Parents Who Separate Are Horrible

First topic message reminder :

14th January 2014



Britain should be more “judgemental” and criticise parents who split up, a senior Conservative MP has said.


Family breakdown is costing the taxpayer tens of billions of pounds a year and people should not be afraid to condemn couples who separate, Sir Gerald Howarth said.


Cases such that of Raymond Hull, the drug-dealing father of 22 children by 11 women who was spared jail this week, are being seen on a smaller scale across the country – including in prosperous areas such as his seat of Aldershot in Hampshire, Sir Gerald said.


Bishops should spend less attacking Government welfare reforms and be “more vocal of their condemnation” of marital breakdown, he added. Traditional stay-at-home mothers have been "belittled for far too long", he added.


“The men who father these children seem to have absolutely no interest in bringing them up, let alone paying for them. We cannot afford to continue subsidising people who live these kind of dysfunctional lifestyles,” Sir Gerald, a former defence minister, said during a Westminster Hall debate in Parliament on supporting married couples.


He went on: “Am I being judgemental in an age when such approach is deemed inappropriate? Of course I’m being judgemental! For the sake of the country, we need to be judgmental. Besides, there are plenty of people who never cease to be judgmental about Members of Parliament.”

Research suggests children with separated parents are more likely to live in poverty, more likely to suffer from behavioural disorders and more likely to commit crime or abuse drugs, Sir Gerald said, costing the state £40bn a year.

He added: “Some will say that in a free society people should be entitled to live any lifestyle they want. However, overwhelmingly it is the taxpayer who is picking up the tab, so the state cannot be an idle bystander.”

The number of marriages fell since the Second World War to a 150-year low in 2009, but has picked up slightly in recent years.

In 2012 a record 47.5 per cent of children were born outside of marriage, up from 25 per cent in 1988 and 11 per cent in 1979. On current trends, more than half of babies will be born to unmarried parents by 2016.

The proportion of marriages that end in divorce has fallen since 2000, with more than a third breaking up before the 20th wedding anniversary. The decline is blamed on more people cohabiting before they marry, filtering out weak relationships.

Sir Edward Leigh, MP for Gainsborough, said family breakdown had become a “modern plague”.

He blamed a “conspiracy of silence” perpetrated by the Church, the BBC, Parliament and the Press that discouraged people from speaking up for marriage. It has left hundreds of thousands of children “living a tragic life,” he said.

“In our permissive society a view has grown up that people are happiest if they are totally liberated. It is about ‘me’,” he said. “We are told Britain has changed and we have to accept it but don’t we have a responsibility to speak out for what’s right?”


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10572667/Actually-we-should-judge-separated-parents-say-Tory-MPs.html

veya_victaous wrote:@sphinx
I think we need something other than no fault, just like anything if the penalty is nothing people will not respect it.
I do sort of think the at fault system is in principal better. As it is a fairer way to determine custody and child support payments etc.
But it would all depend on implementation, as long as it is unbiased and fair to either gender. Why shouldn't the one that broke the contract pay?

I think custody and child support should be kept separate from the actual break and it should be made law that children should spend as much time as possible with both parents and both parents be financially responsible - possibly with automatic income deduction or something for the parent the children are not residing with unless there is a truly 50/50 split. The very concept of being able to use the children as negotiating factors should be quashed before it starts with every adult knowing a relationship breakdown means certain arrangements by law so that those arrangements are another factor to consider when thinking about ending a relationship.

Maybe instead of no fault divorce it should be a joint fault divorce so people can either innocent towards the breakup (that would include spouses who are not happy but prepared to stay together because its best for children) or joint fault in which case both parties have to admit blame. Obviously that does increase the chances of bitter disputes but it might be enough to make people stop and think about what they are doing or at least take responsibility for it.

Or, institute a system of comparative fault, as they do in tort litigation.  That'll really heat it up.  

The no-fault system was developed to transform divorce into a mere status change.  Anyone who wants to change their status can get it.  What is the benefit to going back to any fault system?

Original Quill wrote:Or, institute a system of comparative fault, as they do in tort litigation.  That'll really heat it up.  

The no-fault system was developed to transform divorce into a mere status change.  Anyone who wants to change their status can get it.  What is the benefit to going back to any fault system?

To put people off giving up on their relationships too easily and make them really think about the impact it will have on children. Obviously not going to work on parents who just live together who have been shown to be more likely to split up anyway but little steps.

To many people see marriage as a temporary status icon used in order to be able to have a giant wedding. I believe a lot more people would be a lot more happier if they thought about what they were doing a little more carefully.

But I don't understand the incentive factor. How does getting into a pissing match over whose fault it is, lead to reconsideration of separation.

It's seems to me, once you are in that morass all you want to do is more of the same...I mean, that's the psychology of divorce: try, as much as you can, to hurt one another.

Original Quill wrote:But I don't understand the incentive factor.  How does getting into a pissing match over whose fault it is, lead to reconsideration of separation.  

It's seems to me, once you are in that morass all you want to do is more of the same...I mean, that's the psychology of divorce: try, as much as you can, to hurt one another.

Humans being what they are - there are plenty of people who are happy with a no fault divorce who would not contemplate a dual fault because it would mean being publicly declared to be at fault which means being faced with their own responsibility. Couples can at the moment declare "we didnt love each other any more" and skip off into the sunset without having to deal with why they dont love each other. A dual fault divorce would mean they had to go beyond falling out love to considering why they fell out of love and even if having fallen out of love whether divorce is the best option (There are untold thousands of stories of people remarrying their first spouse because they divorced because they fell out of love - so divorce is obviously a mistake sometimes)

As for trying to hurt the other person - no fault allows that because no matter what you do none of it going to be your fault. Dual fault mean you better think twice because if you go out to hurt you could just find yourself on the end of single fault divorce as the offending party.

sphinx wrote:

Original Quill wrote:Or, institute a system of comparative fault, as they do in tort litigation.  That'll really heat it up.  

The no-fault system was developed to transform divorce into a mere status change.  Anyone who wants to change their status can get it.  What is the benefit to going back to any fault system?

To put people off giving up on their relationships too easily and make them really think about the impact it will have on children.  Obviously not going to work on parents who just live together who have been shown to be more likely to split up anyway but little steps.

To many people see marriage as a temporary status icon used in order to be able to have a giant wedding.   I believe a lot more people would be a lot more happier if they thought about what they were doing a little more carefully.

Agreed Sphinx however, I also believe people should think carefully before they have children.  It's easy for me to say because I've not been in that situation but if you choose to have children they are a life time commitment.  I'm not saying parents should have to stay together but they should put their children first and try to make it as painless as possible.  It's the adult and responsible thing to do.

Parenting, the toughest job in the world

BY PHILIP LARKIN wrote:
This Be The Verse

They fuck you up, your mum and dad.  
   They may not mean to, but they do.  
They fill you with the faults they had
   And add some extra, just for you.

But they were fucked up in their turn
   By fools in old-style hats and coats,  
Who half the time were soppy-stern
   And half at one another’s throats.

Man hands on misery to man.
   It deepens like a coastal shelf.
Get out as early as you can,
   And don’t have any kids yourself.

That's what I have said throughout this thread ftl - all people have zoned in on is separation issues instead of talking about what adults should be doing months and years before committing in the first bloody place!

BigAndy9 wrote:That's what I have said throughout this thread ftl - all people have zoned in on is separation issues instead of talking about what adults should be doing months and years before committing in the first bloody place!

To be honest Andy too many people have children for all the wrong reasons, it's hard work to get it right.  A massive commitment, the largest anyone can make or it should be  

feelthelove wrote:

BigAndy9 wrote:That's what I have said throughout this thread ftl - all people have zoned in on is separation issues instead of talking about what adults should be doing months and years before committing in the first bloody place!

To be honest Andy too many people have children for all the wrong reasons, it's hard work to get it right.  A massive commitment, the largest anyone can make or it should be  

Spot on.

It's the greatest thing, if you actually stop thinking about yourself and look at them.

A lot of "adults" don't do that any more.

sphinx wrote:

Original Quill wrote:But I don't understand the incentive factor.  How does getting into a pissing match over whose fault it is, lead to reconsideration of separation.  

It's seems to me, once you are in that morass all you want to do is more of the same...I mean, that's the psychology of divorce: try, as much as you can, to hurt one another.

Humans being what they are - there are plenty of people who are happy with a no fault divorce who would not contemplate a dual fault because it would mean being publicly declared to be at fault which means being faced with their own responsibility.  Couples can at the moment declare "we didnt love each other any more" and skip off into the sunset without having to deal with why they dont love each other.  A dual fault divorce would mean they had to go beyond falling out love to considering why they fell out of love and even if having fallen out of love whether divorce is the best option (There are untold thousands of stories of people remarrying their first spouse because they divorced because they fell  out of love - so divorce is obviously a mistake sometimes)

As for trying to hurt the other person - no fault allows that because no matter what you do none of it going to be your fault.  Dual fault mean you better think twice because if you go out to hurt you could just find yourself on the end of single fault divorce as the offending party.

I think that is a fantasy, spinx. You vastly underestimate the power of anger. Once in a rage, who contemplates 'best interests' like public opinion? Quitting a relationship is one of the most hurtful and devastating things ever to endure. People are not about going about it in some calculating way. They feel hurt, and they are going to hurt back. I've seen enough of it in my business.

Once you reintroduce fault, you are just turning up the flame.

Excellent point Quill, as I see it you can see people even reconcile but the anger is still within when it is not truly resolved even after both apologising. I think that is the issue at hand how people never really truly resolve the first major issue they have and allow where many things were never a problem to become major problems within a relationship!
To me one problem suddenly becomes a thousand problems within a short space of time from the reality that first problem was never resolved

BigAndy9 wrote:

feelthelove wrote:

To be honest Andy too many people have children for all the wrong reasons, it's hard work to get it right.  A massive commitment, the largest anyone can make or it should be  

Spot on.

It's the greatest thing, if you actually stop thinking about yourself and look at them.

A lot of "adults" don't do that any more.

Many adults appear to struggle to take responsibility for themselves and their actions let alone a child Andy.  It's always someone else's fault, society, the government, no jobs etc etc.  Part of being an adult is accepting that no one is perfect, people make mistakes it's how you handle those mistakes that matters.

People talk about a "me me me" attitude in a financial sense, so much more damage is done by the "me me me" attitude of those who put themselves first rather than their personal and emotional responsibilities  

Original Quill wrote:Or, institute a system of comparative fault, as they do in tort litigation. That'll really heat it up.

The no-fault system was developed to transform divorce into a mere status change. Anyone who wants to change their status can get it. What is the benefit to going back to any fault system?

The Children...
No Fault Divorce is GREAT for the supposably responsible adults... shit for the kids and society


It is not so much a pissing match You have a marriage contract lay down the rules of the marriage in the contract (it can be an open marriage if you want) you break them you are at fault.

I agree with andy there is a lot they should be doing BEFORE this point. I don’t believe in YOLO if you fucked up and married a bitch (and have kids with her) suck it up and wait till the next life.

Original Quill wrote:

sphinx wrote:

Humans being what they are - there are plenty of people who are happy with a no fault divorce who would not contemplate a dual fault because it would mean being publicly declared to be at fault which means being faced with their own responsibility.  Couples can at the moment declare "we didnt love each other any more" and skip off into the sunset without having to deal with why they dont love each other.  A dual fault divorce would mean they had to go beyond falling out love to considering why they fell out of love and even if having fallen out of love whether divorce is the best option (There are untold thousands of stories of people remarrying their first spouse because they divorced because they fell  out of love - so divorce is obviously a mistake sometimes)

As for trying to hurt the other person - no fault allows that because no matter what you do none of it going to be your fault.  Dual fault mean you better think twice because if you go out to hurt you could just find yourself on the end of single fault divorce as the offending party.

I think that is a fantasy, spinx.  You vastly underestimate the power of anger.  Once in a rage, who contemplates 'best interests' like public opinion?  Quitting a relationship is one of the most hurtful and devastating things ever to endure.  People are not about going about it in some calculating way.  They feel hurt, and they are going to hurt back.  I've seen enough of it in my business.

Once you reintroduce fault, you are just turning up the flame.  

I think you underestimate pride.

I have seen enough very angry people manage to stay together because their egos could not stand the public shame of a breakdown - most of them are in positions of religious authority which has shame attached. If divorces became dual fault with very real possibility of single responsibility if one person behaves too badly then that would add shame to ordinary breakups - something not there with no fault.

And you think that is good? Jesus H, what a waste of two lives!

Sassy wrote:And you think that is good?   Jesus H, what a waste of two lives!

Actually often the people who do so dont feel their lives are wasted.

In fact lots will say after a couple of decades they were glad they stuck though it.

@sassy
Lives half over   
People make choices, live with the consequences.

better than wasting the lives just starting.
Very Rarely do I see even dual fault,(never seen a truely no fault breakdown) it is almost always one partner that is the cause. Not Being 100% happy is not good enough reason to end a legal contract, that's primary purpose is to provide order/security for your offspring.

Love is not a key component of Marriage, Respect for each other and Duty to your offspring makes stronger relationships. Evidenced by the arranged marriages and attitudes of a lot of Indian Families (plus the much lower divorce and abuse rates). Western Culture has clearly got it wrong in this case both Asians and Indians statitcally do much better than us (in western nations), The Idea of Marrying for Love is relatively new, through out most of history people have married for practical reasons.

I disagree it wastes the lives just started.   Life half over?   I've lived much more life since I left my kids father, and we looked after the children and grandchildren.   He was happier, it meant I didn't kill myself (wouldn't have helped the kids would it) I was happier and life was more fulfilling for all of us.   Each person has to find the right way for them and their family, and I don't believe anyone goes into marriage think it is going to end, (certainly didn't, my Mum and Dad were married for 69 years when my Mum died) but we are human beings, not machines and sometimes it just doesn't work.   And staying together for the sake of the children doesn't work either, because the kids know, they are not stupid.   I left after my kids left school, and it took me every bit of strength I had to stay, and much later, my kids asked me why the hell I did it, they know how miserable we were, and hated seeing us like it.

@sassy
even yours doesn't sound like No Fault? even if your not saying what it is.

Why were you Miserable?  Could it be expectations? Expectations that that are unlikely to be fulfilled when 2 normal humans cohabitate? If you Weren't expecting you husband to be your one, all answer to every emotional need you ever come across, could you have been happier?

I have friends that have Western style 'love' matches and Indians that have fully arranged marriages and Asians that have something in between. the Most Successful are the Indians, But they don't just look to each other for all their emotional needs they encourage each other to have a larger circle of friends than most western couples can even maintain, and they are closer to their extended families. I can see in the My Bothers relationship with his Indian Girlfriend (7 years now) she is not needy like we expect of Western Girls, she doesn't want to spend hours bitching to him about work or something else She has friends to bitch to instead (she like many Indian women thinks it is a bit pointless bitching to a Man, because they know we don't really care   ) she encourages him to have friends and go to the pub after work   (so she can relax at home in peace and quiet)Which leaves them to actually enjoy each other company.

I'd also point out that
Statistically Children that go through a divorce do worse at school and in the careers.

So your kids might know but on average they will end up better off, if you stay together until they leave school.

veya_victaous wrote:@sassy
even yours doesn't sound like No Fault? even if your not saying what it is.

Why were you Miserable?  Could it be expectaions? Expections that that are unlikely to be forfilled when 2 normal humans cohabitate? If you Weren't expecting you husband to be your one, all answer to every emotional need you ever come across, could you gave been happier?

I have friends that have Western style 'love' matches and Indians that have fully arranged marriages and Asians that have something in between. the Most Successful are the indians, But they don't just look to each other for all their emotional needs they encourage each other to have a larger circle of friends than most western couples can even maintain, and they are closer to their extended families. I can see in the My Bothers relationship with his Indian Girlfriend (7 years now) she is not needy like we expect of Western Girls, she doesn't want to spend hours bitching to him about work or something else She has friends to bitch to instead (she like many indian women thinks it is a bit pointless bitching to a Man, because they know we don't really care   ) she encourages him to have friends and go to the pub after work   (so she can relaxe at home in peace and quite)Which leaves them to actaully enjoy each other company.

No Veya, it wasn't expectations.   My generation didn't live together and didn't have sex before marriage.   My husband was asexual, he managed it a few times, which was how we managed to have kids, but he hated women's bodies basically.   Even a sexual counsellor said that she couldn't help because he didn't see it as a problem.   I left him 25 years ago, he's never had a girlfriend of felt the need for one.   He doesn't even like touching or kissing.   He lost every bit of money we ever had, I can't think of one thing he was good at, except bullshitting and when I had a very bad op, he said he couldn't be around me because the scar was so disgusting!   When our youngest daughter died three years ago, he wouldn't even help me plan the funeral or keep the family going while they had the inquest.   My other half now has loves me come what may, operations, now chemo, family tragedies, he has been there and has never wavered.    There is no way any of us would have been better off if I had stayed, and that includes the kids.

I stayed till they left school, my children wished I hadn't.

Since when did becoming parent mean you lose your status as a human being?
Are parents not entitled to be happy?
Are they not entitled to not have to be around someone who they hate being around?

краљица од Хартс wrote:Since when did becoming parent mean you lose your status as a human being?
Are parents not entitled to be happy?
Are they not entitled to not have to be around someone who they hate being around?

Completely agree, and I don't think it is selfish to think so. Our children leave us and build a life for themselves, if we have no life at that point they then have to look after us in the end. If we are happy and have partners who support us it makes their life easier.

veya_victaous wrote:I'd also point out that
Statistically Children that go through a divorce do worse at school and in the careers.

So your kids might know but on average they will end up better off, if you stay together until they leave school.

I think sphinx has said similar.

To be honest kids brought up by both parents have more chance in life, full stop!

Kids who are brought up by both parents who love them do well whether those parents are together or not.

BigAndy9 wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:I'd also point out that
Statistically Children that go through a divorce do worse at school and in the careers.

So your kids might know but on average they will end up better off, if you stay together until they leave school.

I think sphinx has said similar.

To be honest kids brought up by both parents have more chance in life, full stop!

A child who had a stay-at-home parent would probably be better off than a child whose parents are never around but that does that mean we should call women wanting to pursue a career horrible people?

Sassy wrote:Kids who are brought up by both parents who love them do well whether those parents are together or not.

No, sorry sassy, I think you're wrong.

Sounds lovely though   

No I'm not wrong, and I did it, and Sphinx says she did.

Sassy wrote:No I'm not wrong, and I did it, and Sphinx says she did.

But I still acknowledge my children have suffered and would have been better if we had not split up. I did not quit on the marriage, I did not leave. I was happier when he left as so many people commented but I was prepared to stick it out because that would have been best for my children.

Some people go the distance and some do not, sometimes it just isn't meant to be , other times it is, that's just life really, part of it anyway.

You can't help who you fall in love with!

Well there we differ, because once my children left school, I, and they left. And the children wished I had done it earlier, and to this day my eldest daughter says that they worried all the time because they knew how unhappy we were, even though I thought we had put up a good front. Children aren't stupid, they know.

Joy Division wrote:Some people go the distance and some do not, sometimes  it just isn't meant to be , other times it is, that's just life really, part of it anyway.

You can't help who you fall in love with!

That's why I always say live together before you get married JD.

Sassy wrote:

Joy Division wrote:Some people go the distance and some do not, sometimes  it just isn't meant to be , other times it is, that's just life really, part of it anyway.

You can't help who you fall in love with!

That's why I always say live together before you get married JD.  

Wise words Sassy!, we lived together for 7 years before marrying, I've known a couple of people to book the registers two months after meeting!,   they never lasted past the first year!

Not many nowadays do that though, well it don't hear of many marrying that quickly now.

Bit your right a Sassy, it's like other things ...try before you buy!!, gosh that sounds awful!  

But you know what I mean!!, experience each other's company for a good while, the. If both still feel the same a while down the road..then make it official! :D 

Joy Division wrote:

Sassy wrote:

That's why I always say live together before you get married JD.  

Wise words Sassy!, we lived together for 7 years before marrying, I've known a couple of people to book the registers two months after meeting!,   they never lasted past the first year!

Not many nowadays do that though, well it don't hear of many marrying that quickly now.

Bit your right a Sassy, it's like other things ...try before you buy!!, gosh that sounds awful!  

But you know what I mean!!, experience each other's company for a good while, the. If both still feel the same a while down the road..then make it official! :D 

Agreed, if my kid's dad and I had lived together, there is no way I would have married him.

veya_victaous wrote:

Original Quill wrote:Or, institute a system of comparative fault, as they do in tort litigation.  That'll really heat it up.  

The no-fault system was developed to transform divorce into a mere status change.  Anyone who wants to change their status can get it.  What is the benefit to going back to any fault system?

The Children...
No Fault Divorce is GREAT for the supposably responsible adults... shit for the kids and society


It is not so much a pissing match    You have a marriage contract lay down the rules of the marriage in the contract (it can be an open marriage if you want) you break them you are at fault.

I agree with andy there is a lot they should be doing BEFORE this point. I don’t believe in YOLO if you fucked up and married a bitch (and have kids with her) suck it up and wait till the next life.

But you are being normative. Do you know the difference between normative and factual? What andy is giving us is preaching. Not really of any use if you are dealing with reality. Divorce is what it is...stop being pollyannish.

Sassy wrote:

Joy Division wrote:Some people go the distance and some do not, sometimes  it just isn't meant to be , other times it is, that's just life really, part of it anyway.

You can't help who you fall in love with!

That's why I always say live together before you get married JD.  

Totally agree. If you don't, you are flying blind. Disaster.

I think you are just being Pollyannish, sphinx. You too, andy. Live well, and you will be well...and all that. Bullshit. If you and the other person create a negative environment, how can that be positive for a child.

I am not saying one should mot work to make a relationship positive. You absolutely should. But, if after trying, it doesn't click...it was not meant to be.

Face it... there is a point at which you reach decision-time.

@quill
I think Divorce only JUST became the way it is, we Can and Should Change it again because it isn't working.
We haven't had Generations of No Fault divorce, At Fault divorce was round at Lot longer and it got changed even though

Divorce is what it is

Seeing a Marrige Councellor is No Use? We already have services that could be of use to couples seperating. We should encourage them to use them first, divorce has become to much the easy option. It is having a deterimental impact on children and family units.

@sassy
Also
agree you should live together first

veya_victaous wrote:@quill
I think Divorce only JUST became the way it is, we Can and Should Change it again because it isn't working.
We haven't had Generations of No Fault divorce, At Fault divorce was round at Lot longer and it got changed even though

Divorce is what it is

Seeing a Marrige Councellor is No Use? We already have services that could be of use to couples seperating. We should encourage them to use them first, divorce has become to much the easy option. It is having a deterimental impact on children and family units.

It's not a question of fault versus no-fault. That's just the legal ramification.

It's a question of psychology. A part of that psychology is that people who live in an urban setting feel much less attached. It is the lack of interdependence that is causing people to separate.

@quill

It is the lack of interdependence that is causing people to separate.

That goes back to my example to sassy about Indian Australians (some still have arranged marriages and are quite happy with them) Culturally they are not so dependant on each other as individuals and will 'outsource' some of their emotional needs to Friends and extended family.

Thus they seem more content with each other because they don't set such high expectations to be the 'one and everything'.

I think veya put his finger on it earlier when he said about marriage being a contract and arrangement and the whole love thing being relatively new.

I am not saying people should not marry for love - I am saying when they marry for love it should be understood on all sides that said marriage is a contract with duties and obligations and one that should not easily be dissolved - it should be based on more than love and both parties should be clear on that.

sphinx wrote:

I think you underestimate pride.

I have seen enough very angry people manage to stay together because their egos could not stand the public shame of a breakdown - most of them are in positions of religious authority which has shame attached.  If divorces became dual fault with very real possibility of single responsibility if one person behaves too badly then that would add shame to ordinary breakups - something not there with no fault.

Pride in what?  In the words of an old Roger Miller song,

Rober Miller wrote:It's my belief pride is the chief cause of decline,
In number of husbands and wives.

Pride is at the core of the anger that goes back and forth between the separating couple.

http://www.songlyrics.com/miller-roger/husbands-wives-lyrics/

Original Quill wrote:

sphinx wrote:

I think you underestimate pride.

I have seen enough very angry people manage to stay together because their egos could not stand the public shame of a breakdown - most of them are in positions of religious authority which has shame attached.  If divorces became dual fault with very real possibility of single responsibility if one person behaves too badly then that would add shame to ordinary breakups - something not there with no fault.

Pride in what?  In the words of an old Roger Miller song,

Rober Miller wrote:It's my belief pride is the chief cause of decline,
In number of husbands and wives.

Pride is at the core of the anger that goes back and forth between the separating couple.

http://www.songlyrics.com/miller-roger/husbands-wives-lyrics/

Generally pride means people would rather not admit wrongdoing in public and would rather stay with in an angry situation.

This adds another factor to all this and a very interesting article:




Fiona Bruce MP recently stated that the breakdown of marriage was a "public health emergency". She couldn't be further from the truth. The real public health emergency in the UK is domestic violence, from which two women die per week. MPs like Bruce should be supporting women for leaving abusive marriages, not judging them.

However, in their rush to preserve the ideal of 'marriage', Bruce and fellow Conservative MPs Gerald Howarth and Edward Leigh overlook the fact that divorce can save a woman's life. In abuse cases there is a trade-off between the two, and saving the life of the victim and her children is unarguably the priority.

Howarth encouraged MPs to judge people who decide to split up, branding them 'dysfunctional'. MP Edward Leigh condemned family breakdown as a 'modern plague'; yet has he considered what may be causing it? Could domestic abuse be a key culprit? Either way, this judgement of other people's life decisions is shameful, proving these MPs know nothing of the complicated and agonising circumstances that marital separations occur under.


http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/janey-stephenson/domestic-violence-uk_b_4609241.html?utm_hp_ref=uk

Well, didge...in fairness, sphinx does make an exception of domestic violence.

Why is it whenever anyone speaks up for marriage someone trots out the domestic violence line?
I know there is domestic abuse and it should be stamped on much harder than it is now - but the vast majority of cases do not involve abuse and in such cases separation should be approached far more rarely.

sphinx wrote:Why is it whenever anyone speaks up for marriage someone trots out the domestic violence line?  
I know there is domestic abuse and it should be stamped on much harder than it is now - but the vast majority of cases do not involve abuse and in such cases separation should be approached far more rarely.

..mental abuse is just as bad Sphinx, a bairn seeing a parent in such a state is no good for any of them, especially the bairn.

Joy Division wrote:

sphinx wrote:Why is it whenever anyone speaks up for marriage someone trots out the domestic violence line?  
I know there is domestic abuse and it should be stamped on much harder than it is now - but the vast majority of cases do not involve abuse and in such cases separation should be approached far more rarely.

..mental abuse is just as bad Sphinx, a bairn seeing a parent in such a state is no good for any of them, especially the bairn.

That is why I used abuse in the second incidence.

The issue is some of the things which are being described as abuse.

краљица од Хартс wrote:

BigAndy9 wrote:


I think sphinx has said similar.

To be honest kids brought up by both parents have more chance in life, full stop!

A child who had a stay-at-home parent would probably be better off than a child whose parents are never around but that does that mean we should call women wanting to pursue a career horrible people?

That's right she should get her husband to stay home  

sphinx wrote:Why is it whenever anyone speaks up for marriage someone trots out the domestic violence line?  
I know there is domestic abuse and it should be stamped on much harder than it is now - but the vast majority of cases do not involve abuse and in such cases separation should be approached far more rarely.

Yes the reason it is brought up is to show there are so many different reasons for and against people being together, hence they should never be discounted. Also domestic violence is more widespread than you think and is no small matter:

https://www.gov.uk/government/policies/ending-violence-against-women-and-girls-in-the-uk


The point is as already has been stated children can grow up just as happy and do extremely well in life with single parents, to argue over negligible stats is moot to say the least on whether one way is better than the other, when both have countless cases of where it has been successful