Long Slide Looms for World Population, With Sweeping Ramifications

[Hoosierhawkeye]

Dude, people divorce and remain in the home together. People divorce and become neighbors, sometimes even finding MORE TIME to parent together.

I have friends who, once married, now divorced, spend more time together as friends than they did in much of their 7 years of marriage. Their kids effectively have a much more supportive and loving and nurturing, healthy environment than when the parents were married. They live less than a block from each other, yet share more meals together now than during marriage.

You want to know how this all occurred? Because it's, well, it's kind of prescriptive along the lines as I alluded to several posts ago—and it might be a prescription you understand and support.

Ok but do you recognize how rare that is? That is far from how this usually goes and you know that.

And honestly if you are going to continue to live together. . . what is the point of divorce??

Dictionary definition of bigoted, Hoosier. You're hardly a bigot. I think you're an incredible person, and I think you know that. But this unbending, narrow, strict thinking is arguably bigoted in nature.

I appreciate that. And I recognize that my view is narrow and unbending. But I've seen the damage that has been caused to family life from this "devil may care" attitude towards sex and relationships that I think sometimes you have to be narrow and unbending towards what is right and wrong at the individual, societal and species level. All of this is of a greater and greater slide towards social atomization which is wrong for the individual, wrong for society, and wrong for our species.

I mean I'm also narrow and unbending towards murder which I'm sure we agree on so long as it takes place outside of the womb.

 

[Rudolph]

Ok but do you recognize how rare that is? That is far from how this usually goes and you know that.

And honestly if you are going to continue to live together. . . what is the point of divorce??



I appreciate that. And I recognize that my view is narrow and unbending. But I've seen the damage that has been caused to family life from this "devil may care" attitude towards sex and relationships that I think sometimes you have to be narrow and unbending towards what is right and wrong at the individual, societal and species level. All of this is of a greater and greater slide towards social atomization which is wrong for the individual, wrong for society, and wrong for our species.

I mean I'm also narrow and unbending towards murder which I'm sure we agree on so long as it takes place outside of the womb.

Once again, not all of this stuff fits into this extreme "devil may care" attitude towards sex and relationships. Once again, that is YOUR construct based on YOUR very narrow, puritanical belief system.

You are hellbent on stigmatizing non-marital relationships. Do you not recognize the problems this can cause?

I though I made it blatantly easy to get you to ask the question I had hoped, but apparently not. So I'll do all the work…

I bet you feel really, really, really supported by your community, meaning your personal community, in your marriage, right?

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

Once again, not all of this stuff fits into this extreme "devil may care" attitude towards sex and relationships. Once again, that is YOUR construct based on YOUR very narrow, puritanical belief system.

You are hellbent on stigmatizing non-marital relationships. Do you not recognize the problems this can cause?

I though I made it blatantly easy to get you to ask the question I had hoped, but apparently not. So I'll do all the work…

I bet you feel really, really, really supported by your community, meaning your personal community, in your marriage, right?

Yes I do feel supported. . . although that was not always the case. We had problems in our marriage that I would prefer not to expound upon in detail, but we stayed together and worked our problems out. A big part of the reason was our children. Another part of the reason was our mutual view that . . . this is it. It's either this person or no one.

And honestly if those problems had continued for the next 40 years we would probably still be married.

So if you are implying that my marriage has always been emotionally easy. . . it hasn't. We had a good year, a bad year, about 4 ok years, a stretch of 2 to 3 bad years and it's gotten much better the 2 years or so.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Because they lead to single parent homes which leads to financial insecurity etc. This leads to children with worse outcomes who are more likely to commit crimes.

We can agree that financial insecurity is bad. And that children living in poor conditions is bad. And that crime is bad.

We may even agree that, on average, single parents and kids raised by single parents, encounter those bad things at a higher rate.

We cannot agree that divorce causes these things. Or that single parents necessarily face financial insecurity. Or that kids raised by single parents will become criminals....

Plenty of divorced parents are financially secure. Plenty of kids of single parents have good outcomes.

And here's the thing. Even if it were true that outlawing divorce reduced those problems without creating other problems, would that be a good solution? Or would it be like reducing reducing auto accidents by outlawing cars? That would do the trick, but is it sensible?

 

[Rudolph]

This for the record is why we have more single parents too. Because it's not just people divorcing, it's people realizing that marriage is meaningless and thus commitment is meaningless. Why commit to anything if your experience in life is the other person can call it quits at any time for any stupid reason. So people are screwing each other at best in a state of serial monogamy, producing children and having no commitment to the other parent. So they run off with someone else and the children are left wondering what they did wrong that one of their parents decided to quit on the family. Eventually they grow up believing that's just the way things are so they arn't gonna marry, they are just going to do whatever makes them happy in the moment and screw their children over in the same damn way.

Lol at this, too. Your reasoning on all this stuff comes from such an incredibly narrow construct. Hoosier, open up. My partner and I, for example, are choosing not to marry in part because our commitment is on an even higher level than, well, frankly, your idea of marriage. And there are a LOT of people like my partner and me. A lot.

One of the unifying bits among us non-marrying folks is the same type of feeling of support that you enjoy in your community. Thus asking you about that part of your story.

Maybe you can now see where I am going with this. Your stigmatization is anti-support, and it is based on a very narrowly constructed understanding of things. It's stigma based on a religious belief, which, by the way, is also narrowly constructed. And this stigma does a disservice towards the ultimate end goal—which, by the way, shouldn't be more marriage—which is MORE LOVING RELATIONSHIPS. And I'm not talking about "marriage-like" relationships, either. I'm talking about all relationships. The relationship you have, for example, with people like me and my partner. The relationship you have with the single dad or mom down the street. The relationship you have with the teacher of your kid who might be polyamorous. In short, stop fücking operating from a JUDGMENTAL point of view. You're looking no to judge society as a whole, in all its complexity with all its interrelated issues. You're looking to judge it—and the people within it (you've done a lot of this in your last several posts)—against YOUR VERY NARROW and VERY SPECIFIC and aruguably personal faith-based and even more arguably very puritanical worldview as it relates to an INCREDIBLY PERSONAL and thus INCREDIBLY NON-PRESCRIPTIVE thing like PERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS.

What if every type of relationship, so long as it is consensual and non-abusive and so on and so forth, was as welcomed and supported by our society as your preferred type of relationship? Imagine how that helps stabilize people? Think of your special needs kids. Think of how they flourish around supportive folks, versus when surrounded by people who view them as less than, or even with pity?

The thing is, Hoosier, I think if you really dig deep on this stuff, you'll fall even more in love with the core message of your savior. That's what's interesting to me.

 

[Rudolph]

Yes I do feel supported. . . although that was not always the case. We had problems in our marriage that I would prefer not to expound upon in detail, but we stayed together and worked our problems out. A big part of the reason was our children. Another part of the reason was our mutual view that . . . this is it. It's either this person or no one.

And honestly if those problems had continued for the next 40 years we would probably still be married.

So if you are implying that my marriage has always been emotionally easy. . . it hasn't. We had a good year, a bad year, about 4 ok years, a stretch of 2 to 3 bad years and it's gotten much better the 2 years or so.

Was not even remotely implying such a thing, Hoosier. See my previous post as to what I was driving towards. If I was implying anything, it was for you to try to imagine how living in an unsupportive environment/community would affect your marriage/family.

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

We can agree that financial insecurity is bad. And that children living in poor conditions is bad. And that crime is bad.

We may even agree that, on average, single parents and kids raised by single parents, encounter those bad things at a higher rate.

We cannot agree that divorce causes these things. Or that single parents necessarily face financial insecurity. Or that kids raised by single parents will become criminals....

Plenty of divorced parents are financially secure. Plenty of kids of single parents have good outcomes.

And here's the thing. Even if it were true that outlawing divorce reduced those problems without creating other problems, would that be a good solution? Or would it be like reducing reducing auto accidents by outlawing cars? That would do the trick, but is it sensible?

I'm not saying outlaw divorce. I'm more towards instituting penalties for actions which unilaterally end marriages. Instead now how you can commit adultery and then snip your spouse out of the picture with just a bit less stuff but also win cash prizes.

I say if you commit adultery, you get addicted to drugs/alcohol, or you just quit on your marriage for no good reason you get snipped out of the picture. You get no cash prizes (no alimony and no child support because you wouldn't have primary physical custody of the children) You don't get much of the assets either. . . maybe just enough to keep you from being destitute. Which for me means you get the shittiest car, you get just enough money for the security payment on an apartment and maybe a little bit of furniture. Kids stay with the not guilty parent. . . you get to see them every other weekend.

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

Lol at this, too. Your reasoning on all this stuff comes from such an incredibly narrow construct. Hoosier, open up. My partner and I, for example, are choosing not to marry in part because our commitment is on an even higher level than, well, frankly, your idea of marriage. And there are a LOT of people like my partner and me. A lot.

One of the unifying bits among us non-marrying folks is the same type of feeling of support that you enjoy in your community. Thus asking you about that part of your story.

Maybe you can now see where I am going with this. Your stigmatization is anti-support, and it is based on a very narrowly constructed understanding of things. It's stigma based on a religious belief, which, by the way, is also narrowly constructed. And this stigma does a disservice towards the ultimate end goal—which, by the way, shouldn't be more marriage—which is MORE LOVING RELATIONSHIPS. And I'm not talking about "marriage-like" relationships, either. I'm talking about all relationships. The relationship you have, for example, with people like me and my partner. The relationship you have with the single dad or mom down the street. The relationship you have with the teacher of your kid who might be polyamorous. In short, stop fücking operating from a JUDGMENTAL point of view. You're looking no to judge society as a whole, in all its complexity with all its interrelated issues. You're looking to judge it—and the people within it (you've done a lot of this in your last several posts)—against YOUR VERY NARROW and VERY SPECIFIC and aruguably personal faith-based and even more arguably very puritanical worldview as it relates to an INCREDIBLY PERSONAL and thus INCREDIBLY NON-PRESCRIPTIVE thing like PERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS.

What if every type of relationship, so long as it is consensual and non-abusive and so on and so forth, was as welcomed and supported by our society as your preferred type of relationship? Imagine how that helps stabilize people? Think of your special needs kids. Think of how they flourish around supportive folks, versus when surrounded by people who view them as less than, or even with pity?

The thing is, Hoosier, I think if you really dig deep on this stuff, you'll fall even more in love with the core message of your savior. That's what's interesting to me.

My issue with that is. . . quite frankly those non marrying folks are not usually as committed as they claim. Which makes sense since they refuse to bet any property on it or give their spouse legal rights that marriage gives.

I will grant theoretically 2 people living together as a family without being formally married (it could be a common law marriage in some states) could work out fine for the children and society. The problem is that statistically that's just not how it goes.

And to me (not judging your individual situation) it makes sense because these are people who avoid some of the more serious issues that comes with marriage which involve legal rights such as the right not to testify, the right to make medical decisions, the right to file taxes jointly.

Do you and your smizmar (That's just the term I've used from Futurama to refer to non married couples who live together with their children.) have joint accounts that you share?

 

[bladel]

What's the problem? This is what the lefties have been agitating for for years.

Lefties? Everybody has been beating the drum of over population for years to fit their agenda (environmental, economic, etc.)

But we need to start thinking about population decline, even collapse. Japan and South Korea are in free fall, and most European countries are a few years behind them on the same path. China will probably dip below 1 billion in a decade or so.

The US is flat so far, but just posted its slowest growth since 1790. But once a decline starts, it feeds on itself. Japan was still growing as recently as 2005.

 

[Rudolph]

My issue with that is. . . quite frankly those non marrying folks are not usually as committed as they claim. Which makes sense since they refuse to bet any property on it or give their spouse legal rights that marriage gives.

I will grant theoretically 2 people living together as a family without being formally married (it could be a common law marriage in some states) could work out fine for the children and society. The problem is that statistically that's just not how it goes.

And to me (not judging your individual situation) it makes sense because these are people who avoid some of the more serious issues that comes with marriage which involve legal rights such as the right not to testify, the right to make medical decisions, the right to file taxes jointly.

Do you and your smizmar (That's just the term I've used from Futurama to refer to non married couples who live together with their children.) have joint accounts that you share?

Again, here you go with the statistics thing. Those statistics are parsed, Hoosier. It's like you have a block on this. You are ignoring all of the other factors at play in those (convenient to your worldview) stats. In other words, you're blinded by your own affirmations. Dammit, you're better and smarter than this.

Everything else in your post is framed by your narrow view of things. My partner and I have joint accounts. We're as committed as any married couple could possibly be, Hoosier. And these rights you speak of—they're changing fast to include folks like me and my partner.

Seriously, I hope you question some of your own super-narrow, super-entrenched ideas about this stuff—and especially question the "stats" that affirm them, and the institutions who use these stats to promote their own agenda(s). The resultant stigmatization serves to marginalize people, Hoosier. Think about that. Think about how, on a societal scale, destructive that can be.

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

Again, here you go with the statistics thing. Those statistics are parsed, Hoosier. It's like you have a block on this. You are ignoring all of the other factors at play in those (convenient to your worldview) stats. In other words, you're blinded by your own affirmations. Dammit, you're better and smarter than this.

Everything else in your post is framed by your narrow view of things. My partner and I have joint accounts. We're as committed as any married couple could possibly be, Hoosier. And these rights you speak of—they're changing fast to include folks like me and my partner.

Seriously, I hope you question some of your own super-narrow, super-entrenched ideas about this stuff—and especially question the "stats" that affirm them, and the institutions who use these stats to promote their own agenda(s). The resultant stigmatization serves to marginalize people, Hoosier. Think about that. Think about how, on a societal scale, destructive that can be.

Than if it's not too personal. . . why not marry?

 

[Rudolph]

Than if it's not too personal. . . why not marry?

Then, Hoosier. Not than—then. And it's not too personal. But it's not even germane to the argument I'm making. Don't avoid the larger discussion, Hoosier.

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

Then, Hoosier. Not than—then. And it's not too personal. But it's not even germane to the argument I'm making. Don't avoid the larger discussion, Hoosier.

Well I don't understand why two people would have such a commitment and not formalize it and put it into legal recognition.

This seems like you are flipping on me though. First you tell me to forget about the statistics and try to look at it on a more micro level. Than when I try to understand it at the micro level in your case you tell me that it's irrelevant.

 

[Rudolph]

Well I don't understand why two people would have such a commitment and not formalize it and put it into legal recognition.

This seems like you are flipping on me though. First you tell me to forget about the statistics and try to look at it on a more micro level. Than when I try to understand it at the micro level in your case you tell me that it's irrelevant.

Oh my, you have grossly missed the point. I'm saying your stats are parsed from a much larger, much more complex, interrelated set of factors. How do you keep missing such an easy point, made at least three times now?

The marriage stats feel good to you. Question them. Question why. I mean, it's easy. They affirm your beliefs. Deconstruct that. Invoke some skepticism. Your belief system deserves it. So does society, since you actually seem to care.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Well I don't understand why two people would have such a commitment and not formalize it and put it into legal recognition.

What does that add to the relationship?

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

What does that add to the relationship?

As I mentioned quite a few legal rights. Not to mention it puts property on the line making it slightly harder (although not nearly as hard as it should be) to get out of it.

 

[alaskanseminole]

Uh... who is paying for the "paid leave" in those countries? The employers, or is it subsidized by the governments?

Military members get paid maternity and paternity leave. My company, AT&T offers both as well.

Misleading meme is misleading meme.