[Pants-of-dog]

False. I am saying that it is optimal to have BOTH parents involved in raising a child, not simply one. I don't see how you could come to that conclusion based on what I said. :?:

I wrote the post that you are replying to here, not @pugsville .

The second mistake is that you are not following your train of thought. You had argued that a fifty percent split was the best idea for divorce.

I then pointed out that the children would benefit more from a situation that resembles the pre-divorce arrangement as closely as possible, in the case of a divorce.

And now you are shifting the goalposts and making it about divorce versus not divorced.

[Fasces]

@Godstud You've said you prefer legal protections for marriage against divorce. Now tell us - what does that look like?

[Godstud]

How about having it so people actually have to make an attempt to make a marriage work instead of abandoning it as if it had no worth? Children benefit from a good marriage and sometimes all it takes is some counselling to make a marriage work.

I know you guys are progressive people who think the nuclear family is obsolete, but it's not. People are seeing the effects of this with the weakening of society due to so many single parent homes. Mental illness and crime are common amongst people who grow up in single parent homes.

Your reasons for divorce all come down to domestic violence, which is the exception, and can treated as such.

Children growing up in a single-parent family have higher risk of criminal behaviour
https://nscr.nl/en/higher-risk-of-crimi ... nt-family/

Kids from sin­gle-par­ent fam­i­lies are more like­ly to face emo­tion­al and behav­ioral health chal­lenges — like aggres­sion or engag­ing in high-risk behav­iors — when com­pared to peers raised by mar­ried par­ents. Research has linked these health chal­lenges with fac­tors often asso­ci­at­ed with sin­gle-par­ent fam­i­lies, such as parental stress, lost social net­works, wit­ness­ing con­flict, mov­ing homes and socioe­co­nom­ic hurdles.
https://www.aecf.org/blog/child-well-be ... %20parents.

Single-parent families double likelihood of child mental illness
https://www.theguardian.com/society/200 ... nsservices

[Fasces]

So if there is a kid, what legal steps do I have to take to get a divorce?

Keeping in mind - half of American marriages don't have children.

[Tainari88]

So if there is a kid, what legal steps do I have to take to get a divorce?

Keeping in mind - half of American marriages don't have children.

People assume that children are guaranteed in marriage. They are not. Women can be infertile and so can men or both of them can have other issues and getting pregnant can be very difficult. Also one can get pregnant but then lose a child for one reason or another and it is so devastating the couple decides against trying again. They get sterilization done. A lot of reasons as well. Cancer patients who avoid getting pregnant. People think pregnancy is easy or a guaranteed thing it is not that at all.

IVF and international adoptions are very hard to accomplish and expensive. There are age restrictions for parents in certain nations, or income requirements and you need to get a home study done, and state, federal approval for adoptions that are by the local state government or if it is a foreign country adoption there is a big load of paperwork involved and costs.

None of the having kids thing is easy at all. Even women who have a lot of kids might have difficult pregnancies when the earlier pregnancies she had were relatively easy and she loses the child in the third or fourth month, gets an infection and is infertile. Clamydia and other diseases and dangerous reproductive events such as entopic pregnancies etc also spell disaster for women. Women who suffer PCOS syndrome and men who's sperm count is very low and can't get women who are in the fertile cycles pregnant at all....and then surrogacy and so on. It is really precarious for many people.

It is expensive, and it is also difficult in many ways. People really are unrealistic. They should realize that there is such a thing as a realistic timeline.

[pugsville]

False. I am saying that it is optimal to have BOTH parents involved in raising a child, not simply one. I don't see how you could come to that conclusion based on what I said. :?:

Yes, and that applies to the statistics your brought forward, which don't actually contradict anything I posted.

If there are no children, the need for marriage evaporates, for the most part.

No, but historically this has been the best situation possible for raising children. It hasn't changed, and single parent homes are an increasing problem.

The results are not good for the children, and often results in lacking a female or male role model, unless the children are particularly lucky. Trying to keep both parents involved in a child's life should be of paramount importance when custody is considered.

This highlights some problems...
What Are the Disadvantages of a Single-Parent Family?
https://www.medicinenet.com/disadvantag ... rticle.htm


I apologize if I am an avid supporter of the traditional nuclear family(married and with children), of which I now am a part of.

There is nothing traditional about the nuclear family it's a very recent invention.

[pugsville]

How about having it so people actually have to make an attempt to make a marriage work instead of abandoning it as if it had no worth? Children benefit from a good marriage and sometimes all it takes is some counselling to make a marriage work.

I know you guys are progressive people who think the nuclear family is obsolete, but it's not. People are seeing the effects of this with the weakening of society due to so many single parent homes. Mental illness and crime are common amongst people who grow up in single parent homes.

Your reasons for divorce all come down to domestic violence, which is the exception, and can treated as such.

Children growing up in a single-parent family have higher risk of criminal behaviour
https://nscr.nl/en/higher-risk-of-crimi ... nt-family/

Kids from sin­gle-par­ent fam­i­lies are more like­ly to face emo­tion­al and behav­ioral health chal­lenges — like aggres­sion or engag­ing in high-risk behav­iors — when com­pared to peers raised by mar­ried par­ents. Research has linked these health chal­lenges with fac­tors often asso­ci­at­ed with sin­gle-par­ent fam­i­lies, such as parental stress, lost social net­works, wit­ness­ing con­flict, mov­ing homes and socioe­co­nom­ic hurdles.
https://www.aecf.org/blog/child-well-be ... %20parents.

Single-parent families double likelihood of child mental illness
https://www.theguardian.com/society/200 ... nsservices

There are lies there are *dammed" lies and them there are statistic.

Correlation is NOT causation.

Single Parent families create by divorce are ones which conflict is much more common. You cannot say the children would be better off based on these statistics because you are inherently not comparing like and like. The amount of conflict between parents I would suggest is much lower in those couples that stay together. Those that divorce have issues and staying together because the state does not allow divorce does not magically fix those issues.

Single parent families are effected by poverty, insecure housing and hosts of other problems more than couples (and money is very much a factor)


I have been living in a housing co-operative for the last decade and there are many single parents in the co-op (Mostly women) and the Kids are happy, well adjusted and as they go out into the world successful. But these women have secure affordable housing, and larger support network.

I strongly suspect of these was available to all single parent families that statistics would be different.

[AFAIK]

You don't need to be married to cohabitate.

You don't need to marry to have children.

I apologize if I am an avid supporter of the traditional nuclear family(married and with children), of which I now am a part of.

Traditionally children were raised in multi-generational households and it's only recently that urbanisation and industrialisation has atomised it into it's nuclear form.

[Godstud]

There is nothing traditional about the nuclear family it's a very recent invention.

It's been around most of the 1900s so saying it's not traditional, is a matter of opinion. If we've been doing it for over 100 years, I'd say it's traditional.

You don't need to marry to have children.

No, you don't but it is ideal. If you can't commit to a partner, how can you commit to having a child with the accompanying 18 years of responsibility?

MORE inconvenient statistics:
63% of youth suicides are from fatherless homes (US Dept. Of Health/Census) – 5 times the average.
90% of all homeless and runaway children are from fatherless homes – 32 times the average.
85% of all children who show behavior disorders come from fatherless homes – 20 times the average. (Center for Disease Control)
80% of rapists with anger problems come from fatherless homes –14 times the average. (Justice & Behavior, Vol 14, p. 403-26)

71% of all high school dropouts come from fatherless homes – 9 times the average. (National Principals Association Report)
Father Factor in Education – Fatherless children are twice as likely to drop out of school.

Children with Fathers who are involved are 40% less likely to repeat a grade in school.
Children with Fathers who are involved are 70% less likely to drop out of school.
Children with Fathers who are involved are more likely to get A’s in school.
Children with Fathers who are involved are more likely to enjoy school and engage in extracurricular activities.
75% of all adolescent patients in chemical abuse centers come from fatherless homes – 10 times the average.

Father Factor in Drug and Alcohol Abuse – Researchers at Columbia University found that children living in two-parent household with a poor relationship with their father are 68% more likely to smoke, drink, or use drugs compared to all teens in two-parent households. Teens in single mother households are at a 30% higher risk than those in two-parent households.

70% of youths in state-operated institutions come from fatherless homes – 9 times the average. (U.S. Dept. of Justice, Sept. 1988)

85% of all youths in prison come from fatherless homes – 20 times the average. (Fulton Co. Georgia, Texas Dept. of Correction)
https://thefatherlessgeneration.wordpre ... tatistics/

[AFAIK]

How would making divorce difficult work in practice? Those who wish to end their relationship by mutual agreement can just get divorced in all but name and those attempting to flee an abusive partner could be legally tied to their abuser indefinitely. Some Catholic countries didn't legalise divorce until the 90s but it's not like no one got unofficially divorced before that.

[wat0n]

Catholic countries would let couples annul their marriage (which for the kids is worse than a divorce).

[pugsville]

It's been around most of the 1900s so saying it's not traditional, is a matter of opinion. If we've been doing it for over 100 years, I'd say it's traditional.

No, you don't but it is ideal. If you can't commit to a partner, how can you commit to having a child with the accompanying 18 years of responsibility?

MORE inconvenient statistics:
63% of youth suicides are from fatherless homes (US Dept. Of Health/Census) – 5 times the average.
90% of all homeless and runaway children are from fatherless homes – 32 times the average.
85% of all children who show behavior disorders come from fatherless homes – 20 times the average. (Center for Disease Control)
80% of rapists with anger problems come from fatherless homes –14 times the average. (Justice & Behavior, Vol 14, p. 403-26)

71% of all high school dropouts come from fatherless homes – 9 times the average. (National Principals Association Report)
Father Factor in Education – Fatherless children are twice as likely to drop out of school.

Children with Fathers who are involved are 40% less likely to repeat a grade in school.
Children with Fathers who are involved are 70% less likely to drop out of school.
Children with Fathers who are involved are more likely to get A’s in school.
Children with Fathers who are involved are more likely to enjoy school and engage in extracurricular activities.
75% of all adolescent patients in chemical abuse centers come from fatherless homes – 10 times the average.

Father Factor in Drug and Alcohol Abuse – Researchers at Columbia University found that children living in two-parent household with a poor relationship with their father are 68% more likely to smoke, drink, or use drugs compared to all teens in two-parent households. Teens in single mother households are at a 30% higher risk than those in two-parent households.

70% of youths in state-operated institutions come from fatherless homes – 9 times the average. (U.S. Dept. of Justice, Sept. 1988)

85% of all youths in prison come from fatherless homes – 20 times the average. (Fulton Co. Georgia, Texas Dept. of Correction)
https://thefatherlessgeneration.wordpre ... tatistics/

Some random blogger with a cause. I do not think it;s a good source. You already been shown to out by a lot in your statistical claims. You can do better.

Had a go at finding a couple pf these references.

80% of rapists with anger problems come from fatherless homes –14 times the average. (Justice & Behavior, Vol 14, p. 403-26)

Yeah there is a study of 108 rapists in prison and brings them into 4 times yup 1 of those ( so just 25 individuals in this study it also find for other types 60%, 69% and 40% hardly exhaustive stats.

SO o the basis of 25 individuals in one study in 30 years ago .....


I call BS.

[Godstud]

The sources were linked in the article, but since it doesn't confirm your bias, @pugsville, you dismiss it.

Anyways, have a good day. You aren't interested in an honest discussion. You just want to push a narrative.

[pugsville]

The sources were linked in the article, but since it doesn't confirm your bias, @pugsville, you dismiss it.

Anyways, have a good day. You aren't interested in an honest discussion. You just want to push a narrative.

The sources are not linked not the article.

The only one I copuld track down was making b anlaknate statement
"80% of rapists with anger problems come from fatherless homes –14 times the average. (Justice & Behavior, Vol 14, p. 403-26)"

Which came to 20 odd individuals in one study.

Are you goiong to the decent thing and withdraw these claims?

Your source is clearly inadequate in a reasonable discussion.

[Godstud]

It wouldn't matter what I posted. You want to WIN, not have a debate. Many of the sources were US Census Bureau, among others.

I'll let you have the W because you feel you're right.

[pugsville]

https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/single-parent-families-cause-juvenile-crime-juvenile-crime-opposing

You posting a bunch of claims form some blogger, the oly one that gave a findable journal article came down to 20 odd individuals,

This is not a reosonable bias for blank cliams about 80% of rapsits

You have just copy an dpasted a bucnh of claims form an internet blog. YO have no idea on what these claims are based on,

This is not reasonable of sensible why to debate anything.

And you just goingt o move on and make more claims without addressing it.

Show SOME integrity and honesty, Address the reliability of claims in your post.

You posted them just be copy and paste you personally have no idea of the substance behind of any of them.

[AFAIK]

Catholic countries would let couples annul their marriage (which for the kids is worse than a divorce).

What's the difference from the kids' perspective?

[pugsville]

It wouldn't matter what I posted. You want to WIN, not have a debate. Many of the sources were US Census Bureau, among others.

I'll let you have the W because you feel you're right.

Which census ? Which year? What country? Got a link to it? just saying IS census bureau is not providing a source.

Its not inked in the article which you claimed . Are you going to admit that was just wrong?

[Rich]

It's been around most of the 1900s so saying it's not traditional, is a matter of opinion. If we've been doing it for over 100 years, I'd say it's traditional.

I think I know of this family norm of which you speak. It was the norm that I was born in, but let us examine its features.

1 This was the norm of the white collar middle class and the respectable manual working class. It did seem for a time to encompass a substantial majority of the population, but even that deserves closer academic scrutiny.

2 This was a society where everyone was entitled to free education till at least the age of 14, with in principle opportunity of all children to continue with free education to 16, 18, 21 and even beyond 21 for a small minority. Children went to school. They didn't work like in previous family structures.

3 This was a society where a wife in a respectable marriage family didn't have to work. This was true for the White Collar middle class but a lot of the respectable manual working class. Certainly no married woman from the respectable classes had to work full time. In recognition of this women teachers had to resign when they got married.

4 This meant that respectable manual working class families had to be smaller than was typical in the mid nineteenth century.

5 Bringing up a family was a full time job. There were no in house washing machines, microwaves, in house tumble drivers, no out of town shopping centers and most people didn't have the cars to drive to them. Shopping for the basics was a time consuming business. Clothes had to be mended by hand.

6 Now note I'm talking about the West and Britain is the country that I'm familiar with. Buddhist / Hindu / Muslim etc cultures must be examined separately. Christianity was dominate and persuasive.

7 I'm sure there's a whole number of important facets I've forgotten to mention.

When properly understood we can see that this modern family norm was already being undermined even as it became fully formed. Arguably in Britain the widespread family norm wasn't full compatible with the thirties depression and so the idyllic-society-norm was only established after the second world war. But after world war II, the Vanguard of the Consumertariat, Hollywood, was already leading the charge to undermine and destroy the family / sexual morality norm.

[Godstud]

I don't have the time, nor inclination to debate with someone whose go-to argument is to make immature personal attacks. Have a nice day. The facts exist whether or not you choose to believe them, or not. Good luck with that.