Jews, the KKK? And that's only Christianity. And yet you clearly advocated that couples should join a religious community, even though, statistically speaking, that would be harmful.
I don't believe that religion should be abolished, since the case for doing so rests on as shaky ground as your case for going against co-habitating.

That’s not an argument about statistics at all, that’s a sweeping generalization that tries to justify your particular brand of bigotry and stereotyping reasons for your hatred or religious beliefs and those that practice them.

Some people like to say that an argument uses too wide a brush when they cover the innocent with the guilty, but you didn’t use a brush here at all, you just threw the entire bucket of paint…

Well, I wasn't arguing against (or for) religion, I was just pointing out a flaw in his logic against cohabitation. But it's nice for you to agree with me for once :)
Now, I question his logic that people shouldn't find out whether they are capable of living together before getting married. I get along fine with my siblings, for instance... IF WE DON'T SHARE THE SAME LIVING SPACE. Cohabitation is technically a good way of preventing marriages that would end in divorce because the two people wouldn't be able to get along.

You didn’t point out any flaw in my logic, it wasn’t my logic to begin with. Despite what your theory has induced you to believe and predict, the data does not support your theory that ‘practice’ would make for better marriages. For whatever reasons, your theory turns out to not be supported by the evidence.

And as far as your attack that religion does not help individual families and people that try it do more harm than good, where is you data or evidence to support such a claim? All the data I find seems to suggest that families that attend religious services regularly also eat meals together, spend more time together, are less likely to have delinquency problems and school academic problems and higher graduation rated and higher education attendance.

In fact, when compared to the rest of the community, when two people of similar religious back-ground and belief systems get married, they do better in a host of areas, not just their children raising aspect: Now I'm using the staight facts, not tainted facts. Conservatism can go both ways, but the truth is, it leans in favor of religioun being a beneficial thing overall.

There is a substantial literature on marital religious homogamy demonstrating that when husbands and wives are similar with regards to religious affiliation, practice, and belief, they report greater personal well-being, more satisfaction with their marital relationships, less abuse in the relationship, and a lower likelihood of divorce (Chi & Houseknecht 1983; Glenn 1982; Heaton 1984; Heaton & Pratt 1990; Lehrer & Chiswick 1993). Ellison, Bartkowski & Anderson (1999) push theorizing about religious homogamy further by testing effects of the magnitude and direction of religious dissimilarity on domestic violence. Their findings indicate that when husbands are more theologically conservative than their wives, they are more likely to act violently towards their wives, compared to husbands who are less conservative, or as conservative, as their wives.

Our findings suggest that the influence of an adolescent’s own religiosity on his/her participation in delinquent acts depends on how religious (or not religious) his/her mother is, which furthers the study of how religion affects delinquency. More broadly, these findings contribute to studies of religious influence on a variety of outcomes across the life course by demonstrating the importance of conceptualizing religious influence within a social context. Individuals are embedded in larger social structures, and for adolescents, it is critical to incorporate the family structure to decipher the ways in which religiosity shapes delinquency. In addition, studies of family well-being might benefit from incorporating family religious dynamics in models predicting other family and child outcomes such as intergenerational support and exchange or children’s self-esteem.
http://www.youthandreligion.org/publications/docs/Social_Forces_June_2004.pdf#search='children%20in%20religious%20families%20studies'
Alinania
21-09-2005, 15:41
It seems to me that people who cannot 'stand' each other should still be able to co-exist with each other without developing into an abusive situation. So, I think, from the sake of the children, a third, fourth and fifth (whatever) voice in the relationship should have 'some equal protection from the law. Child custody rights maybe should mandate a higher level of punishment from the divorcing parents if they to say why they want a divorce.

Someone asked something like this the other day, in regards to adultery. And like I said there, perhaps children should be able to sue the parent who cheats or otherwise 'causes' the unhappy family/divorce./abuse etc., for damages above and beyond child support.

It seems to me, that people who don't want to live together, shouldn't do so. Especially not 'for the sake of the children', because it's just not the same.
I don't know whether you have any experience with this, but to me, it seems acceptable to divorce, even if you have children. There are many cases where it went right.
And about the sueing part: have you tried to imagine the situation at all??
(Besides the fact that you simply cannot blame one single person if two don't love each other anymore.)
My parents divorced when I was little. It might not always have been easy, but sueing my dad because he remarried?? no way! It's my dad!
(So even though theoretically (by law) I could sue my dad for not supporting me financially, I don't. I just can't.)
Laerod
21-09-2005, 16:22
That’s not an argument about statistics at all, that’s a sweeping generalization that tries to justify your particular brand of bigotry and stereotyping reasons for your hatred or religious beliefs and those that practice them.Just because you are unwilling to admit that to an observer who has never encountered religion as an institution that the same thing that brings forth immense amounts of compassion and charity has also spawned countless conflicts and atrocities could well be considered to do "more harm than good", doesn't mean this isn't the case.
Now, I just got up to ask my dad whether he had the the impression that I hate religious beliefs and those that practice them, and he said no. I don't know how much you value the word of a Southern Baptist though.
And please explain to me why the arguement "seems to do more harm than good" applies to cohabitation and not religion. I personally don't think it applies to either.

Some people like to say that an argument uses too wide a brush when they cover the innocent with the guilty, but you didn’t use a brush here at all, you just threw the entire bucket of paint…Lovely. You have yet to make an arguement against what I said besides attacking me personally.
You didn’t point out any flaw in my logic, it wasn’t my logic to begin with. Despite what your theory has induced you to believe and predict, the data does not support your theory that ‘practice’ would make for better marriages. For whatever reasons, your theory turns out to not be supported by the evidence.I was attacking that you were saying that just because something "seems to do more harm than good" it should be prevented. I pointed out that that logic applies to religion as well. If you aren't willing to apply it to other cases, don't apply it at all.

And as far as your attack that religion does not help individual families and people that try it do more harm than good, where is you data or evidence to support such a claim? My "attack" against religion implied that religion does good. The "claim" was that it did "more harm than good". Considering the amount of harm religion has managed to do, there is a lot of good that it can have done without being more than the harm.
As for evidence, I speak from personal experience. People tend to have completely different relationships when they live together than when they are apart. This has happened to me often enough. I've also noticed that people living together tend to "rub" against eachother more often, causing friction. I hypothesize that people that do not marry because they found they can't live together is a way of preventing said couples from divorcing, since they never married in the first place.
All the data I find seems to suggest that families that attend religious services regularly also eat meals together, spend more time together, are less likely to have delinquency problems and school academic problems and higher graduation rated and higher education attendance.Most of your data comes from dubious sources too. Such as this one:
http://www.youthandreligion.org/publications/docs/Social_Forces_June_2004.pdf#search='children%20in%20religious%20families%20studies'
Muravyets
21-09-2005, 17:56
I doubt that their only problem was that they stayed together without love... You think they both only need to have separated and then they both would have lived happily ever after? I think not.

It is more likely that they would lead their lives of misery from one place to the next. People can find a way to be miserable wherever they are, and if they insist, nobody can stop them. This is not likely a marriage issue though, it is not the fault of marriage at all. What they have is an issue that requires somebody to stop choosing to be miserable anymore and to choose to live in a new way.
No, I think if they had separated, people around them might have been happier. Marriage didn't make them miserable. It was just one of their life decisions that they regretted. I don't blame them for getting married. I blame them for staying married, using it to structure a lifestyle of resentment and anger, and then inflicting that on people who had nothing to do with it -- their child, grandchild, siblings, cousins, neighbors, co-workers, etc. By staying in that marriage, they were living a lie they had built for themselves. I prefer honesty to lies.
Smunkeeville
21-09-2005, 18:44
No, I think if they had separated, people around them might have been happier. Marriage didn't make them miserable. It was just one of their life decisions that they regretted. I don't blame them for getting married. I blame them for staying married, using it to structure a lifestyle of resentment and anger, and then inflicting that on people who had nothing to do with it -- their child, grandchild, siblings, cousins, neighbors, co-workers, etc. By staying in that marriage, they were living a lie they had built for themselves. I prefer honesty to lies.
WARNING...OVERLY GENERAL STATEMENT.... Having some training in counseling married couples, I can tell you that most people who are miserable are in fact miserable because of thier own thinking patterns. I have seen people get out of one bad relationship and into another and out of that one and into another, it is neverending. If by chance you get 2 people in a relationship that have the same or similar flawed thinking patterns it would take a lot of hard work and counseling from both parties to resolve anything. Problems will arise in any relationship, premarital counseling would help with that most of the time, but not all the time. There are no one size fits all solutions, and anyone marketing the "solution" to any problem is most likely a fraud or worse sorely misinformed.
Greenlander
21-09-2005, 18:52
Lovely. You have yet to make an arguement against what I said besides attacking me personally.

Your argument is not an argument, it's a statement that essentially says: Religion (vaguely applied, not defined nor substantiated) has caused the destruction of millions through war and atrocities, therefore, you can't endorse the idea that people should attend a religious church/service of their choice... That's not an argument, it's a distraction, a strawman as people around here like to say (too much as a matter of fact, but it applies here because your accusations against religion are irrelevant to the topic).


As for evidence, I speak from personal experience. People tend to have completely different relationships when they live together than when they are apart. This has happened to me often enough. I've also noticed that people living together tend to "rub" against eachother more often, causing friction. I hypothesize that people that do not marry because they found they can't live together is a way of preventing said couples from divorcing, since they never married in the first place.

My topic was, and still is, about and from the vantage point of the children. I have little regard for the sake of the individual adults in this topic. If they choose to live, unmarried or married, with children, they need to look past their own concerns and re-discover the fact that more than two people's opinions are involved.

Researchers found children of single-parent households were at an increased risk for suicide or suicide attempts, mental illness, injury, and addiction. After adjusting for factors such as socioeconomic status, and parents' addictions or mental disease, children of single-parent households were twice as likely as children of two-parent households to attempt suicide, to have a mental illness, or to have an alcohol-related disease. Girls living in single-parent homes had a threefold increased risk for narcotic abuse and boys of single-parent homes had a fourfold increased risk of narcotic abuse than children of two-parent homes.
http://www.jhbmc.jhu.edu/healthcarenews03/03012403.html

Divorce is not a substitute for personal responsibility. Marriage or not, children have rights and those 'rights' should be the public's expectation of the parents. There should be heavier penalties for failing to raise your children.

There are penalties for child abuse, and neglect, in my opinion, is abuse.


Most of your data comes from dubious sources too. Such as this one:

:rolleyes: Fine, then you find some data and sources that show how I am wrong.
Quasaglimoth
21-09-2005, 21:30
dont blame the erosian of "traditional" family values on some conspiracy theory. you sound like a paranoid fool.

times change. i know that many fear change and would like to hold everyone in a perpetual vacuum(see human sexualities)but this never happens. history is proof enough of that.

if anything has caused the break-down of outdated traditional thinking,it is knowledge. tv,radio,phones,internet....you see?

before these devices,people were more or less ignorant and islolated,so it was easier to control them,and people clung to tradition in order to feel safe. but in the information age,people from all over the world can exchange information with the stroke of a few keys. why do you think the world governments are beginning to censor the net? its a threat to their power base.

as people become better educated and more aware of their situation,they tend to question the rules as well as old values instead of taking someones word as gospel simply because they have no choice.

i see the shifting ethics,ideals,and attitudes as ultimately a good thing. growth is painful however,and change never comes easy. you have to take the good with the bad. it will benefit us all in the long run...
Smunkeeville
21-09-2005, 21:33
dont blame the erosian of "traditional" family values on some conspiracy theory. you sound like a paranoid fool.

times change. i know that many fear change and would like to hold everyone in a perpetual vacuum(see human sexualities)but this never happens. history is proof enough of that.

if anything has caused the break-down of outdated traditional thinking,it is knowledge. tv,radio,phones,internet....you see?

before these devices,people were more or less ignorant and islolated,so it was easier to control them,and people clung to tradition in order to feel safe. but in the information age,people from all over the world can exchange information with the stroke of a few keys. why do you think the world governments are beginning to censor the net? its a threat to their power base.

as people become better educated and more aware of their situation,they tend to question the rules as well as old values instead of taking someones word as gospel simply because they have no choice.

i see the shifting ethics,ideals,and attitudes as ultimately a good thing. growth is painful however,and change never comes easy. you have to take the good with the bad. it will benefit us all in the long run...

okay probibly I shouldn't have replied but here I go too late.....
since I believe that the traditional family is better for society (thats a mom and dad and kid(s)) then I am ignorant?
what basis do you have for this statement?
Sumamba Buwhan
21-09-2005, 21:38
omg you completely saw through the REAL liberal agenda; to erode society until it breaks down and anarchy ensues. amazing analysis.
Greenlander
21-09-2005, 23:35
First you said this...
dont blame the erosian of "traditional" family values on some conspiracy theory. you sound like a paranoid fool.

Then you said this:
it was easier to control them,and people clung to tradition in order to feel safe. but in the information age,people from all over the world can exchange information with the stroke of a few keys. why do you think the world governments are beginning to censor the net? its a threat to their power base.

You shouldn't accuse someone of sounding like a paranoid fool just before espousing your own paranoid conspiracy theory :p

But regardless... I’ll address your point, in fact, I'm actually a little surprised that there has been so little attention paid to the soviet subversion aspect of my original post... :confused: LOL

But anyway, the reality is that the Soviets did indeed sponsor subversion in the United States almost from the day they came to power, and, by the time of the Depression, the Communist subculture flourished and gained the self-sufficiency of a state within a state in America, with its own unions, housing projects, insurance company, legal defense system, and youth organizations, etc.

I'm not going to pretend that McCarthy wasn't a nutcase, arrogant bastard, but he was attacking something that was real and that's why he was so successful for a period there...the release in 1995 of the “Venona” documents (transcripts of encrypted communications between the Soviets and their intelligence services in the US in the 1940’s that the U.S. government intercepted and deciphered) confirms the fact that much of what McCarthy and other anticommunists of the 1950’s alleged was in fact taking place... including subversion attempt of political ideology to weaken the American people themselves (as I said in the first post). Various things were founded then that people have no idea about today, or deny altogether, or they say, that doesn't matter anymore because we rooted the communists out ... etc., etc., etc. Things like the ACLU and the PP.
The Cat-Tribe
22-09-2005, 01:50
ROTFLASTC

You've already lost this same debate before. We needn't reargue it again, especially when your points are even weaker and ahistorical than last time.

Have fun with the "intellectual" masturbation.
Greenlander
22-09-2005, 03:42
ROTFLASTC

You've already lost this same debate before. We needn't reargue it again, especially when your points are even weaker and ahistorical than last time.

Have fun with the "intellectual" masturbation.


:p

Okay, if I'm intellectually masturbating, then you must be tip-toeing in the tulips with your eyes shut and your fingers plugging your ears while whistling dixie, trying really hard to pretend that the soviet achieves haven't been opened up for over ten years now and wishing upon a star that your denial argument might still hold a hope of persuading some uninformed people...

Boris Yeltsin outlawed the Communist party in Russia in August 1991 and opened up the archives, revealing the continued financial as well as ideological dependency of the American Communists on the Soviet party up until its dissolution.

Now we do, at least to some extent, have a field of evidence that is beyond reproach by the American hedonists that claim it’s all a lie.


In 1995 Emory University professor Harvey Klehr, John Earl Haynes of the Library of Congress and Russian archivist Fridrikh Igorevich Firsov published The Secret World of American Communism, a collection of 92 documents that Klehr; a political scientist, accidentally stumbled across on a visit to Russia.

Even with so much information now readily available, investigators such as Klehr tell Insight that what has come to light in recent years is "only the tip of the iceberg," and much, much more is to come.

Whittaker Chambers, the former Communist Party member, wrote in his book Witness of the need to learn the truth about Communist activity… He warned against another aspect of American communism -- the protection it received from the "best" of society: academics, intellectuals, journalists and sundry others. "The forces of enlightenment" continually are at work "pooh-poohing the communist danger and calling every allusion to it a witch-hunt," wrote Chambers, who was himself the brunt of much left-wing mudslinging.

The standard myth about the American Communist Party, perpetrated by revisionist historians and much of the media, is that its members over-whelmingly were idealistic men and women who sought justice and an end to human suffering. The truth is otherwise. The Communist Party, USA, or CPUSA, had a sizable cadre of members whose chief loyalty was to the Soviet Union and its leadership and who acted according to those loyalties. As the Hoover Institution's Beichman notes: "We ultra-right, fascist and everything-else-they-called-us scoundrels were more right than anybody else."
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_n37_v13/ai_19836506

But you just keep prancing your dance and whistling your tune, the rest of us are open to new data as is becomes available. Listening to the revealed facts instead of sticking with out-dated propaganda.
Muravyets
22-09-2005, 05:47
WARNING...OVERLY GENERAL STATEMENT.... Having some training in counseling married couples, I can tell you that most people who are miserable are in fact miserable because of thier own thinking patterns. I have seen people get out of one bad relationship and into another and out of that one and into another, it is neverending. If by chance you get 2 people in a relationship that have the same or similar flawed thinking patterns it would take a lot of hard work and counseling from both parties to resolve anything. Problems will arise in any relationship, premarital counseling would help with that most of the time, but not all the time. There are no one size fits all solutions, and anyone marketing the "solution" to any problem is most likely a fraud or worse sorely misinformed.
How can it be overly general if it's just describing one couple -- my grandparents? I only brought it up as a counter to the view that staying together is always a good idea. You know, on the principle that it takes just one white crow to prove that not all crows are black. My grandparents were determined not only to be unhappy but to make others unhappy as well. Counseling wouldn't have helped them, unless you think unhappy counselors are a good thing.
Smunkeeville
22-09-2005, 13:53
How can it be overly general if it's just describing one couple -- my grandparents? I only brought it up as a counter to the view that staying together is always a good idea. You know, on the principle that it takes just one white crow to prove that not all crows are black. My grandparents were determined not only to be unhappy but to make others unhappy as well. Counseling wouldn't have helped them, unless you think unhappy counselors are a good thing.
when I say general I mean in my experience. since I don't know your grandparents I can not make any statement specific to them. I was also refering to the people who say that marriage counseling can "fix" a marriage like it is some kind of magic, I was trying to point out that there are some situations where marriage couseling would have to be intensive and then still may not work, and also refering to the people who are miserable in thier marriage and think that if they get a divorce they will be instantly happy, this isn't true. I am sorry if I offended you, I should have chosen my words more carefully.
Muravyets
22-09-2005, 16:52
when I say general I mean in my experience. since I don't know your grandparents I can not make any statement specific to them. I was also refering to the people who say that marriage counseling can "fix" a marriage like it is some kind of magic, I was trying to point out that there are some situations where marriage couseling would have to be intensive and then still may not work, and also refering to the people who are miserable in thier marriage and think that if they get a divorce they will be instantly happy, this isn't true. I am sorry if I offended you, I should have chosen my words more carefully.
You didn't offend me at all. :)
Sezyou
22-09-2005, 18:03
The Hedonist Elitists have been campaigning against the intrinsic strength that is built into people via the institution and encouragement of their Family society upbringing. For over eighty years (post W.W.I.) family standards have been attacked in one fashion or another, weakening the communities in which they occur. These attacks are always disguised as something other than what they are, perhaps disguised as individual liberties, choices, or some other nice sounding “sheep’s clothing” argument for the advancement of whatever weakens society. The long term strategy of attacking and causing the erosion of family values in our communities (western society particularly) was chosen as just one of the methodologies for the advancement of the soviet’s political agenda and ideology, pre-world war II. Although the Soviet Union is long since gone, their legacy remains because some of their arguments, doctrines and philosophies have completely duped and “taken in,” a large number of people that continue to endorse and campaign in favor of them, oblivious or uncaring of their original intent.

Take, for example, the arguments for “no fault divorce” in the 1950’s, how it was presented as a needed measure to protect abused wives and children, and the easement of hardships caused by ‘justifying’ their case for a divorce in a court of law. The argument for easier divorces then was that only the most deserving individuals would need to use it and it would not a weaken the institution of Marriage nor of the healthy family in the community. Most people agreed and it was instituted. After fifty years, the divorce rates have skyrocketed to nearly 50% and the percentage of children reared in single parent households compounded like a loan shark’s interest rate…

* The evidence also shows that although the differences between children reared by married biological parents and children reared by only one biological parent are modest in percentage terms, these small differences translate into surprisingly large numbers when applied to the entire population of children. Amato reports that if the same share of
children lived with their biological parents today as did in 1980, about 300,000 fewer children between the ages of twelve and eighteen would repeat a grade, 485,000 fewer would be suspended from school, 250,000 fewer would need psychotherapy, 210,000 fewer would be involved in violence, and 30,000 fewer would attempt suicide every year.

* The nation’s teen birth rate, which finally began to take a downward turn a decade ago, nevertheless exceeds that of other industrialized nations; marriage has declined precipitously, especially among minority groups; divorce has stabilized, but at one of the world’s highest levels; and one of every three children—and seven of every ten black children—are born outside marriage.
http://www.brookings.edu/es/research/projects/wrb/publications/pb/200509foc.pdf

The solution to these types of dilemmas is to first recognize them for what they are, the eroding of the human character. As the generations have passed, and the condition of the children has suffered, people often say in a derogatory way, “Look at what children are like today!” but what they should be saying is, “Look at what their parents are doing!”

In addition to government controlled aspects of social life, the community wide abandonment of attending and participating in a regular religious community has been detrimental to the community as well. The counseling and support individual families and parents used to receive from their church group has been eliminated from a large number of family households when compared to the 1950’s, 1970’s and today (and especially true in urban areas) and this support asset has not been replaced by any other community group (s), to the detriment of the psyche of the individuals in the community. They no longer have the resources and support gained from unions and communities of people of a similar ideology and outlook. They no longer look to their neighbors for help and they may not even know them, they feel the pressures of life undiluted on their shoulders and the communities we live in have suffered because of it.

Solutions:
Pre-marriage counseling should be mandatory in all states. Divorces with children involved should never be ‘no-fault.’ Government programs encouraging biological parents to both get married AND stay married while raising their children need to be developed and expanded. Individual families should consider joining the Church, Synagogue or Mosque (of their choice) for moral and social support and educated people should stop refusing to raise families and consider choosing to have children and raising them again.



EDIT: Adding data snippets about 'why' dual parenting is better than one...
* Children in two-parent households are less than half as likely to have emotional or behavioral problems.

* Children in two-parent households are a third as likely to use illegal drugs, alcohol or tobacco.

* Children in two-parent households are 44% less likely to be physically abused or neglected.

* Boys in two-parent households are only half as likely to commit a crime leading to incarceration by their thirties.

* Fifteen year old girls in two-parent homes are one-third less likely to be sexually active.

* Children in two-parent households have higher grades, higher college aspirations, better school attendance and lower school drop-out rates.

* Children in two-parent households are less likely to cohabit prior to marriage, become a single parent, or teen parent, and to become separated or divorced themselves.

you are full of crap. Statistics are useless-they are almost always biased. Who promoted this study-JerryFalwell loves Pat Robertson MOral fundamentalist,we know whats good for you Society? What about my kids? I was widowed 2 years ago-I should be forced to marry? My children are doomed to being a ho and a drug dealing pimp because they have no daddy anymore? Do you have children? Quit your preaching! Im doing the best that I can for them! These same problems occur just as frequently in 2 parent households, what about domestic violence where the wives are loved to death!! STupid!! Those men never change!! They just get more violent!! Crap crap crap!!! My kids love school! My oldest ((oooh! he never knew his father -we never married! tar and feather me and put an A accross my chest)) has never been in trouble and done any of the things you predicted for him!! How dare you!! :gundge: :headbang: :sniper: :mp5: :mad:
Messerach
22-09-2005, 18:19
Those statistics about 2 parent households are useless. I'd agree that on average outcomes are better when kids grow up in a two parent household, but so what? The point is you can't force people to stay together any more, and studies have shown that growing up in a household with conflict is worse than a single parent household. All of those statistics involving two parent households can't account for the two factors: conflict leading to divorce, and the actual seperation.
Greenlander
22-09-2005, 19:25
Those statistics about 2 parent households are useless. I'd agree that on average outcomes are better when kids grow up in a two parent household, but so what? The point is you can't force people to stay together any more, and studies have shown that growing up in a household with conflict is worse than a single parent household. All of those statistics involving two parent households can't account for the two factors: conflict leading to divorce, and the actual seperation.

But we can educate people and inform them of the consequences of their choices before they make their mistakes. We can advocate for the improvement and advancement of pro-family social programs that enhance families rather than detract from them like the 'status-quo' anti-family policies we have in place now. We can teach people that they need to think about these things and we can have consequences for those that are negligent.

Go back (or for the first time) and look at the communities that suffer from 70% fatherless of households, and tell us again how they are doing just as well as everyone else is. And after reminding your self of their plight, tell us again how they don’t need any social changes because their path is just as good as anyone elses as it is now...

Instead wasting our time pretending everything is alright though, how about we advocate for getting rid of the anti-family policies we have in place? Like how section 8 welfare housing and food-stamps (or other Wick policy) and Medicare coverages for the poor now are actually discouraging parents from getting married at all because if they did start a family they would lose their benefits for their children?

All that stuff has to be abolished, marriage needs to be promoted, not striped of it’s meaning, This kind of stuff is straight up anti-family, anti-African American policy, bigotry in action. A policy of slow death for the African American culture and yet, you people here are mad at me because I pointed out the statistics that show its better for two parents to work together rather than one alone when kids are involved? You're mad at me because I advocated, and continue to promote, the idea of changing the current bigotry prone methodologies that have African American and poor people in America getting worse rather than better. We should have social policies that promote and community standards that expect, the development of healthier family home life for our children. We know what that is, it’s about time we did it.
Ph33rdom
22-09-2005, 23:06
No, I think if they had separated, people around them might have been happier. Marriage didn't make them miserable. It was just one of their life decisions that they regretted. I don't blame them for getting married. I blame them for staying married, using it to structure a lifestyle of resentment and anger, and then inflicting that on people who had nothing to do with it -- their child, grandchild, siblings, cousins, neighbors, co-workers, etc. By staying in that marriage, they were living a lie they had built for themselves. I prefer honesty to lies.

I think perhaps you should blame them for being angry, bitter people, I still don't see how marriage has anything to do with it. It still sounds like they hate more than just each other. But either way, I hope that you take yourself away from it all, and don't feel guilty at all, move to a different state and send them cards at Christmas... No reason to subject yourself to that.