Benjamin Franklin Posted June 7, 2006 Share Posted June 7, 2006 Now that the gay marriage thing is dead, I have a suggestion. Why don't we take a stab at a problem we might be able to solve: broken homes. Children from single homes are more likely to commit crimes, do drugs, have out of wedlock children, contract an STD, and be on social welfare than children from married homes. The solution to this problem--one that America is probably ready for--is to ban divorce. Before you go all apespit on me, there would be provisions for cases of abuse, but they would require a Court Order and hearing. This would insure that people get married for the right reasons, and can't get divorced for the wrong ones. There would probably have to be some laws forcing married couples to cohabitate; otherwise people could "divorce" in practice without doing it in name, just by moving out. To be honest, I cribbed this idea from a local paper, but apparently, it's gotten wide support. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted June 7, 2006 Share Posted June 7, 2006 Now that the gay marriage thing is dead, I have a suggestion. Why don't we take a stab at a problem we might be able to solve: broken homes. Children from single homes are more likely to commit crimes, do drugs, have out of wedlock children, contract an STD, and be on social welfare than children from married homes. The solution to this problem--one that America is probably ready for--is to ban divorce. Before you go all apespit on me, there would be provisions for cases of abuse, but they would require a Court Order and hearing. This would insure that people get married for the right reasons, and can't get divorced for the wrong ones. There would probably have to be some laws forcing married couples to cohabitate; otherwise people could "divorce" in practice without doing it in name, just by moving out. To be honest, I cribbed this idea from a local paper, but apparently, it's gotten wide support. 704575[/snapback] Why would a child living in an environment where both his/her parents hated each other, yet were forced to live together by the state, do any better than a child of a single parent? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gavin in Va Beach Posted June 7, 2006 Share Posted June 7, 2006 Never work. Best bet is either mandatory birth control or reversible sterilizations and then make a marriage license necessary for having children. The marriage license wouldn't expire until the kid(s) turn 18. It's a little harsh, but it may become necessary someday. People want war and disease to be wiped out, but how else do they propose to manage populations? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HereComesTheReignAgain Posted June 7, 2006 Share Posted June 7, 2006 Now that the gay marriage thing is dead, I have a suggestion. Why don't we take a stab at a problem we might be able to solve: broken homes. Children from single homes are more likely to commit crimes, do drugs, have out of wedlock children, contract an STD, and be on social welfare than children from married homes. The solution to this problem--one that America is probably ready for--is to ban divorce. Before you go all apespit on me, there would be provisions for cases of abuse, but they would require a Court Order and hearing. This would insure that people get married for the right reasons, and can't get divorced for the wrong ones. There would probably have to be some laws forcing married couples to cohabitate; otherwise people could "divorce" in practice without doing it in name, just by moving out. To be honest, I cribbed this idea from a local paper, but apparently, it's gotten wide support. 704575[/snapback] I'd like some data on the "wide support" you claim. Would people without kids be allowed to divorce? Who decides what the "right reasons" are? We can't listen to the majority that feel gay marriages are wrong, but you and your "wide support" can tell me what the "right reasons" for marriage are? If you are really concerned about the children, why don't we sterilize anyone that has a child but needs public assistance to survive. If you can't afford a kid, don't have em. If you can't stop having kids we will help you stop. If you are a drug addict...sterilized. Repeat criminal...sterilized. Only good parents should reproduce. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted June 7, 2006 Share Posted June 7, 2006 To be honest, I cribbed this idea from a local paper, but apparently, it's gotten wide support. 704575[/snapback] Wow, an idea even dumber than banning gay marriage. Nice to see there is no bottom in sight! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted June 7, 2006 Share Posted June 7, 2006 Now that the gay marriage thing is dead, I have a suggestion. Why don't we take a stab at a problem we might be able to solve: broken homes. Children from single homes are more likely to commit crimes, do drugs, have out of wedlock children, contract an STD, and be on social welfare than children from married homes. The solution to this problem--one that America is probably ready for--is to ban divorce. Before you go all apespit on me, there would be provisions for cases of abuse, but they would require a Court Order and hearing. This would insure that people get married for the right reasons, and can't get divorced for the wrong ones. There would probably have to be some laws forcing married couples to cohabitate; otherwise people could "divorce" in practice without doing it in name, just by moving out. To be honest, I cribbed this idea from a local paper, but apparently, it's gotten wide support. 704575[/snapback] How many of those "broken home" children's parents where never married. I bet more of those problems come from children where the dad was just a sperm doner. I suggest sterilization to everyone at birth and it is reversed if you prove you are smart enough and have the financial wherewithal to raise that child. That will never happen but the country would be a much better place in one short generation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin Franklin Posted June 7, 2006 Author Share Posted June 7, 2006 Why would a child living in an environment where both his/her parents hated each other, yet were forced to live together by the state, do any better than a child of a single parent? 704582[/snapback] It's amazing to see what happens to people when they are forced to live together. Suddenly, that marriage will turn into a commitment, and the child can connect to two parents instead of one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin Franklin Posted June 7, 2006 Author Share Posted June 7, 2006 I'd like some data on the "wide support" you claim. Would people without kids be allowed to divorce? Who decides what the "right reasons" are? We can't listen to the majority that feel gay marriages are wrong, but you and your "wide support" can tell me what the "right reasons" for marriage are? No--marriage is for procreation. Although people can marry and not procreate, once you get married, it's final. As far as wide support, all you need to do is look at wedding vows. No one vows to get married "for a few years" or "until we hit a rough spot." People intend to stay married. How about a law to enforce it. If you are really concerned about the children, why don't we sterilize anyone that has a child but needs public assistance to survive. If you can't afford a kid, don't have em. If you can't stop having kids we will help you stop. If you are a drug addict...sterilized. Repeat criminal...sterilized. Only good parents should reproduce. 704593[/snapback] That's ridiculous--let's stay in the realm of reality and not in some ORwellian fantasy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin Franklin Posted June 7, 2006 Author Share Posted June 7, 2006 How many of those "broken home" children's parents where never married. I bet more of those problems come from children where the dad was just a sperm doner. I suggest sterilization to everyone at birth and it is reversed if you prove you are smart enough and have the financial wherewithal to raise that child. That will never happen but the country would be a much better place in one short generation. 704598[/snapback] That's a tough problem--don't hijack this thread. I'm just focusing on the simple one: the divorce ban. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin Franklin Posted June 7, 2006 Author Share Posted June 7, 2006 Wow, an idea even dumber than banning gay marriage. Nice to see there is no bottom in sight! 704595[/snapback] Thanks for your insight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuntheDamnBall Posted June 7, 2006 Share Posted June 7, 2006 How many of those "broken home" children's parents where never married. I bet more of those problems come from children where the dad was just a sperm doner. I suggest sterilization to everyone at birth and it is reversed if you prove you are smart enough and have the financial wherewithal to raise that child. That will never happen but the country would be a much better place in one short generation. 704598[/snapback] I'm not crazy about that idea. I just don't think you can penalize everyone just because of a lot of stupid people. My parents had me when they were 19 (weren't planning on it happening, either) and working low-paying jobs in Western New York. They cared about each other and about me and my brother, and worked really hard to better themselves, raised kids who got straight-As, coached Little League, ran Scouts, ended up buying and renovating rental properties and are out on the other side now and enjoying life, and still very happy together. Now the circumstances surrounding their marriage and having children were not optimal, and perhaps their success defies the statistics, but why should a situation like that be considered worse than that of someone who can financially support kids but has no time for them (something I often see)? You can't judge that, and to suggest it would be possible would result in fascism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin Franklin Posted June 7, 2006 Author Share Posted June 7, 2006 I'm not crazy about that idea. I just don't think you can penalize everyone just because of a lot of stupid people. My parents had me when they were 19 (weren't planning on it happening, either) and working low-paying jobs in Western New York. They cared about each other and about me and my brother, and worked really hard to better themselves, raised kids who got straight-As, coached Little League, ran Scouts, ended up buying and renovating rental properties and are out on the other side now and enjoying life, and still very happy together. Now the circumstances surrounding their marriage and having children were not optimal, and perhaps their success defies the statistics, but why should a situation like that be considered worse than that of someone who can financially support kids but has no time for them (something I often see)? You can't judge that, and to suggest it would be possible would result in fascism. 704623[/snapback] Exactly--sounds like your parents did the right thing. Other young parents would have bailed. Keep those "other" parents together and maybe they'll raise good kids like you. At least the possibility is more likely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuntheDamnBall Posted June 7, 2006 Share Posted June 7, 2006 That's a tough problem--don't hijack this thread. I'm just focusing on the simple one: the divorce ban. 704616[/snapback] You're trying to change meaning and that's a slow process and it just isn't going to happen. You're acting like marriages pre-1960s were all rosy and happy. Fact is, they weren't. Women with abusive husbands had no recourse or exit strategy. Men likely cheated more within their marriages. It's better to let it dissolve than for it to become a ruse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin Franklin Posted June 7, 2006 Author Share Posted June 7, 2006 You're trying to change meaning and that's a slow process and it just isn't going to happen. You're acting like marriages pre-1960s were all rosy and happy. Fact is, they weren't. Women with abusive husbands had no recourse or exit strategy. Men likely cheated more within their marriages. It's better to let it dissolve than for it to become a ruse. 704629[/snapback] No. There's an exception for abuse situations. Pre 1960 kids WERE happier. Families DID stick together. The abusive situations are terrible, but with today's awareness about abuse, women could get free of the abusive husband, even with a divorce ban. (Any divorce ban would have a provision for abuse situations.) Your argument doesn't make a dent in the pro-divorce ban platform. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuntheDamnBall Posted June 7, 2006 Share Posted June 7, 2006 No. There's an exception for abuse situations. Pre 1960 kids WERE happier. Families DID stick together. The abusive situations are terrible, but with today's awareness about abuse, women could get free of the abusive husband, even with a divorce ban. Your argument doesn't make a dent in the pro-divorce ban platform. 704647[/snapback] You're talking about upending a whole system that includes having both parents work (probably more detrimental but economically necessary in a lot of situations), many more distractions and less responsibility for kids, etc. It's not all rooted in marriage and propping up one leg won't get the other three off of the ground. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted June 7, 2006 Share Posted June 7, 2006 It's amazing to see what happens to people when they are forced to live together. Suddenly, that marriage will turn into a commitment, and the child can connect to two parents instead of one. 704610[/snapback] Yeah, either that or one of them kills the other one. Looked at any domestic violence statistics lately? btw, I'm still under the impression that you are totally goofing on this absurd subject. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HereComesTheReignAgain Posted June 7, 2006 Share Posted June 7, 2006 No--marriage is for procreation. Although people can marry and not procreate, once you get married, it's final. As far as wide support, all you need to do is look at wedding vows. No one vows to get married "for a few years" or "until we hit a rough spot." People intend to stay married. How about a law to enforce it. That's ridiculous--let's stay in the realm of reality and not in some ORwellian fantasy. 704614[/snapback] I must be stepping into some sarcastic trap because you can't possibly think that forcing two people to live together is more realistic than forced sterilization due to child neglect. You had me going for a while though. A lot of women agreed to "obey" in their vows too, does that mean my wife has to do whatever I say under penalty of law? That would certainly make for a happier house for me! I hope for your sake that this is in fact a dry attempt at humor and not your twisted views. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted June 7, 2006 Share Posted June 7, 2006 It's amazing to see what happens to people when they are forced to live together. Suddenly, that marriage will turn into a commitment, and the child can connect to two parents instead of one. 704610[/snapback] My parents were divorced and I connected with both of them. The problem isn't forcing parents to stay together, it's forcing parents to stay involved. Also, I can't believe there were no less than three calls for sterilization within the first six posts in this thread. How is mandatory sterilization going to solve the problem of parents getting divorced, or single parent issues? It would stop unwed pregnancies, I suppose, but how will it keep people together after they're married? Sometimes this place astounds me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UConn James Posted June 7, 2006 Share Posted June 7, 2006 It's amazing to see what happens to people when they are forced to live together. Suddenly, that marriage will turn into a commitment, and the child can connect to two parents instead of one. 704610[/snapback] Do we have to sing "Shiny, Happy People Holding Hands" 24/7 too? Or can I just hum? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted June 7, 2006 Share Posted June 7, 2006 I cant stop laughing Maybe a Consitutional Amendment on people who jay-walk? Kill those !@#$ers!! I hate'em. But then again, they may be gay. Sorry, my bad...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts