Divorce

[memphis]

Where are all the "sanctity of marriage" people when it comes to divorce? If marriage is all about children, as they claim, shouldn't they be opposed to two people with kids being allowed to divorce? Is there any political element today opposed to the no-fault divorce?
For the record, my parents divorced when I was eight and it was the best thing that could have happened. The condition of my childhood was greatly improved for having my parents live seperately.

[Gabu]

I've long said that Britney Spears has made much greater contributions to the breakdown of the status of marriage than anything a homosexual could hope to achieve.

[Tender Branson]

I've long said that Britney Spears has made much greater contributions to the breakdown of the status of marriage than anything a homosexual could hope to achieve.

Hahaha, indeed !

[dazzleman]

I think good judgment is the key.

Generally, I think divorce is a bad thing, especially when children are involved.  However, I recognize that some marriages are so bad that kids are better off if they are raised without it, and divorce is better for them.

What I oppose is the attitude of rationalization that many who support no-fault divorce have put forth -- that divorce is not damaging in any way to children.  It is.  I think growing up in a home with a healthy, or even marginal, marriage is better than having divorced parents.  But there is an attitude of rationalization that many have -- that they convince themselves that what they want to do is better for their kids anyway, when they know deep down that it isn't.

How parents handle divorce is also another issue.  Some handle it well, while others use their children as pawns.

Good judgment and responsible behavior, as well as good intentions, are the key.  When people have a baby, and then a month later they're getting divorced, they have not engaged in responsible behavior.  I recognize that marriages don't always work out for reasons beyond the individuals' control, and that sometimes it's better to recognize that and move on, for the sake of all involved, but there are some people who don't even try to make it work, and who move on from marriage to marriage, all unsuccessful, and create chaos in the lives of their children.

There's no right black-and-white answer to the issue.

[memphis]

I think good judgment is the key.

Generally, I think divorce is a bad thing, especially when children are involved.  However, I recognize that some marriages are so bad that kids are better off if they are raised without it, and divorce is better for them.

What I oppose is the attitude of rationalization that many who support no-fault divorce have put forth -- that divorce is not damaging in any way to children.  It is.  I think growing up in a home with a healthy, or even marginal, marriage is better than having divorced parents.  But there is an attitude of rationalization that many have -- that they convince themselves that what they want to do is better for their kids anyway, when they know deep down that it isn't.

How parents handle divorce is also another issue.  Some handle it well, while others use their children as pawns.

Good judgment and responsible behavior, as well as good intentions, are the key.  When people have a baby, and then a month later they're getting divorced, they have not engaged in responsible behavior.  I recognize that marriages don't always work out for reasons beyond the individuals' control, and that sometimes it's better to recognize that and move on, for the sake of all involved, but there are some people who don't even try to make it work, and who move on from marriage to marriage, all unsuccessful, and create chaos in the lives of their children.

There's no right black-and-white answer to the issue.

Well stated, though I think that divorce may be beneficial to kids more often than you realize. Anyhow, I'll ask again. Where is the "family values" crowd on this one? How is it that this is not a bigger issue in American politics?

[dazzleman]

I think good judgment is the key.

Generally, I think divorce is a bad thing, especially when children are involved.  However, I recognize that some marriages are so bad that kids are better off if they are raised without it, and divorce is better for them.

What I oppose is the attitude of rationalization that many who support no-fault divorce have put forth -- that divorce is not damaging in any way to children.  It is.  I think growing up in a home with a healthy, or even marginal, marriage is better than having divorced parents.  But there is an attitude of rationalization that many have -- that they convince themselves that what they want to do is better for their kids anyway, when they know deep down that it isn't.

How parents handle divorce is also another issue.  Some handle it well, while others use their children as pawns.

Good judgment and responsible behavior, as well as good intentions, are the key.  When people have a baby, and then a month later they're getting divorced, they have not engaged in responsible behavior.  I recognize that marriages don't always work out for reasons beyond the individuals' control, and that sometimes it's better to recognize that and move on, for the sake of all involved, but there are some people who don't even try to make it work, and who move on from marriage to marriage, all unsuccessful, and create chaos in the lives of their children.

There's no right black-and-white answer to the issue.

Well stated, though I think that divorce may be beneficial to kids more often than you realize. Anyhow, I'll ask again. Where is the "family values" crowd on this one? How is it that this is not a bigger issue in American politics?

Many of the 'family values' people are divorced themselves.  In fact, one reason the whole 'family values' movement isn't more effective is that in general, it doesn't practice what it preaches.

You can either ridicule the concept of 'family values' or you can ridicule the movement.  Those are two very different things.  Many liberals give the impression that they're doing the former rather than the latter.  Which is it for you?

[memphis]

My family is extremely important to me, but I ridicule the notion that my political beliefs are somehow anti-family. I see conservative, big-business consumerist politics as the ultimate stress on families.

[dazzleman]

My family is extremely important to me, but I ridicule the notion that my political beliefs are somehow anti-family. I see conservative, big-business consumerist politics as the ultimate stress on families.

The problem is that most Americans have bought into the whole consumerist philosophy that puts more stress on families.  It's an area of agreement, in all honesty, among the left and right, though for different reasons.

People have to decide that a modicum of additional free time is more important than all those consumer goods that are filling the closets of their homes.  When enough people decide that, things will change.  It's not a political issue, IMO.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

I've long said that Britney Spears has made much greater contributions to the breakdown of the status of marriage than anything a homosexual could hope to achieve.

[nclib]

Where are all the "sanctity of marriage" people when it comes to divorce? If marriage is all about children, as they claim, shouldn't they be opposed to two people with kids being allowed to divorce? Is there any political element today opposed to the no-fault divorce?

Another interesting question is "why is no political segment opposed to divorced people with kids remarrying". Remarriage certainly has a greater impact on children than being born to a gay/lesbian couple. While I think both should be legal, I think a better argument could be made against divorced people with kids remarrying than against same-sex marriage.

[nclib]

Many of the 'family values' people are divorced themselves.  In fact, one reason the whole 'family values' movement isn't more effective is that in general, it doesn't practice what it preaches.

You can either ridicule the concept of 'family values' or you can ridicule the movement.  Those are two very different things.  Many liberals give the impression that they're doing the former rather than the latter.  Which is it for you?

The expression 'family values' is really a code term for conservative Christian values, which I am strongly opposed to. However, I am not opposed to family values in general, i.e. I do not consider my political views anti-family, not even anti-traditional family. Sure I support some non-traditional families, but by doing so I am not taking away rights/priviliges from traditional families.

[RBH]

Fun fact:

Nancy Pelosi - One Marriage, No Divorces
Newt Gingrich - Three Marriages, Two Divorces

But yeah.

Impulsive marriages like the ones in Vegas are a worse threat to marriage than things like gay marriage or civil unions.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

When I hear politicans talking about "family values" I reach for my gun.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Fun fact:

Nancy Pelosi - One Marriage, No Divorces
Newt Gingrich - Three Marriages, Two Divorces

But yeah.

Impulsive marriages like the ones in Vegas are a worse threat to marriage than things like gay marriage or civil unions.

[sarcasm]
But Pelosi has "San Francisco values", while Gingrich has "Georgia values".
[/sarcasm]

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

I'll take neither Georgia of SF values. I'm not a fan of either biblehumping or endless parades of gay men in leather marching.

[RBH]

What about gay men with bibles?

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

What about gay men with bibles?

Sounds kinky. Where do I sign up?

[RBH]

I think gay men with bibles was alluded to in Revelation too, or maybe not