I'm a Conservative Too. . .

[Documad]

If we're going to enact "conservative laws" here's the first one I would enact:

No divorce if you and the spouse have kids.

I realize that when our founding fathers were writing the laws of their various states, they pretty much said no divorce ever. I don't need to go that far.

I don't really care what childless people do. But if you have kids and you're unhappy in your marriage, just suck it up. Kids come first. And don't give me any bullshit about how kids are happier when you're happier. That's me generation bullshit.

[i'mcrafty]

so the children (someday) have the same fucked up marriage that their parents had?

i beleive in divorce as a last resort, but if you are raising children during an awful marriage; what is that going to teach the children about marriage?

[QueenAdrock]

The Catholic Church says you can annul your marriage, but if you have kids, they'd be bastards and go to hell. And if you divorce, you go to hell. So it's either you, your kids, or a hellish-marriage.

My grandmother couldn't afford to annul her marriage, so she got divorced. She got ex-communicated or some shit. But she was a part of a strict Irish-Catholic church.

[Bambi89]

[Documad]

I'll make an exception if one of the parents is physically abusing the kids.

[Documad]

so the children (someday) have the same fucked up marriage that their parents had?

i beleive in divorce as a last resort, but if you are raising children during an awful marriage; what is that going to teach the children about marriage?
Or maybe they decide not to get married at all. I'm not too worried about that. Unless they decide to have kids.

I think if your marriage is bad, you should try and fix it. Not find a new boyfriend/girlfriend. If you can't fix it, suck it up and pretend you did. It worked for most of human history.

[DroppinScience]

I'm the child of divorce and I got through it fine.

Yes, it can really suck, but honestly, sometimes it has a better outcome (in the long term, at least).

[i'mcrafty]

children aren't stupid, they can tell if you're "pretending". yes, i believe things should tried to be worked out, but if counceling (or whatever) doesn't work... pretending is not an answer (take a closer look at past generations).

yes i agree to not get married at all, but what if children come before the marriage? do you believe people should get married if the women becomes pregnant, dare i say, prior to marriage?

don't wanna fight, just curious?

[Documad]

And a lot of times it doesn't have a better outcome (for the kids). I know that married traditional families don't guarantee success, but from what I saw in juvenile court, they have a much higher batting average.


But it's not all about what's good for the kids. People might think harder before getting married if it's difficult to get out of. That's a good public policy reason right there. Also, if we're going to limit the marriage benefit to one man/one woman, they should have to give something back--a promise that actually means something.


If we're going to turn back the clock, this one actually makes some sense. I don't think the constitution says anything about rich white guys having a right to a second trophy wife.

[DroppinScience]

People might think harder before getting married if it's difficult to get out of. That's a good public policy reason right there. Also, if we're going to limit the marriage benefit to one man/one woman, they should have to give something back--a promise that actually means something.


In that case, we'll probably just have a load of unsuccessful common-law families then...

[Documad]

In that case, we'll probably just have a load of unsuccessful common-law families then...
Not when I bring back the adultery laws. :p They're actually on the books in a lot of US states already.

You might say those laws are unconstitutional in light of "activist" court decisions. But remember that we're rolling back the clock to the 1780s. The US Constitution does not give a thumbs up to adultery.

[Vladimir]

I think in many cases it would be a healthier environment for the child(ren) with one parent or alternately seeing both parents individually than to be raised with the two parents together; it really depends on how dysfunctional the parents' relationship is.

[Funkaloyd]

How about we take kids away from widows too. They can go to proper families.

[Documad]

I don't think our founding fathers took kids away from widows. They were more into regulating marriage and sex.

[Ali]

If we're going to enact "conservative laws" here's the first one I would enact:

No divorce if you and the spouse have kids.

I realize that when our founding fathers were writing the laws of their various states, they pretty much said no divorce ever. I don't need to go that far.

I don't really care what childless people do. But if you have kids and you're unhappy in your marriage, just suck it up. Kids come first. And don't give me any bullshit about how kids are happier when you're happier. That's me generation bullshit.I don't know if your parents got divorced or not, or why, but my brother and I were a lot happier after our folks got divorced, and so were they. Both met up with and married more suitable partners (who had also been divorced) and I now have a happy mother (father's dead) a wonderful step father and two very nice step-sisters!

I agree that people should try to make it work and think very, very hard before they get married, but if it's not working, then they should be able to split up and try again, especially if they got married very young, before they had had enough experience in relationships.

Wasn't it you who said that the Republicans were for less interference? This is not interference?

It's yet another example of the blurring of the distinction between church and state.

[Funkaloyd]

I don't think our founding fathers took kids away from widows. They were more into regulating marriage and sex.
If America's founding fathers didn't jump off of a bridge, would you do the same?

[Qdrop]

allow me to slice and dice:


I don't really care what childless people do. But if you have kids and you're unhappy in your marriage, just suck it up. Kids come first. And don't give me any bullshit about how kids are happier when you're happier. That's me generation bullshit. you are so far off the mark here.
my biological parents divorced when i was very young. my father was a womanizing cheater who marrid my mother intially ONLY because she was pregnant with me. "for the kids" indeed.
but after the divorce, i adjusted just fine.

my mother remarried....and divorced again 20 years later, and it probably should have happened 10 years earlier. the man she married was a controlling, emotionally abusive and unstable asshole...and occasionally worse. they had no business staying together, and the love faded from thier marriage very quickly. i had been rooting for thier divorce after about 5 years in.
but they stuck it out "for the kids".
those years are the most horrendous years of my life. years that i will always be with me in the worst way. the worst thing my mother did was stay with him "for the kids".
they were miserable...and virtually hated each other the last 5 years or so. HATED.
how was that good for me?

I think if your marriage is bad, you should try and fix it. Not find a new boyfriend/girlfriend. If you can't fix it, suck it up and pretend you did. It worked for most of human history. yeah, it worked great for me, my mother and sister.
fuckin A.

you're thinking on principle here....not pragmatic reality.
thats' irresponsible.

And a lot of times it doesn't have a better outcome (for the kids). I know that married traditional families don't guarantee success, but from what I saw in juvenile court, they have a much higher batting average. but you are possibley looking at it wrong.
you are making the connnection "Divorce = higher crime rate in youth." as if the divorce itself is the deciding factor and key contributor, rather then the circumstances that may come from the divorce. like "divorce" is some magical entity of criminal-influencing behavior.
see, like many others, you have been preached to that the home environment makes ALL the differance in the outcome of children, but upon study...*this does not seem to be the case.*
It is heridity and group socialization (your friends and outside social life) that seem to have the greatest effect on behavioral traits. the only exclusive "home environment behaviors" that seem to become patterns are violence and abuse (which are reason to divorce in themselves, not stay together)..and even those can possibley be connected by heredity, rather than purely on experiance.

but there clearly is a conncection between divorce and youth crime. so what is it?
first, look at heredity: the negative behavioral traits that led to the parents divorce were likely inherited by the children.
johny gets angry alot because his daddy gets angry alot. *but because he passed those behavioral genes on to the son*, not simply because johny saw daddy doing it. inherited rather than just learned. and while seeing it could reinforce the behavior....removing him from his father's tyraids does not remove the heridity. the genes are still there.

second, group socialization: divorced parents often have thier incomes split and thus end up living in lower income communities....with more prevalent crime and many other behaviorally challenged youths to befriend and socialize with- which is where we learn the bulk of our behaviors from.

so saying that people should stay clear of divorce "for the children" is clearly irresponsible and misguided.
it is best for the parents to be happier and separate from a dismal cohabitation and for the children to reap the rewards of happier parents.

and while nothing much can be done about inherited behaviors....divorced parents should pay extra consideration as to who thier children are socializing with.
that would do more to cut down on youth crime than staying in a loveless, miserable marriage.

Divorce does not = increased youth crime

heredity and bad social grouping = increased youth crime.


But it's not all about what's good for the kids. People might think harder before getting married if it's difficult to get out of. That's a good public policy reason right there. Also, if we're going to limit the marriage benefit to one man/one woman, they should have to give something back--a promise that actually means something. well this makes a little more sense.

[sam i am]

I'll make an exception if one of the parents is physically abusing the kids.

What about sexual abuse? What about chronic neglect? What about physical abuse between the married people? What about one part of the marriage bringing in a STD or chronically having affairs?

This is a ridiculous idea and so anti-woman it's sick. :eek:

[Ali]

Qdrop... you are not alone, brother.

We come from a generation that watched our parents argue and fight and behave like... children. Makes you grow up real quick, doesn't it? Worst part, for me, is them trying to get you to take sides and slagging each other off. Hated that.

Hopefully, those of us who've seen the mistakes that people can make if they don't look before they leap (into a marriage), won't make those same mistakes. I'm sure that you are not at all keen to commit yourself to a relationship which invloves the producing of children (not necessarily a marriage) without making pretty damn sure that you and your girl are right for each other.

I sure as hell didn't.

What does not kill us makes us stronger, eh?

Keep evolving, dude, eventually we'll get it right! ;)

[sam i am]

Not when I bring back the adultery laws. :p They're actually on the books in a lot of US states already.

You might say those laws are unconstitutional in light of "activist" court decisions. But remember that we're rolling back the clock to the 1780s. The US Constitution does not give a thumbs up to adultery.

Nice. Try to undermine my points with ridiculousness. Let's address voting, then we'll tackle morality. It's not all a slippery slope, Documad. Good try, though. :p :rolleyes:

[Qdrop]

Qdrop... you are not alone, brother.

We come from a generation that watched our parents argue and fight and behave like... children. Makes you grow up real quick, doesn't it? Worst part, for me, is them trying to get you to take sides and slagging each other off. Hated that.

Hopefully, those of us who've seen the mistakes that people can make if they don't look before they leap (into a marriage), won't make those same mistakes. I'm sure that you are not at all keen to commit yourself to a relationship which invloves the producing of children (not necessarily a marriage) without making pretty damn sure that you and your girl are right for each other.

I sure as hell didn't.

What does not kill us makes us stronger, eh?

Keep evolving, dude, eventually we'll get it right! ;)


word.

[SobaViolence]

abolish marriage.

[Documad]

Wasn't it you who said that the Republicans were for less interference? This is not interference?

It's yet another example of the blurring of the distinction between church and state.
I doubt that I ever stood up for Republicans. The state of the US Republicans today is deplorable. I may have said that "conservative" was supposed to mean less interference in other foreign countries (isolationism) but this just shows that Bush isn't a conservative.

I think Republicans today are supposed to stand for less interference by the federal government, and less interference by the courts, but unlimited interference by the state governments into the private lives of its citizens (with no protection from the federal government or courts). I believe the opposite--that the federal government and courts have a responsibility to ensure that states don't take important rights from their citizens.



My point is that Republicans or so-called conservatives don't adhere to a consistent philosophy, they take things that suit them from the 1780s but not things that would be inconvenient for them. Seems to me that most of the conservative pundits and politicians have done all kinds of things at odds with their old-fashioned platform.

I think our current system is completely fucked up but that turning the clock back isn't the answer and isn't going to happen. I don't know what the answer is.

I do think that people are too quick to get married. I also think that marriage isn't about "happiness" and wasn't ever meant to be about happiness. It's supposed to be a lifetime contract or covenant to take care of another person no matter how bad it gets. If you enter into that covenant the state give you certain benefits. It seems wrong to me that the covenant is so easy to break because then it has no meaning. And while marriage means less and less and we have no expectation that people will stick it out when they're not "happy", people spend more and more money having the actual ceremony. That seems obscene to me.

At the same time, I have some friends who have made lifetime commitments to take care of each other and signed every other kind of contract possible. With one set that has been together over 10 years now, one got cancer this year and took loads of time off work to take care of the other--all the stuff you're supposed to do in a marriage. But they can't get married because they're the same sex.

I am fine with no-fault divorce. But I do believe that the kids should get the house and the parents move in and out every 3 days or so. See how they like it. I also think that if you are divorced you don't get to ever say anything negative about your ex that could possibly get back to the kids.

On a personal note, my parents had a messy marriage. I'll be forever glad that my dad didn't move out and my mom didn't bring a new boyfriend into our house. I'd take the fighting over that.

[Documad]

What about sexual abuse? What about chronic neglect? What about physical abuse between the married people? What about one part of the marriage bringing in a STD or chronically having affairs?

This is a ridiculous idea and so anti-woman it's sick. :eek:
What did our founding fathers think? I'm not positive of my timeline on this one. When was the "rule of thumb" outlawed? I don't remember if it was before or after the 1780s, but my sense is that a man could legally beat his wife and that wouldn't have been grounds for divorce (unless he used an object wider than his thumb). I'll bet that a man could divorce his wife if she was unfaithful but not the other way around.

My conservative platform isn't anywhere near as ridiculous as yours. :p

[Documad]

abolish marriage.
If silly young people can have a week long Vegas marriage, but gay people who actually made a lifetime commitment can't, I think it probably is time to throw out the whole government-supported aspect of it. Let it continue to be a religious ceremony for those who are so inclined.

[zorra_chiflada]

My conservative platform isn't anywhere near as ridiculous as yours. :p

exactly. what documad has said is far more reasonable than anything any of the other conservatives on this board has ever said.

[Documad]

exactly. what documad has said is far more reasonable than anything any of the other conservatives on this board has ever said.
That's because I'm a liberal. ;)

[zorra_chiflada]

That's because I'm a liberal. ;)

sorry :o

[Happyrunr]

The only thing on here that I agree with is people shouldnt jump to divorce so quickly. Most of these splits/divorces can be fixed, and each person should give it a very fair shot. I have 2 friends in the last few years that got divorced, and in both cases, I believe they could have worked out. And one of these people is telling me that I'd be better off leaving my husband because I'm a happy person and he isnt. Yeahhhhhh...good reason. Especially with 2 kids involved!
I do have to say that I was a single mother since my daughter was 2 until 8. She swears she was happier when we were apart- she got more attention from each of us that way.

[Documad]

I do have to say that I was a single mother since my daughter was 2 until 8. She swears she was happier when we were apart- she got more attention from each of us that way.
My brother and his wife divorced when their daughter was small and remarried about 5 years later. She also swears that she was slightly disappointed when they remarried because she thought she would get less attention from them. :)
My brother and his wife never dated anyone else while they were divorced and I never heard my brother say a single bad word about his ex even when his daughter wasn't around and even though she took him to the cleaners financially.


On a tangent: whenever you evaluate something that isn't working, you also have to evaluate what the alternative is. I sometimes saw kids that were being physically abused, but not to an extreme degree. Probably along the lines of what happened to lots of kids a century ago. While I can't advocate keeping a child in a situation where the child is being abused, what is the real and true alternative? Pretend the child is a racial minority and say 10 years old. Is a child better off in foster care? You have to ask yourself a lot of questions about foster care as it actually exists. If it's a marriage that's breaking up, what will be the mom's state of mental health when she's trying to support the family on less money and taking on more responsibilities?

A week ago, another couple I know broke up. The guy had good reasons why he's not into his wife--she's kind of nuts. I can't figure out how he didn't get that before he had two kids with her. And of course he's leaving the kids with the woman he's leaving because of her nuttiness. Are the kids really better off without him being there to balance things? Who cares--he has a new girlfriend. And everyone's telling him he has a right to be happy. I blame fucking AA.

[Ali]

The only thing on here that I agree with is people shouldnt jump to divorce so quickly.People shouldn't jump to marriage too quickly, either... and especially not kids!

Young people don't need to be told that these days, they've seen what it does!