- Joined
- Oct 28, 2007
- Messages
- 23,944
- Reaction score
- 16,534
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
-- men need to band together and fight for their father/parenting rights in courts as a group--
-- it's not all together uncommon for a one night stand to result in a child the father is completely oblivious about for years. A woman can successfully take a man to court when a child is 3, sue for child support, and win despite his just being told that he even has a kid.
-- Otherwise it just appears as if they don't care and enjoy having an excuse to be let off the hook. The damage this does to children is seen throughout our entire society.
I think you need to make a clear distinction between a dad who abandons his kids, prehaps as a result of a divorce(or sometimes not) and dads who are simply unable to live with their kids due to a divorce. When a divorce happens, its not as if dad is asked by the judge if he would like to remain living with his ex-wife and children. There is a huge difference between the two. And I have experienced both myself. I do not know, nor have I ever met my biological father(well, since I was about 18 months old I guess). I did see my step father for a while, after he and my mother got divorced.
Part of the problem with young men not knowing how to be "fathers" could certainley stem from the abandonment issues you spoke of. I think its mostly because our society is putting so much damn emphasis on empathy these days, something most men are simply short on.
Are you aware that the biggest obstacle to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was Democrats? No, of course you don't, because that would require some kind of historical knowledge and objectivity.
I don't disagree. But the "why" is irrelevant to someone like myself who doesn't sit in judgment of "why" others choose to leave a relationship. The "why" - to me and to everyone else - is completely irrelevant. It doesn't matter. All that matters is that if people are not happy in a relationship, then they need to either fix it or get out of it. There is no "value" in forcing people to remain in unhealthy situations. Even if someone does think they left for a 'stupid' reason.
Yeah! They go into marriage to easily and fast, really enthusiastic about it, and finds out a few months later that they argue, and then they get divorced. WEAK, people are WEAK COWARDS.
This switch marked the end of the GOP as a fiscally conservative entity and morphed it into the liberal entity it is today.
This is why the two parties are no longer any different in my way of viewing things, because the Southern Democrats shifted parties for retarded reasons.
They did not give up the ideals that made them democrats in the first place, they only shifted names over social "conservativism".
IMO, this marked the decline of the GOP as a conservative entity. And Roe v. Wade was the death blow to small governemnt conservativism in American politics because social issues gained primacy in the GOP as opposed to fiscal issues.
They support big govenremtn in socially "conservative" ways.
This is why there is no Goldwater in the party anymore. He'd be labelled as a "librul" nowadays because of his social views.
I don't see how they would change in a days time.What do you believe have caused family values in america to deteriorate?
Or perhapse you believe they are the same as always or even better than yesteryear?
Are americans more selfish making family bonding, marriage and children come second?
Jeez... don't oversimplify and devalue good people because of complicated issues please.
Many people are just weak and give up too fast. Not only marriage.
I don't see how they would change in a days time.
Many people also stay in marriages too long, and that can be to the detriment of the kids and family as well.
There is a lot of rotten things about our society, impossible to change all of them. The shame is that most people dont even care or want them to change.
The Baron said:Obviously those within the relationship have the power to harm the relationship the most. This is hardly a revolutionary observation.
However, making divorce easier only harms the “traditional values” originally brought into question by this thread. Marriage was intended as a permanent relationship “until death do we part” that was intended to transcend the good times and bad times that couples will inevitably go through during the course of a lifetime.
The Baron said:I suppose I could point out that people also tend to stay together due to tough economic times but what would that do to your theory then?
The Baron said:at the end of the day, love is a choice not an emotion. And those who "choose" to abandon the commitment to their marriage only end up harming their spouses, children, et al.
it has to be up to the couple to maintain that commitment.
government interference in the form of making divorce unnecessarily difficult won't make people love each other more, nor will it make them more committed to each other.
people get married for money, and they stay together in unhappy relationships for money. this is hardly new. is this supposed to be an example of family values?
my argument is that making divorce more difficult does not solve the root problem, and makes the consequences of it more severe.
But it will make them think twice about getting into a marriage not so easily tossed away.
My point has nothing to do with keeping an existing bad relationship together or to casting blame. I hope that you understand that.
I was not indicating that the why is important for justification/judgement reasons, but rather as a means to understanding how and why the relationship failed, so that those within it can learn and apply new methods towards getting along so that all within the unit, whether it be divorced with new partners or not, are happier and better adjusted so that all prosper, especially any children.
For that reason, and for others as well, I would argue that the why is relevant to everybody, including you.
You won't see any argument for me for reasons people should get married. (I can't think of a reason to get married) :lol:But it will make them think twice about getting into a marriage not so easily tossed away.
I agree because the root of the problem is that people are getting married to begin with. Or even more simply, that the government is involved at all. I very much agree that making it both difficult to get married, incredibly difficult to get divorced, and quite simply more advantageous not to bother signing some silly government license at all will absolutely get to the root of the problem and eventually get the government out of marriage altogether. One can only hope, anyway.It does solve the root problem as I see it. People should not be getting married at the drop of a hat. People with 10+ divorces under the belt should raise an alarm bell to others. 5 marriages is becoming way to common.
I doubt it. people are very idealistic about marriage. they don't tend to get married if they don't think it will work. even discussing the possibility of making a prenuptial agreement can make people angry, because they don't want to acknowledge the fact that the marriage might not work.
for a variety of reasons, the age people enter their first marriage has been going up, not down.
So yeah, like I said previously in another thread... make it incredibly difficult to get divorced and make adultery a crime and marriage will be all but obliterated and I'm perfectly okay with that since the government shouldn't be involved in the first place.
Absolutely, agree 100%.
I agree because the root of the problem is that people are getting married to begin with. Or even more simply, that the government is involved at all. I very much agree that making it both difficult to get married, incredibly difficult to get divorced, and quite simply more advantageous not to bother signing some silly government license at all will absolutely get to the root of the problem and eventually get the government out of marriage altogether. One can only hope, anyway.
I don't think that is a bad thing at all.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?