The destruction of families

Watch
account name
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 2 years ago
#1
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...haul-laws.html

How thoughtful and conservative of Gauke.

With all the evidence that the healthiest and most successful children grow in a full family with mum and dad, Gauke decided to make divorces and family splits even easier than they already are.

A way to go to tackle aimless youth, forming in gangs and killing each other.
1
reply
looloo2134
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#2
Report 2 years ago
#2
So a child would be better of hearing their parents fighting or even being abusive too each other than their parents going divorce. It good thing that divorces is become easier it better for all the people involved special the children.

Aimless youth have formed gangs for thousand of years. It has nothing do with single parents.
6
reply
looloo2134
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#3
Report 2 years ago
#3
(Original post by account name)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...haul-laws.html

How thoughtful and conservative of Gauke.

With all the evidence that the healthiest and most successful children grow in a full family with mum and dad, Gauke decided to make divorces and family splits even easier than they already are.

A way to go to tackle aimless youth, forming in gangs and killing each other.
The paper say nothing about aimless young people it about changes to the divorce law which have not change for 50 years which is a good thing there nothing worst than being in loveless marriage.
0
reply
username1799249
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#4
Report 2 years ago
#4
(Original post by account name)
With all the evidence that the healthiest and most successful children grow in a full family with mum and dad, Gauke decided to make divorces and family splits even easier than they already are.
This is a rather ignorant view point. Divorce is not easy at the moment. If a relationship breaks down as some do, you have to go to caught and effectively blame one party for the breakdown. This is all done in public and you effectively end up in the situation where one party is making up a story about the other who won't contest those lies in the interests of being able to pursue the divorce. It is very hurtful and is basically a lie in a court of law that everyone is buying into. Justice, surely isn't based on lies. And that is after being apart for 2 years and if the divorce is contested, couples must remain married for 5 years. If you are in your late 60s, that is a massive amount of time to live in limbo.

Perhaps a better solution might be to make marriage harder? Any couple can get married on a whim without thinking about what it means yet the only winners of divorce are lawyers.
2
reply
ThomH97
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#5
Report 2 years ago
#5
(Original post by ByEeek)
This is a rather ignorant view point. Divorce is not easy at the moment. If a relationship breaks down as some do, you have to go to caught and effectively blame one party for the breakdown. This is all done in public and you effectively end up in the situation where one party is making up a story about the other who won't contest those lies in the interests of being able to pursue the divorce. It is very hurtful and is basically a lie in a court of law that everyone is buying into. Justice, surely isn't based on lies. And that is after being apart for 2 years and if the divorce is contested, couples must remain married for 5 years. If you are in your late 60s, that is a massive amount of time to live in limbo.

Perhaps a better solution might be to make marriage harder? Any couple can get married on a whim without thinking about what it means yet the only winners of divorce are lawyers.
I agree with making marriage harder. But I also think emphasising it is a commitment in the unfortunate event of a breakdown is important too. Allowing a shortcut if people blame each other is not necessary, why not just have a 2 year (or whatever) wait on a divorce regardless of the reasons? That way the "til death do us part" becomes a 2 year minimum commitment for everyone.

I'm not sure what additional sympathy we are supposed to have for someone in her late 60s. She's not going to find a life partner at her age unless she lives another 60 years and manages to have kids. It's far worse to be intending to start your life but be hampered by a 5-year setback. Then again, adultery isn't illegal so you can easily just ignore your marriage and life with (and bang) whoever you want.
1
reply
username1799249
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#6
Report 2 years ago
#6
(Original post by ThomH97)
I'm not sure what additional sympathy we are supposed to have for someone in her late 60s. She's not going to find a life partner at her age unless she lives another 60 years and manages to have kids. It's far worse to be intending to start your life but be hampered by a 5-year setback. Then again, adultery isn't illegal so you can easily just ignore your marriage and life with (and bang) whoever you want.
I think that is rather cynical. Given current life expectancy trends someone in their 60s who is healthy could easily expect to live an additional 30 years so I think your assumptions are completely wrong. The point, is that during your "two years" of cool off, life is held in limbo. You can't split your financial assets and many people end up having to live with someone they don't want to be with. And then in the current situation, if someone wants a divorce but the other party does not, again, the whole process is tied up in limbo.

I think we need to accept that some partnerships break down. Imposing idealistic values onto marriage helps no one. On the flip-side you also have couples who don't marry and yet live to death parts them. I guess you look down on them for living in sin no?
1
reply
username3883544
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#7
Report 2 years ago
#7
My view is that divorce law should be different if there are no children (or step-children) involved. If two people have married, not had children, it is a matter really only for them, unless there has been violence or one would be left destitute.
0
reply
ThomH97
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#8
Report 2 years ago
#8
(Original post by ByEeek)
I think that is rather cynical. Given current life expectancy trends someone in their 60s who is healthy could easily expect to live an additional 30 years so I think your assumptions are completely wrong. The point, is that during your "two years" of cool off, life is held in limbo. You can't split your financial assets and many people end up having to live with someone they don't want to be with. And then in the current situation, if someone wants a divorce but the other party does not, again, the whole process is tied up in limbo.

I think we need to accept that some partnerships break down. Imposing idealistic values onto marriage helps no one. On the flip-side you also have couples who don't marry and yet live to death parts them. I guess you look down on them for living in sin no?
What's the point of celebrating marriage if it's not a commitment? You might as well just live together, which I don't look down upon, don't know why you're preaching in your second paragraph.

And if marriage is to be a commitment, there needs to be significant barriers to getting out of it.
0
reply
fallen_acorns
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#9
Report 2 years ago
#9
(Original post by looloo2134)
So a child would be better of hearing their parents fighting or even being abusive too each other than their parents going divorce. It good thing that divorces is become easier it better for all the people involved special the children.

Aimless youth have formed gangs for thousand of years. It has nothing do with single parents.
your wrong.

Yes, its better that a kid is in a single parent family then an abusive family... BUT - the vast vast majority of divorced families were not abusive prior to the divorce. All evidence is clear - 2 parents, even two slightly unhappy ones, are better then one parent, on average.. by a long mile.

Youth will always form gangs - but again, your arguing out of emotion, rather then facts/research. Crime rates and single-parent families correlate.. the evidence again is clear, specifically the lack of a father, causes an increase risk in the child participating in crime.
0
reply
stoyfan
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#10
Report 2 years ago
#10
(Original post by ThomH97)
What's the point of celebrating marriage if it's not a commitment? You might as well just live together, which I don't look down upon, don't know why you're preaching in your second paragraph.

And if marriage is to be a commitment, there needs to be significant barriers to getting out of it.
But the commitment should come from the couple, not from the law. What is the point of forcing a couple to stay married even when their relationship broke down and they don't even live in the same household? These barriers to divorce devlaues marriage.

I think introducing unnecessary barriers to divorce would only drive people away from seeking marriage, even if they seek to have a long term relationship.
0
reply
fallen_acorns
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#11
Report 2 years ago
#11
My view - in short:

Divorce is ok... if you have a society built around the idea of single-parent families, and communal child-raising.

Divorce is not fine... if you have a society built around the idea of a single self-supporting family unit.

---

Right now, we have the second one, and its a disaster.. We have a society that is entirely structurally based around the concept of the family. From our traditions, to our education, laws, schooling, societal interactions etc - are all built around the idea of a family.

So right now when a person gets divorced, they cause a huge amount of problems to both them, and any children involved. Its nothing specifically wrong with the notion of divorced, but simply that they are pushing outside of the model that society has developed into, and as such suffer on average, very bad consequences.

If we want divorce - that's fine.. in theory, there is nothing wrong with it. But you cannot keep our current systems AND have divorce.. you need to work from the ground up to create a society that is not based around marriage and family in the traditional sense.

For example: Communicated childcare, remove inheritance laws, fully nationalized education systems, provision of male-supervised learning spaces, substantially increased child-allowance.. etc. etc.

If divorce is the goal, then fine - change society in that manner, there is nothing intrinsically wrong with divorce as a concept.. but for now, making divorce easier in a society that functions around marriage and the family unit, is like turning people into square pegs, and asking them to fit inside a round hole....
0
reply
username1799249
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#12
Report 2 years ago
#12
(Original post by ThomH97)
What's the point of celebrating marriage if it's not a commitment?
Agreed. But I am also a realist and understand and accept that about a third of marriages break down. Putting up barriers that make it harder to divorce isn't going to stop marriages breaking down. It just makes life even more insufferable for those who end up in that situation.
1
reply
looloo2134
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#13
Report 2 years ago
#13
(Original post by fallen_acorns)
your wrong.

Yes, its better that a kid is in a single parent family then an abusive family... BUT - the vast vast majority of divorced families were not abusive prior to the divorce. All evidence is clear - 2 parents, even two slightly unhappy ones, are better then one parent, on average.. by a long mile.

Youth will always form gangs - but again, your arguing out of emotion, rather then facts/research. Crime rates and single-parent families correlate.. the evidence again is clear, specifically the lack of a father, causes an increase risk in the child participating in crime.
i was raised by a single disabled father on a rough council (my father had to hear all time people tell him he could not raise a girl on his own). By the why single parents are more likely to live in poorer areas with high crime and worst schools than two parents families so there children are more likely to meet criminal and commit crime. Children from two parent family in poor high crime are just as likely to get involved in crime as children raised in a single parent household.
0
reply
ThePricklyOne
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#14
Report 2 years ago
#14
(Original post by ThomH97)
And if marriage is to be a commitment, there needs to be significant barriers to getting out of it.
Like slavery?

Nope. Joining the military is a commitment. No one is allowed to join until thy are screened physically and mentally and have to go through training before being sent out to kill people. If marriage is a commitment, there should be significant barriers before anyone's allowed to do it.
0
reply
ThomH97
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#15
Report 2 years ago
#15
(Original post by stoyfan)
But the commitment should come from the couple, not from the law. What is the point of forcing a couple to stay married even when their relationship broke down and they don't even live in the same household? These barriers to divorce devlaues marriage.

I think introducing unnecessary barriers to divorce would only drive people away from seeking marriage, even if they seek to have a long term relationship.
If the law didn't recognise marriage as anything special, I'd agree. But marriage does have special legal recognition along with extra rights and benefits.

I think it is good to drive people away from marriage by tying them to their spouse for longer than they might want, they should be sure they want to do that before getting married anyway.

(Original post by ByEeek)
Agreed. But I am also a realist and understand and accept that about a third of marriages break down. Putting up barriers that make it harder to divorce isn't going to stop marriages breaking down. It just makes life even more insufferable for those who end up in that situation.
It's an incentive to make properly sure it's what you want to do. It won't prevent all marriages from breaking down, but it acts as an incentive to actually try to work through problems, and also deters those who aren't really sure in the first place.

(Original post by ThePricklyOne)
Like slavery?

Nope. Joining the military is a commitment. No one is allowed to join until thy are screened physically and mentally and have to go through training before being sent out to kill people. If marriage is a commitment, there should be significant barriers before anyone's allowed to do it.
No, not like slavery. Any more than having to pay rent for a flat for a year if you commit to it but decide you want to move after 6 months is slavery. I wouldn't mind there being barriers before marriage too, such as the once forbidden, now common practice of cohabiting before marriage.
0
reply
ThePricklyOne
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#16
Report 2 years ago
#16
(Original post by ThomH97)
No, not like slavery. Any more than having to pay rent for a flat for a year if you commit to it but decide you want to move after 6 months is slavery. I wouldn't mind there being barriers before marriage too, such as the once forbidden, now common practice of cohabiting before marriage.
It is slavery if no one can leave. Your argument keeps either partner (an their children) stuck in an unhappy, even abusive relationship.

The scenario of flat renting doesn't go with your argument. You sign a Tenancy Agreement to pay rent for a year, and if you want to leave in 6 months, you can - but you will have to find another tenant or, stump up the rest of the year's rent or renegotiate something with the landlord. Renting seems a lot more civilised than your idea of marriage.
0
reply
ThomH97
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#17
Report 2 years ago
#17
(Original post by ThePricklyOne)
It is slavery if no one can leave. Your argument keeps either partner (an their children) stuck in an unhappy, even abusive relationship.

The scenario of flat renting doesn't go with your argument. You sign a Tenancy Agreement to pay rent for a year, and if you want to leave in 6 months, you can - but you will have to find another tenant or, stump up the rest of the year's rent or renegotiate something with the landlord. Renting seems a lot more civilised than your idea of marriage.
Marriage doesn't keep you living with anyone either. You can live elsewhere, you can start up new relationships etc, you just can't marry again until you're divorced. Being married also doesn't stop your abusive spouse being put in prison for their crimes, and you can enjoy your life without them. There's no legal entitlement that you must be permitted to live with your spouse.
0
reply
username1799249
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#18
Report 2 years ago
#18
(Original post by ThomH97)
I think it is good to drive people away from marriage by tying them to their spouse for longer than they might want, they should be sure they want to do that before getting married anyway.
I think you are living in an idealistic world. People get together and are in love and sold on the idea that it will last forever. Then things change. Life stresses the partnership, one person loses their job or gets ill or they have kids and suddenly that supposedly solid relationship fractures. People split up. It is a fact of life. Making it harder for them to split up helps no one.

This is one of those issues where people like yourself are not actually affected by the decisions you want to impose on people. So why is it so important to you that others suffer because you believe they should? If you want to take marriage seriously, that is your decision but the moralistic are just as vulnerable to break ups as everyone else. I learned recently that one of my friend's wife, a Christian preacher, ran off with their 1 year-old child and completely disappeared without a trace. He is now permitted (by her) to see their child for 15 minutes every two weeks! How in your idealistic mind do you salvage that shipwreck?
0
reply
iodo345
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#19
Report 2 years ago
#19
Don't get married - simple
0
reply
ThomH97
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#20
Report 2 years ago
#20
(Original post by ByEeek)
I think you are living in an idealistic world. People get together and are in love and sold on the idea that it will last forever. Then things change. Life stresses the partnership, one person loses their job or gets ill or they have kids and suddenly that supposedly solid relationship fractures. People split up. It is a fact of life. Making it harder for them to split up helps no one.

This is one of those issues where people like yourself are not actually affected by the decisions you want to impose on people. So why is it so important to you that others suffer because you believe they should? If you want to take marriage seriously, that is your decision but the moralistic are just as vulnerable to break ups as everyone else. I learned recently that one of my friend's wife, a Christian preacher, ran off with their 1 year-old child and completely disappeared without a trace. He is now permitted (by her) to see their child for 15 minutes every two weeks! How in your idealistic mind do you salvage that shipwreck?
The other side would be to not give marriage any special legal status in the first place. If it is merely two people who, at the time, believe they'd like to cohabit indefinitely, then so be it. There's no need there to legally recognise anything. But where the state is granting various privileges, it should definitely come with conditions.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Should the school day be extended to help students catch up?

Yes (96)
27.51%
No (253)
72.49%

Watched Threads

View All