Posted on 11/08/2005 8:01:14 AM PST by TBP
Before the divorce rate began its inexorable rise in the late 1960s, the common wisdom had been that, where children are concerned, divorce itself is a problem. But as it became widespread -- peaking at almost one in two first marriages in the mid-1980s -- popular thinking morphed into a new, adult-friendly idea: It's not the act of divorcing that's the problem, but simply the way that parents handle it.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
You have illuminated the essence of the problem. Everything else is just detail.
You saying you analogy is spot on does not make it so. Abortion has nothing to do with this issue and, as a concept, is not personal to a child as would be the divorce of its parents.
Children of divorce may have twice the problems of those of intact families but this PALES in comparision to the problems of the OOW. CoD are not called "illegitimate" as are the OOW.
Fear of the unknown is not the ONLY reason kids would not want divorce but is one reason. For me to make such a claim is as simpleminded as claiming that divorce only occurs among the selfish.
If the people REALLY want it to be SAVED is key.
My mother's friend lived in a house with her husband for 1 year and they never spoke to one another, he finally told her he did not love her, he did not want to be with her.
Should she have tried to save a marraige like that?
I never claimed it only occurred among the selfish, I said other than the cases of clear abuse and neglect it is selfishness... And that is not simpleminded, but reality.
My analogy is spot on, and while you may not like it, its true. A child knows inately, and inalienably that abortion is wrong. So to do children know inately and inalienably that in the overwhelming majority of divorces they do not want their parents to divorce. These are fundamental realities, not "lack of understanding" or "fear of change" but flat out inalienable realities of who and what we are. We have to lie to ourselves to come to any other conclusion.
You admit that Children of divorce are TWICE as likely to have problems as those from in tact homes... yet in the next breath attempt to rationalize divorce by saying, well at least its not as bad as the bastards. What a horrifficly low standard you set. You knowingly put your kids at twice the risk, and do so for anything other than real abuse or neglect and claim you are not being selfish???
You young kids in a room from traditional married homes and ask them if they want their parents to divorce and I will lay you to a T that well over 9 out of 10 of them will say no. And when asked why, not a darn one of them will answer "fear of the unknown".
You put adult children of divorce, where the divorce was not caused by REAL ABUSE or NEGLECT and ask them if they wished their parents had stayed together, and I also guarantee you will get about a 9 in 10 response that honestly they wish they had.
This isn't something you can rationalize away, in spite of your best efforts. Other than the rare case of true abuse and neglect you cannot put an argument forward for divorce that does not revolve around selfishness.
There are important reasons for not getting married after a certain age. You brought up a very important one.
Children do best being in a stable two parent home. Before divorce was acceptable, there were a lot of families that suffered abuse, etc. I think it is imperative that the government stay out of people's homes, as they are too busy cracking down on homeschoolers, instead of finding the kids that are really abused. In other words, they don't know what the hell they're doing, as usual.
The opportunity for divorce doesn't do people much good, if their ex is abusive and uses the kids as pawns to get even with the other parent. You dream of finally having a peaceful, safe environment, and the child's other parent will do their best to make sure that it's the last thing you'll ever have. In this scenario, the kids are the ones who lose big time.
I expected the usual pontification on this subject by the usual culprits.
Totally agree with you! I am married we have no children and we also have seperate bank accounts not that we don't share equally in our expenses, but my husband has no control with his money he makes good money but I am a saver he a spender....people think we should have joint accounts but it works better for me doing it this way other wise we would be fighting constantly..
You never tried my wife's Chocolate Tuna Surprise casserole
These are people that had been married for 30 years raised 3 boys she said he never really acted like he loved her he just tolerated her and she tried loving him but it did not work, he wanted out she let him go for her own sanity and peace of mind..
Where there is no PEACE there definetly is no HAPPINESS>
I'm sorry to hear about the unforutnate circumstances of your childhood.
No one is claiming that divorce ought never to occur; certainly an addiciton (including alcoholism) that is not treated is one legitimate reason for it. So is abuse. But it's waaaaaaaaaaaaaay too easy these days. Essentially, if you no longer feel like being married, you won't be. What are irreconcilable differences? Anything you want them to be.
In general, however, all the data shows that the intact mom-and-pop family is the situatin most likely to produce productive, happy, law-abiding, compassionate, loving citizens. For the children's good and that of society, we should make divorce an extraordinary circumstance, not a routine event.
Your neighbors are liberals, I take it.
My bf and I have seperate bank accounts, and will probably keep it that way. We have discussed having a joint account for bills, etc.
We're comfortable with the arrangement, which is mainly for financial reasons. If I still had children in the home, I would not cohabitate with him, and he understands completely. We have a total of 7 children between us.
Funny thing is, we're on the same page financially speaking. We're both tighter than the bark on a tree ;-)
True. But we also need to make it more difficult to get a divorce. You shouldn't be able legally to divorce becasue you're unfulfilled. Some circumstances cal.l for it, but we've made it entirely too much a convenience. The first "grounds" we should wipe off the books is "irreconcilable differences." It's a meaningless term.
At the very least, couples should be required to go through a counseling program such as the one you described before they can divorce for anything other than abuse, addiction, or adultery.
LOL...Good for you! I am definetly on the same Page with you here! and surely don't think you are going to Hell as some on this thread have projected to me!
If it works for you then it is okay! you are 2 grown adults having a grown up relationship and hurting no one...
An addiction that the party refuses to treat woudl be another very good reason. But I agree that you ought ot have a compelling reason or you ought to stick it out.
Of course not. But we need to share information about what works and what doesn't in each state and we need to press our legislatures to tighten up the laws.
*67.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.