Just because marriages end doesn't mean its not better for a child to be raised by married parents.
Maybe from a financial point of vue, but not otherwise. A marriage ends, there is tension, arguments, etc. Children sense it, soak it up and it affects them greatly. They do worse in school, and eventually have problems with relationships as well.... If both parents were made to be financially responsible for the children, money shouldn't be a problem.
Just because marriages end doesn't mean its not better for a child to be raised by married parents. I think that would however mean that children are being raised in worst circumstances than they were back in the 50's when the divorce rate was lower.. Although I can't say that I disagree with that.
I would still maintain that I feel that the odds are that it's better for a child to be raised in a married household than not.
it defies logic in that he is suggesting if 99% of marriages ended in divorce then those kids would be morally corrupt and bereft of any good parenting... which simply isnt true.
the majority of serial killers are raised in white middle class households where the parents are conservative religious folks who stayed married because of societal pressures and whatever expected them to (its in a university of california report somewhere)
what difference does it make if they are married or not... he keeps harking on about married couples!! and he blatantly ignored my same sex parenting scenario :rolleyes:
oh scary... 40000 morbidly obese christians wearing fanny packs invading europe is probably the least scariest thing since I watched an edited version of The Care Bears movie in an extremely brightly lit cinema.
oh scary... 40000 morbidly obese christians wearing fanny packs invading europe is probably the least scariest thing since I watched an edited version of The Care Bears movie in an extremely brightly lit cinema.
Maybe from a financial point of vue, but not otherwise. A marriage ends, there is tension, arguments, etc. Children sense it, soak it up and it affects them greatly. They do worse in school, and eventually have problems with relationships as well.... If both parents were made to be financially responsible for the children, money shouldn't be a problem.
Oh please..when attempting to prove that a generalization is wrong, don;t use a dumbass generalization of your own.
My parents got divorced, I'm fine. Oh, and I've been in my relationship for 13 years now, married for 7...
It's all about a mother acting like a mother and a father acting like a father...whether married or not...but having married parents certainly makes that more likely.
i downloaded a video from Limewire once called "brown girl in the ring"... boy was i disappointed!!!!!
oh scary... 40000 morbidly obese christians wearing fanny packs invading europe is probably the least scariest thing since I watched an edited version of The Care Bears movie in an extremely brightly lit cinema.
My parents got divorced, I'm fine. Oh, and I've been in my relationship for 13 years now, married for 7...
exception to the rule then!!!
its been proven that kids are genuinely affected by divorce and seperation.. of course its a generalisation but then most majority situations are!
oh scary... 40000 morbidly obese christians wearing fanny packs invading europe is probably the least scariest thing since I watched an edited version of The Care Bears movie in an extremely brightly lit cinema.
Oh please..when attempting to prove that a generalization is wrong, don;t use a dumbass generalization of your own.
My parents got divorced, I'm fine. Oh, and I've been in my relationship for 13 years now, married for 7...
It's all about a mother acting like a mother and a father acting like a father...whether married or not...but having married parents certainly makes that more likely.
Pardon? I think you read my post wrong. I am responding to the fact that it was said that it may be better for parents to stay married for the sake of the children and continue to live together even if the marriage ended. I am saying that it is not so as the children will pick up their parents tension and yes.. it could cause problems for the kids wellbeing (worked with kids from such families)
I DID NOT say that children from divorced parents are messed up kids with relationship problems. On the contrary... my post would suggest that if a marriage ends, it needs to end. Divorce. No volatile and warring environment for the kids.
PS - after you read my post again (referring to the post I was answering), do I get a little apology for being so quick to jump at my throat?
its been proven that kids are genuinely affected by divorce and seperation.. of course its a generalisation but then most majority situations are!
They are affected, but if handled sensitively, they can get over it. I've seen both sides with friends.. a nasty divorce and a very civilised one. Both with kids....
Pardon? I think you read my post wrong. I am responding to the fact that it was said that it may be better for parents to stay married for the sake of the children and continue to live together even if the marriage ended. I am saying that it is not so as the children will pick up their parents tension and yes.. it could cause problems for the kids wellbeing (worked with kids from such families)
I DID NOT say that children from divorced parents are messed up kids with relationship problems. On the contrary... my post would suggest that if a marriage ends, it needs to end.
PS - after you read my post again (referring to the post I was answering), do I get a little apology for being so quick to jump at my throat?
Ummm...I cna;t find that post, but I'm not going to look really hard, so I'll just say, sorry.
Do you really think that kids are statistically better off being raised by single parents? Because all I'm saying is that I feel their odds are better if the parents are married.
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Throughout the thread you have been insisting that children born to married couples have much better chances than those born out of wedlock because the 'unit' is more stable.
I am saying all children born in a committed 'unit' have equal chances. Marriage has nothing to do with that - that's what the number show.
I would put marriage above just "committed", but I would put both above single.
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Do you really think that kids are statistically better off being raised by single parents? Because all I'm saying is that I feel their odds are better if the parents are married.
We weren't talking single parents but non-married committed households.....
The whole discussion started with the fact that statistics showed a mega rise in numbers of children born out of wedlock was not mainly due to 'stupid women getting knocked up' but....
"The overall rise reflects the burgeoning number of people who are putting off marriage or living together without getting married."
I still don't see where you are talking about 'staying together for the kids', etc.
Oh well.
Because I was responding to Stace's post (quoted) and "Just because marriages end doesn't mean its not better for a child to be raised by married parents. - ie staying together for the kids....
We weren't talking single parents but non-married committed households.....
The whole discussion started with the fact that statistics showed a mega rise in numbers of children born out of wedlock was not mainly due to 'stupid women getting knocked up' but....
"The overall rise reflects the burgeoning number of people who are putting off marriage or living together without getting married."
...or the number of people who think it's a good idea to have children when they aren't married is increasing. And I disagree with them wholeheartedly.
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
I wanted to butt into this debate, although it seems my points are made for me at this point. My observations/opinions on the matter at hand:
*Married or not married is largely irrelevant. It's not like it's hard to get a divorce these days and many many do. Relationships are now more unstable, and people are to alrger degree probe to walk away from a bad or below-par situation. However in a context where people to a less degree engages in marriage for the habit of it, the ones getting married may be more geared towards doing it long-term. The percentage that doesn't divorce that is. When it comes to the kids, whether their parents signed a piece of paper is irrelevant to their situation. So the problem isn't people not getting married, the problem would be that relationships between people have become more fleeting and changable.
* When it comes to marriage rates, you can discount the marriages to stop town gossip and discrimination, the ones where one party were totally economic dependant on the other, and the fact that it is no longer viewed unnormal or particularly wrong not to be married while co-habiting. Those getting married today are usually religious to some degree or at least kinda traditional. Or they just want the whole party of it. And these often divorce too, as statistics show. On the whole, people are also less accepting towards mere adequacy or "ok" in their love-lives. People wants to realize themselves more these days, not just tag along with the traditions as much as before. The age of "full marriage" in the populace is forever gone. But then again, marriage is for those who inject some meaning into it.
I am for neutral laws when it comes to partnerships or whatever, so that everyone is treated the same by the state, and then it's up to the individual whether they want a church ceremony on top or whatever. For official purposes marriage is just a piece of paper.
*Dont wail about the decline of marriage, if your real beef is bad parenting. Bad parenting is bad parenting. A wedding certificate or not changes nothing of it.
*What is the alternative to the current "messy" situation of non-marriage etc? What can be done? Reinstate bans on non-married peopole to live together? A public chaperone service that controls that there's no funny-business and un-authorized sex going on? Any political action in this field will be frought with uglyness the way I see it. This is a private issue if there ever is.
* When it comes to kids' reactions, they are prone to be much worse in an all-married environment, than in an environment where they are far from alone. The stigma will decline and disappear over time, as it becomes more commonplace. Dysfunctional families will always be there, and they still will have to deal with it. And some will come off pretty badly there in any case. That parents must work together and lift their gaze a bit up from their own feet when cleaning up a break, certainly. They should be responsible about it.
well, that's me anyway.
Peace
Dan
"YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
...or the number of people who think it's a good idea to have children when they aren't married is increasing. And I disagree with them wholeheartedly.
I wanted to butt into this debate, although it seems my points are made for me at this point. My observations/opinions on the matter at hand:
*Married or not married is largely irrelevant. It's not like it's hard to get a divorce these days and many many do. Relationships are now more unstable, and people are to alrger degree probe to walk away from a bad or below-par situation. However in a context where people to a less degree engages in marriage for the habit of it, the ones getting married may be more geared towards doing it long-term. The percentage that doesn't divorce that is. When it comes to the kids, whether their parents signed a piece of paper is irrelevant to their situation. So the problem isn't people not getting married, the problem would be that relationships between people have become more fleeting and changable.
* When it comes to marriage rates, you can discount the marriages to stop town gossip and discrimination, the ones where one party were totally economic dependant on the other, and the fact that it is no longer viewed unnormal or particularly wrong not to be married while co-habiting. Those getting married today are usually religious to some degree or at least kinda traditional. Or they just want the whole party of it. And these often divorce too, as statistics show. On the whole, people are also less accepting towards mere adequacy or "ok" in their love-lives. People wants to realize themselves more these days, not just tag along with the traditions as much as before. The age of "full marriage" in the populace is forever gone. But then again, marriage is for those who inject some meaning into it.
I am for neutral laws when it comes to partnerships or whatever, so that everyone is treated the same by the state, and then it's up to the individual whether they want a church ceremony on top or whatever. For official purposes marriage is just a piece of paper.
*Dont wail about the decline of marriage, if your real beef is bad parenting. Bad parenting is bad parenting. A wedding certificate or not changes nothing of it.
*What is the alternative to the current "messy" situation of non-marriage etc? What can be done? Reinstate bans on non-married peopole to live together? A public chaperone service that controls that there's no funny-business and un-authorized sex going on? Any political action in this field will be frought with uglyness the way I see it. This is a private issue if there ever is.
* When it comes to kids' reactions, they are prone to be much worse in an all-married environment, than in an environment where they are far from alone. The stigma will decline and disappear over time, as it becomes more commonplace. Dysfunctional families will always be there, and they still will have to deal with it. And some will come off pretty badly there in any case. That parents must work together and lift their gaze a bit up from their own feet when cleaning up a break, certainly. They should be responsible about it.
I think this is pathetic. Are people really this self-centered? And please do not tell me that abortion is the good alternative, because that isn't working either.
What know1 is saying is that it's generally better for babies to born to good supportive, stable, married parents, as opposed to unmarried ones. Sure there are good unmarried parents as well as shitty married ones, I don't think he's speaking in terms of 100% absolutes here.
The idea here is that one gets married, is a good spouse/parent, and stays married. Hence, a stable environment. If someone says that's a bad thing, then well, I don't know what to tell them.
The self-centeredness of Western society where folks don't want to bother with raising kids is a huge reason why radical militant Islam could take over the world simply by breeding. Europeans hardly have children anymore, and the US is heading in that direction.
*Married or not married is largely irrelevant. It's not like it's hard to get a divorce these days and many many do. Relationships are now more unstable, and people are to alrger degree probe to walk away from a bad or below-par situation.
With all due respect, this is a symptom of the same problem which is the title of this very thread.
To be clear, I'm not faulting anyone for walking away from a "bad" or "faulty" situation. I'm faulting the selfish or short-sighted folks who make it bad or faulty in the first place.
I wanted to butt into this debate, although it seems my points are made for me at this point. My observations/opinions on the matter at hand:
*Married or not married is largely irrelevant. It's not like it's hard to get a divorce these days and many many do. Relationships are now more unstable, and people are to alrger degree probe to walk away from a bad or below-par situation. However in a context where people to a less degree engages in marriage for the habit of it, the ones getting married may be more geared towards doing it long-term. The percentage that doesn't divorce that is. When it comes to the kids, whether their parents signed a piece of paper is irrelevant to their situation. So the problem isn't people not getting married, the problem would be that relationships between people have become more fleeting and changable.
* When it comes to marriage rates, you can discount the marriages to stop town gossip and discrimination, the ones where one party were totally economic dependant on the other, and the fact that it is no longer viewed unnormal or particularly wrong not to be married while co-habiting. Those getting married today are usually religious to some degree or at least kinda traditional. Or they just want the whole party of it. And these often divorce too, as statistics show. On the whole, people are also less accepting towards mere adequacy or "ok" in their love-lives. People wants to realize themselves more these days, not just tag along with the traditions as much as before. The age of "full marriage" in the populace is forever gone. But then again, marriage is for those who inject some meaning into it.
I am for neutral laws when it comes to partnerships or whatever, so that everyone is treated the same by the state, and then it's up to the individual whether they want a church ceremony on top or whatever. For official purposes marriage is just a piece of paper.
*Dont wail about the decline of marriage, if your real beef is bad parenting. Bad parenting is bad parenting. A wedding certificate or not changes nothing of it.
*What is the alternative to the current "messy" situation of non-marriage etc? What can be done? Reinstate bans on non-married peopole to live together? A public chaperone service that controls that there's no funny-business and un-authorized sex going on? Any political action in this field will be frought with uglyness the way I see it. This is a private issue if there ever is.
* When it comes to kids' reactions, they are prone to be much worse in an all-married environment, than in an environment where they are far from alone. The stigma will decline and disappear over time, as it becomes more commonplace. Dysfunctional families will always be there, and they still will have to deal with it. And some will come off pretty badly there in any case. That parents must work together and lift their gaze a bit up from their own feet when cleaning up a break, certainly. They should be responsible about it.
well, that's me anyway.
Peace
Dan
i love sociologists!
and i think the bad parenting is a neglected angle.
if you wanna be a friend of mine
cross the river to the eastside
What know1 is saying is that it's generally better for babies to born to good supportive, stable, married parents, as opposed to unmarried ones. Sure there are good unmarried parents as well as shitty married ones, I don't think he's speaking in terms of 100% absolutes here.
The idea here is that one gets married, is a good spouse/parent, and stays married. Hence, a stable environment. If someone says that's a bad thing, then well, I don't know what to tell them.
The point is that the married/unmarried part is not what's in question. Even if it can be found that married couples have it better or whatever. The case in question is child-rearing. And if you just drop "married" from the first description and just say "good, supportive stable parents" and I agree completely. The whole married or not is really a huge side-track to the issue.
Also consider that at the rate people are marrying and divorcing, chances when doing a sample are that you will get all those loving long-term good marriages, but you wont get data on prior history on those not married. Of course, a good relationship will stick together and be good. But it's not that they're married that makes the difference. Even if one can find in some studies that married people fare better.
Peace
Dan
"YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
The self-centeredness of Western society where folks don't want to bother with raising kids is a huge reason why radical militant Islam could take over the world simply by breeding.
Fanch... that's for another thread. And by the way... as long as the catholics and other staunch 'christians' are there, there will be 'breeding'. No fear...
The point is that the married/unmarried part is not what's in question. Even if it can be found that married couples have it better or whatever. The case in question is child-rearing. And if you just drop "married" from the first description and just say "good, supportive stable parents" and I agree completely. The whole married or not is really a huge side-track to the issue.
I disagree. People tend to have a lot more girlfriends/boyfriends than spouses. Marriage is an environment of stability.
Of course folks will point to divorce to fight my point, but again I say that divorce is a symptom of the same problem that is the title of this thread.
With all due respect, this is a symptom of the same problem which is the title of this very thread.
To be clear, I'm not faulting anyone for walking away from a "bad" or "faulty" situation. I'm faulting the selfish or short-sighted folks who make it bad or faulty in the first place.
Sure. But then the problem is the fleeting nature of relationships today. (And I can go on about individualization theory in this vein, but ain't gonna here) Not that people aren't getting married. A solution would not be to have more people marry... It's a question on focusing on the real issue at hand, not a symptom associated with it.
Peace
Dan
"YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
Comments
Logic Schmogic!
There, my hat is in the ring.
Discuss...
Maybe from a financial point of vue, but not otherwise. A marriage ends, there is tension, arguments, etc. Children sense it, soak it up and it affects them greatly. They do worse in school, and eventually have problems with relationships as well.... If both parents were made to be financially responsible for the children, money shouldn't be a problem.
I would still maintain that I feel that the odds are that it's better for a child to be raised in a married household than not.
it defies logic in that he is suggesting if 99% of marriages ended in divorce then those kids would be morally corrupt and bereft of any good parenting... which simply isnt true.
the majority of serial killers are raised in white middle class households where the parents are conservative religious folks who stayed married because of societal pressures and whatever expected them to (its in a university of california report somewhere)
what difference does it make if they are married or not... he keeps harking on about married couples!! and he blatantly ignored my same sex parenting scenario :rolleyes:
makes a change from your knob being in the ring
:eek:
Oh please..when attempting to prove that a generalization is wrong, don;t use a dumbass generalization of your own.
My parents got divorced, I'm fine. Oh, and I've been in my relationship for 13 years now, married for 7...
It's all about a mother acting like a mother and a father acting like a father...whether married or not...but having married parents certainly makes that more likely.
i downloaded a video from Limewire once called "brown girl in the ring"... boy was i disappointed!!!!!
exception to the rule then!!!
its been proven that kids are genuinely affected by divorce and seperation.. of course its a generalisation but then most majority situations are!
Pardon?
I DID NOT say that children from divorced parents are messed up kids with relationship problems. On the contrary... my post would suggest that if a marriage ends, it needs to end. Divorce. No volatile and warring environment for the kids.
PS - after you read my post again (referring to the post I was answering), do I get a little apology for being so quick to jump at my throat?
They are affected, but if handled sensitively, they can get over it. I've seen both sides with friends.. a nasty divorce and a very civilised one. Both with kids....
Why? Did she not look like a sugar in a plum?
Ummm...I cna;t find that post, but I'm not going to look really hard, so I'll just say, sorry.
Maybe it's just over your head.
Do you really think that kids are statistically better off being raised by single parents? Because all I'm saying is that I feel their odds are better if the parents are married.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Post #93... apology accepted
I would put marriage above just "committed", but I would put both above single.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
We weren't talking single parents but non-married committed households.....
The whole discussion started with the fact that statistics showed a mega rise in numbers of children born out of wedlock was not mainly due to 'stupid women getting knocked up' but....
"The overall rise reflects the burgeoning number of people who are putting off marriage or living together without getting married."
I still don't see where you are talking about 'staying together for the kids', etc.
Oh well.
But no need to dwell....
...or the number of people who think it's a good idea to have children when they aren't married is increasing. And I disagree with them wholeheartedly.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
*Married or not married is largely irrelevant. It's not like it's hard to get a divorce these days and many many do. Relationships are now more unstable, and people are to alrger degree probe to walk away from a bad or below-par situation. However in a context where people to a less degree engages in marriage for the habit of it, the ones getting married may be more geared towards doing it long-term. The percentage that doesn't divorce that is. When it comes to the kids, whether their parents signed a piece of paper is irrelevant to their situation. So the problem isn't people not getting married, the problem would be that relationships between people have become more fleeting and changable.
* When it comes to marriage rates, you can discount the marriages to stop town gossip and discrimination, the ones where one party were totally economic dependant on the other, and the fact that it is no longer viewed unnormal or particularly wrong not to be married while co-habiting. Those getting married today are usually religious to some degree or at least kinda traditional. Or they just want the whole party of it. And these often divorce too, as statistics show. On the whole, people are also less accepting towards mere adequacy or "ok" in their love-lives. People wants to realize themselves more these days, not just tag along with the traditions as much as before. The age of "full marriage" in the populace is forever gone. But then again, marriage is for those who inject some meaning into it.
I am for neutral laws when it comes to partnerships or whatever, so that everyone is treated the same by the state, and then it's up to the individual whether they want a church ceremony on top or whatever. For official purposes marriage is just a piece of paper.
*Dont wail about the decline of marriage, if your real beef is bad parenting. Bad parenting is bad parenting. A wedding certificate or not changes nothing of it.
*What is the alternative to the current "messy" situation of non-marriage etc? What can be done? Reinstate bans on non-married peopole to live together? A public chaperone service that controls that there's no funny-business and un-authorized sex going on? Any political action in this field will be frought with uglyness the way I see it. This is a private issue if there ever is.
* When it comes to kids' reactions, they are prone to be much worse in an all-married environment, than in an environment where they are far from alone. The stigma will decline and disappear over time, as it becomes more commonplace. Dysfunctional families will always be there, and they still will have to deal with it. And some will come off pretty badly there in any case. That parents must work together and lift their gaze a bit up from their own feet when cleaning up a break, certainly. They should be responsible about it.
well, that's me anyway.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
But you're OK with it if:
hmmmmmm.......
hear, hear...
What know1 is saying is that it's generally better for babies to born to good supportive, stable, married parents, as opposed to unmarried ones. Sure there are good unmarried parents as well as shitty married ones, I don't think he's speaking in terms of 100% absolutes here.
The idea here is that one gets married, is a good spouse/parent, and stays married. Hence, a stable environment. If someone says that's a bad thing, then well, I don't know what to tell them.
The self-centeredness of Western society where folks don't want to bother with raising kids is a huge reason why radical militant Islam could take over the world simply by breeding. Europeans hardly have children anymore, and the US is heading in that direction.
With all due respect, this is a symptom of the same problem which is the title of this very thread.
To be clear, I'm not faulting anyone for walking away from a "bad" or "faulty" situation. I'm faulting the selfish or short-sighted folks who make it bad or faulty in the first place.
i love sociologists!
and i think the bad parenting is a neglected angle.
cross the river to the eastside
The point is that the married/unmarried part is not what's in question. Even if it can be found that married couples have it better or whatever. The case in question is child-rearing. And if you just drop "married" from the first description and just say "good, supportive stable parents" and I agree completely. The whole married or not is really a huge side-track to the issue.
Also consider that at the rate people are marrying and divorcing, chances when doing a sample are that you will get all those loving long-term good marriages, but you wont get data on prior history on those not married. Of course, a good relationship will stick together and be good. But it's not that they're married that makes the difference. Even if one can find in some studies that married people fare better.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
Fanch... that's for another thread. And by the way... as long as the catholics and other staunch 'christians' are there, there will be 'breeding'. No fear...
I disagree. People tend to have a lot more girlfriends/boyfriends than spouses. Marriage is an environment of stability.
Of course folks will point to divorce to fight my point, but again I say that divorce is a symptom of the same problem that is the title of this thread.
Sure. But then the problem is the fleeting nature of relationships today. (And I can go on about individualization theory in this vein, but ain't gonna here) Not that people aren't getting married. A solution would not be to have more people marry... It's a question on focusing on the real issue at hand, not a symptom associated with it.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965