Out of wedlock births hit new high in US

redrock

know1 wrote:

My point is not to know how often divorces occur, but just that I believe that it's best for kids to be raised in households with 2 committed, stable parents.

Ah ha! You just said a household with 2 committed, stable parents... I agree with you there!!! As long as the parents are committed and stable they DON'T have to be married! So all this 'out of wedlock' crap is rubbish!!!!

(PS - I don't get lost in stats... that's was my job for a while.. but numbers speak.).

Staceb10

soulsinging wrote:

seeing as how you yourself couldnt wait for your wedding night to start sticking it in, you're in no position to talk. people have sex. it's ridiculous to say "women should stop spreading their legs" and then at the same tacitly condone men doing whatever it takes to get laid... ghb, pressure, intoxication, harassment, or whatever else. in the eyes of many like you, guys are supposed to have sex as much as possible, and women are supposed to not like it and only put up with it cos they want a baby from their husband.

i notice that neither you or stace is capable or willing to admit that maybe guys shouldn't be fucking everyone they can or should be held accountable for it. you both respond to my point with snide, sarcastic remarks about how WOMEN are the ones who should be responsible. guys... well, we wouldnt want to cut into their fun now would we?

I'm a little lost on your comments. Why is it ridiculous to say that women should stop spreading their legs but its not ridiculous to say that men should stop sticking their dicks into women? Aren't both just as ridiculous. That's why I said it..to show how ridiculous your comment was!

When has the idea of men not fucking everyone they can even come up for me to comment on it?? Men and women both should have sex with whoever they want..they should just both be responsible about it! And I never said that men should NOT be accountable. What I asked you is why should men be obligated to a child they didn't want to have but they did anyway because the woman is the only person who has a right to make the decision? If the man wants the child and then suddenly walks away that's a completely different story.

What snide, sarcastic comments did I make??

For clarification.. men and women should BOTH take responsibility in taking precautions against pregnance when having sex. They should also both be able to decide whether they want the responsibility of having a child should the woman get pregnant.

You are obviously ranting from some emotional angle on this subject.

know1

redrock wrote:

Ah ha! You just said a household with 2 committed, stable parents... I agree with you there!!! As long as the parents are committed and stable they DON'T have to be married! So all this 'out of wedlock' crap is rubbish!!!!

(PS - I don't get lost in stats... that's was my job for a while.. but numbers speak.).

And I said it that way multiple times early in the thread.

Numbers can say whatever you want them to say. It's most often much more important to look at what they do NOT say as opposed to what they seem to say.

dunkman

know1 wrote:

So if you knew people were going to suffer, are you admitting that you would do nothing to help them avoid it?

After all, it's their life, who are you to interfere...

but i dont know they are going to suffer and neither do you...

Staceb10

soulsinging wrote:

i know you're at least consistent and uniform in your views. i respect that. these two refuse to admit to playing a double standard however.

WTF are you talking about?? I was pointing out YOUR double standard!!

redrock

know1 wrote:

And I said it that way multiple times early in the thread.

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.

soulsinging

Staceb10 wrote:

I'm a little lost on your comments. Why is it ridiculous to say that women should stop spreading their legs but its not ridiculous to say that men should stop sticking their dicks into women? Aren't both just as ridiculous. That's why I said it..to show how ridiculous your comment was!

When has the idea of men not fucking everyone they can even come up for me to comment on it?? Men and women both should have sex with whoever they want..they should just both be responsible about it! And I never said that men should NOT be accountable. What I asked you is why should men be obligated to a child they didn't want to have but they did anyway because the woman is the only person who has a right to make the decision? If the man wants the child and then suddenly walks away that's a completely different story.

What snide, sarcastic comments did I make??

For clarification.. men and women should BOTH take responsibility in taking precautions against pregnance when having sex. They should also both be able to decide whether they want the responsibility of having a child should the woman get pregnant.

You are obviously ranting from some emotional angle on this subject.

then why do you only propose solutions that place huge burdens on women, but you have absolutely no ideas for how to make men share in that burden? if you've got them, im open to hearing them. that is why i tossed out the man analogy. becos all of your suggestions entail sticking it to the women while doing nothing to prevent the man from washing his hands of it. and yes, i believe both should be held accountable. but i dont believe in targeting one group just becos you're too lazy to tackle the other one and the weaker group is easier to control.

dunkman

know1 wrote:

Even if the numbers showed that only 1% of marriages did not end in divorce, 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.

that defies logic

Staceb10

dunkman1974 wrote:

that defies logic

not necessarily..

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.

Staceb10

soulsinging wrote:

then why do you only propose solutions that place huge burdens on women, but you have absolutely no ideas for how to make men share in that burden? if you've got them, im open to hearing them. that is why i tossed out the man analogy. becos all of your suggestions entail sticking it to the women while doing nothing to prevent the man from washing his hands of it. and yes, i believe both should be held accountable. but i dont believe in targeting one group just becos you're too lazy to tackle the other one and the weaker group is easier to control.

I'm sorry.. what "solutions" are you referring to? What did I propose that places a huge burden on women and no idea for how to make men share in that burden? I'm seriously confused.

Byrnzie

dunkman1974 wrote:

that defies logic

Logic Schmogic!

There, my hat is in the ring.

Discuss...

redrock

Staceb10 wrote:

not necessarily..

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.

dunkman

Staceb10 wrote:

not necessarily..

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:

dunkman

Byrnzie wrote:

There, my hat is in the ring.

makes a change from your knob being in the ring

Byrnzie

dunkman1974 wrote:

makes a change from your knob being in the ring

:eek:

cincybearcat

redrock wrote:

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.

dunkman

Byrnzie wrote:

:eek:

i downloaded a video from Limewire once called "brown girl in the ring"... boy was i disappointed!!!!!

dunkman

cincybearcat wrote:

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!

redrock

cincybearcat wrote:

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?

redrock

dunkman1974 wrote:

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!

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....