Ag with kids said:
Bob Lee said:
Ag with kids said:
Bob Lee said:
Ag with kids said:
Bob Lee said:
Ag with kids said:
Bob Lee said:
Ag with kids said:
Bob Lee said:
Ag with kids said:
Bob Lee said:
Ag with kids said:
No Spin Ag said:
Ag with kids said:
No Spin Ag said:
TxAg82 said:
Bob Lee said:
TxAg82 said:
Marriage is great. Everyone should aspire to marry, raise kids, and enjoy life.
Government should not require anyone to stay in or make it more difficult to get out of a marriage they no longer want to be in.
So Fathers should be allowed to abandon their children? Children have no right to be raised by the person who called them into existence?
Fathers should not abandon their children.
Children should be raised by the person that called them into existence.
Even if the father beats or abuses the mother in other ways?
I think he's just rebutting Bob Lee's specious argument that getting divorced equals the father abandoning their children (which is a stretch, but that's par for the course)...
Gotcha. Thanks for that.
And, like everyone else I believe that children born into a house where the parents truly love each other have many advantages that children who aren't. Unfortunately, life doesn't always give everyone that same lucky hand.
Very true.
I WISH everyone was born into a great family where everything works and the children are loved and treated great.
That is not reality, unfortunately.
It was nearer to reality before no fault divorce.
No...bad marriages just stayed together because they were forced to.
All you'll do is ensure that the marriage rate plummets if you force this. They'll still have kids though.
What's happened to marriage rates since no fault divorce was implemented? I think it would be hard to gather the research, but the sense I get is that more people have soured on marriage and children AFTER no fault divorce was implemented.
The people staying in bad marriages is just a trope. Do you see how silly it is to say in your 10th year of marriage that you're in a bad marriage? What about the 11th year, or the 25th or the 50th? People should stay in their marriages, and do their best to make them good. We aren't owed satisfaction. Our children are owed a good upbringing. This is what you always hear from people who exit their marriages. That they DESERVE to be happy or they deserve this or that, and they aren't getting it. I don't see things that way.
According to this, it didn't start declining steadily until the mid/late 1980s...
However, it was lower than the late 1960s-1980s peak from the 1920s through the 1930s and for the 1950s through the late 1960s...
Marriage Rates
As to your second point...I assume every single thing in your life has been 100% static since you've married. No changes whatsoever.
Because, WTF does 10, 11, 25, 50 years mean? It isn't the TIME, it's the situation. What is happening in the marriage. Maybe the wife tells you to **** off - no sex ever for the rest of the marriage. Then what? MAKE her? BTW, in the older days, that's what they did...now, it's kind of looked at as rape...
Things happen that can **** up a marriage. I'm not saying bail at the beginning of hard times...but those hard times can get much worse.
BTW...I wrote out a long thing about the horribad way my first marriage ended, but thought it better to not post it. I will say that I got custody of my two kids, though.
"The long decline started in the 1970s. Since 1972, marriage rates in the US have fallen by almost 50%, and are currently at the lowest point in recorded history."
How does this not align with what I suspected?
My point is exactly that things in life aren't static. This is why we acknowledge when we get married that there will be good times and bad. But the point of no fault divorce is that everything can't possibly justify it. You think it's fair to leave for literally no good reason? How can you defend the right of people to do that to someone?
Well, that long decline started in 1972.
However, it was preceded by a long INCLINE from 1958. In fact, from 1950 to 1972, the marriage rate was LOWER.
Why was the marriage rate lower PRIOR to no fault divorce for 20+ years?
And, when did I say for "no good reason"? Bad marriages happen. Don't force them to stay together just because no one cheated or beat the crap out of their spouse (those appear to be your "good reasons").
I don't understand how you're reading the data. For 50 yrs prior to no fault divorce the marriage rate fluctuated up and down. I don't know what would explain those fluctuations. But in the 50 years since, there has been a steady decline in the rate of marriage. Is it that there were points in time prior to no fault divorce when the marriage rate was lower than it was for a point in time after NFD was codified? This seems pretty cut and dry to me. Idk.
For me personally like I mentioned earlier divorce is not a sacramental reality. There's literally nothing my wife could do that could get me to pursue a divorce. Not infidelity. Not abuse. So 0 good reasons. That's not to say there aren't circumstances where I would remove myself or children from the situation if something unthinkable happened like my wife randomly began to abuse our children. Even then I wouldn't pursue divorce and I would never remarry.
That's not what I'm advocating for either. I'm advocating for a return to what every state in the u.s. was doing before 1970. No good reason is what no fault divorce permits. You can leave your spouse for any reason or no reason at all. That's what you're saying.
Umm...
What you're doing is a classic post hoc ergo propter hoc argument - after this, therefore because of this.
However, the marriage rate had dropped quite a bit from 1950 to 1958...that OBVIOUSLY had no correlation to NFD. And then it rose dramatically from 1958 to 1972...I'm going with muscle cars - they got the chicks hot.
BTW...dude...I'm glad you have a wife that you love and trust. SERIOUSLY.
But you're saying that if she was out banging dudes left and right and then came home and called you a **** and started hitting you that you'd be cool with it? Or even if she started to beat the **** out of the kids? AND you'd stay in the relationship?
OOOF
BTW, prior to NFD you had to have PROOF that there was some kind of reason. So, if your spouse was banging Five Guys but you had no proof you were SOL. Or if your spouse psychologically abused you but with no proof, again, SOL.
That's what NFD fixed.
No that's not what I'm doing. I guessed that people have soured on marriage and having children after NFD was implemented and I was right with shocking accuracy. The statistic say exactly what you'd expect them to if NFD shapes people's attitudes about marriage.
I didn't say I'd be fine with it. She wouldn't be living with me or our children, and it would signal to me that she was mentally ill or something if a devout Catholic woman with 6 children who goes to daily mass and adoration all of a sudden was banging 5 dudes and calling her husband a ****. but I wouldn't pursue divorce as an option. So the relationship wouldn't resemble the kind of relationship we have now, but we'd be married. I do know of women with husbands who have civilly divorced them and remarried, and they live chaste lives as married women rather than pursue an annulment. So this happens.
Yes. You had to prove that the other person was at fault for something. Abandonment, cruelty, infidelity or whatever. I think society was better for it.
Again...you're applying post hoc ergo propter hoc logic.
So, my logic that muscle cars starting in 1958 through 1972 must be true for the increase in the marriage rate!!!
And sucks that if your wife went off the rails that you would not let here raise the children with you. Because you've said that the children must have their father AND mother...
Oy vey. You either don't know what that means or you're not reading what I wrote well. What I said is not a logical fallacy. Edit: as a refresher, you postulated that the marriage rate would plummet if no fault divorce was repealed. Actually, the marriage rate has plummeted since it was enacted.
What I actually said is that children have a right to both biological parents, and yes being deprived of that is an injustice. So it would be an injustice. That seems totally obvious. There's nothing inconsistent about what I'm saying.
It didn't plummet. It slowly declined to the same level as 1958...when NFD was banned.
It appears that correlation, let alone causation, is not your strong suite.
And sorry, didn't realize that you were willing to commit an injustice to your kids...
This is why you're losing this argument. What I said is that IF NFD informs people's attitudes about marriage, then what you would expect to happen, is exactly what did happen. I didn't make a positive claim about the cause of the decline in marriage rate. I said that's what you would expect if it caused people to sour on marriage.
It declined well past the rate of marriage from 1958, to an all time low. Did you miss that?
I think I'm getting a glimpse into why you and others get so emotional. You can't comprehend that injustice doesn't imply that you're morally culpable, so you automatically feel condemned. Try to be more dispassionate. If two parents die in a car accident, that is an injustice perpetrated on their children. The parents aren't culpable. The children aren't culpable, but it's still horrific. In my reaction to your hypothetical, I'm sparing my children an even greater injustice. I know you're being cheeky, but seriously if you can't understand the concept, then I don't know where we can go from here.
