What is Digg?140 Comments
- Oculus, on 10/12/2007, -5/+57I have a friend who's parents "stayed together for the children." You know what he says now that he's 35, "They should have just gotten a divorce." They sleep in separate beds, stay in separate parts of the house during the waking hours, and have always communicated negative things through their kids. "Go tell your dad not to touch my stuff." "If you see your mom using my tool, tell her that I don't want her to use it."
My parents got divorced and both got remarried. You know what, I was better off being raised by my mother and step father. At the age I am now, I can look at my biological dad who has no compassion, can't even hug his grand-kids because he fears showing emotion and say "Thank god I wasn't raised that way."
So, my question is, what's better? Growing up being raised by the "married" couple above, learning from that type of "marriage", or having your parents get divorced, and possibly move on to a relationship that shows you how a REAL relationship should function? With adults communicating and working out their problems in a civilized, adult manner, without dragging the children into it. My wife (soon to be ex) and I went to three different marriage counselors and still could not work through our problems. We were together for 11 years, from high school on, and married for 5. We have one son, and you know what, I don't want him to grow up with us arguing about what I don't do, or what she doesn't do. We tried to work it out, we did the best we could, and we couldn't make it work. Just as we both agreed to get married, we both agreed to get divorced. We still talk, help each other out, but just aren't able to have that type of relationship anymore. Sometimes, marriage just doesn't work, period. - Oculus, on 10/12/2007, -14/+51Congrats to your children for keeping their marriage together, I hope for their continued happiness and that they can work through any problems. The only thing that bothers me is that you have some notion that if they get divorced, your grandchildren will no longer have a mother and father. If they are both good parents, your grandchildren will never have to worry about having a mother and father. Good parents don't disappear with a marriage.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -9/+42It's sad, but today marriage is viewed as nothing but a legal excuse for a girlfriend to take half of her boyfriend's money when they "break up". If you're not willing to spend the rest of your natural life together (like you both ***** pledge), don't get married. It's that simple.
- meltingrobot, on 10/12/2007, -12/+43If people would stop getting married, the divorce rate wouldn't be so high. ;)
- majordannyboy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+33Kind of reminds me of a Chris Rock skit. "My kids have been married for 5 years" "You're SUPPOSED to stay married"
- Coven, on 10/12/2007, -16/+44The gays are threatening the sanctity of marriage! We have to stop them from ruining what is pure and wholesome! Straight people could never ruin marriage!
/sarcasm - Y0tsuya, on 10/12/2007, -4/+22"The only thing that bothers me is that you have some notion that if they get divorced, your grandchildren will no longer have a mother and father."
Biologically, yes kids will still have a father and mother. But psychologically, they may not. Divorces are often bitter, nasty, and soul-destroying, especially to the children. In the old days, we still have divorces, but parents often wait until after the kids are all grown up and mature enough to handle the separation. These days, people marry and divorce the next day, week, month, year, take your pick. Who gives a ***** about what your kids think.
People jump into marriage like it's a night out at the movie theater or something. If they don't like the show they just walk right out. - dshPls, on 10/12/2007, -14/+32Is your child being raised without a mother? Blame the mexicans!
- washingtonydc, on 10/12/2007, -6/+22here's a better idea:
how about the government gets out of the marriage business. - Oculus, on 10/12/2007, -6/+21Well, that's the boyfriends fault for not getting a pre-nup if he has a lot of money to begin with. If you make a lot of money while you're married, your spouse is entitled to half of everything since you built it "together". You know it going in, so don't bitch about it on the way out.
- evilTak, on 10/12/2007, -10/+24"...express that love in its most perfect form: a binding legal contract!"
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -6/+20According to the CDC, THX is, as usual, wrong. The actual number is 36%, which is above whites but lower than blacks. Most likely explained by poverty levels.
"In 1988, more than 1 million infants were born to unmarried mothers, accounting for 26% of all infants (Table 2) (18% of white infants, 63% of black infants, and 34% of Hispanic infants); these percentages reflected increasing trends for 1980--1988."
Additionally, unmarried white women have almost doubled their output of "illegitimate" births. But THX's knee jerk hatred is nice too. - Ignignokt01, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13@DiggsOnlyNeoCon
I understand that. What I meant is by 'not carrying meaning' is that people don't take it as seriously anymore, in terms of 'staying together because we're married'. Marriage is not a bad thing overall, that's not my point.
My point is that society shouldn't expect EVERYONE to get married, or that its the ONLY way to prove you truly love someone. - Langford, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12I think people get married too quick without considering what they are getting into. It's a lot harder to keep a commitment than it is to make one.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+15How can you take yourself seriously? First you reduce a nation wide phenomenon to a problem faced primarily by illegal immigrants. Then you reduce all illegal immigrants to Mexicans. Then you act as if the fact they're illegal has nothing to do with the fact they're not married. Show me the court that will marry two illegal immigrants. Moreover, show me two impoverished immigrants who care about the formalistic luxury of a marriage certificate. Then you assume as if the absence of marriage is a moral deficiency, not produced by any socioeconomic forces.
If I had a flux capacitor I'd send you back to 1955 when this ethnocentric drivel sounded plausible. - evilTak, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11The parent post cannot be dugg up enough.
- bobcrotch, on 10/12/2007, -5/+15You don't have to be a Christian to be married, you don't have to be a member of any sort of religious sect. You could be married by a notoriezed official.
Why do people insist on throwing this crap out there, it's really common sense. If you don't understand how something works then don't preach to other people like you're educated on the topic. - chaoshauk, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11Wouldn't unmarried head of households be counted twice as often as a married couple. (Meaning you count a married couple once, yet if they were divorced, they would count as 2).
Maybe I'm just wrong in my thinking, though. - morandomdanu, on 10/12/2007, -9/+18I must say, coming from a long term (heterosexual) Committed relationship the tax breaks KICK @$$ for 2 non-married head of household adults. Sometimes the kids have a hard time explaining the relationships, thats OK, it lets them be creative. It seems to me that a lot of conservatives view divorce as a bad thing, but most of the divorces think of are far better off than before. it seems that Sticking it out, is not always the best plan.
I say do what is best for the family and screw all of this "traditional" garbage. - geronimo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10Sometimes I feel like the last sane person on earth. My parents raised me, stayed together and argued maybe one time. Now, trying to create my own life, that sort of life seems like it belongs to another era. I know so many divorced people, people who were beaten, mentally and physically by their parents, parents cheated on each other. It's very hard for two people, one from a calm and "boring" upbringing, another from a turbulent upbringing, to relate to each other. The calm person is happy while the other person is constantly reliving the past while their partner cannot relate or offer help to the demons. I've found that having a turbulent past is like an infectious disease that spreads not only at the individual level but throughout society and culture. At its roots I believe it's the pressure of modern day life and making a living that contribute to this. People move around for jobs, worry about getting rich, worry about everything except loving your family.
- DiggsOnlyNeoCon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8I think the New World Order should get out of marriages...
- washingtonydc, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11but the thing is, your solution involves having the government regulate social relationships and activities. You'd love to see marriage regulated by the state--how about childbirth? How far should we go?
Or, how about this, we let people make up their own minds when it comes to their own lives and relationships. Crazy, isn't it, this whole 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness' thing?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10Double checking more recent data from the CDC indicates that he's right for 2004 ( http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/hus06.pdf#010 ) insofar that if you include Mexicans, Cubans, Puerto Ricans and other south Americans et al their unmarried births is 46.4%
What he doesn't mention, of course, is that white unmarried births are (in 2004) at over 30%.
And he certainly doesn't mention that Cuban unmarried births are about the same as whites at 33%. - Adamesq, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7How did this info that was out years ago ever get to the front page?!?! Would that be the 2000 census!? Alright Digg...you've managed to put stories older than yourself on front page!
- THX1212, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8I never ban anyone on my posts. I think that is a pretty cowardly response when you don't have much of an argument. Do as you will though.
- osirisothedead, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9Who knew Rick Santorum was on digg?
- sirjimbob, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8I've been together and living with my girlfriend for over four years now. Its a life long commitment and neither of us see any reason to get married as it doesn't particularly mean anything besides what we already have. I guess us being two children of divorced families has had an impact.
- JerryCant, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6You hit the nail right on the head.
My two kids agree the divorce was a great idea, having them watch their parents fight all the time is like the worst thing you can do to your kids... - Twango, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7"My grandkids deserve to have both a mother, and a father. I'll continue to see that they get exactly that."
Caring about your grandkids is wonderful. Pressuring the parents is not. - xXAzraelXx, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Ostracism being removed is a step towards people no longer being scared to leave abusive relationships, however it can lead to easier "flights of fanatacism" like whirlwind romances a'la Britney Spears (who shaved her head over the stress of herself being an abusive/abusing cohabitator).
I would like to see a world where people mate for life, you know, penguins can do it sheesh... :) - phil.busch, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5The problem is the people who try to spread them do it incorrectly and give Christian values a bad name.
- aukxsona, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Obviously it is the norm if there are more single households then married ones.
- JerryCant, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5The marriage lasted 8 years, the divorce took 2 months and that was 7 years ago in my case, being dragged out to court was just a formality, smiling to the judge and signing a piece of paper ;-)
If you have kids, think about them, for better or for worse, etc... - Gerz1219, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7Well, okay, THX, what *are* you suggesting as a solution then? I searched up and down this page -- had to "show all," since so many of your comments were buried -- and your only suggestions include government restrictions on divorce. These choice quotes were found among your drivel:
"If you get divorced there should be a time limit before you get remarried. Maybe five years or so. This might reduce the tendency of people to go from one short marriage after only a few months of dating to the next."
"Well, one might argue that quite a few of our problems today are a result of exactly that: the government allowing marriage to be treated as merely an arbitrary contract between two people without any concern for the foundational role played by the family in society."
Without stating outright, you imply heavily that government should restrict divorce. It is well that you stick to implication, because you are proscribing a fascist society.
Of course, I don't think you really think that. You'd prefer that society, of its own volition, turn back the clock on decades of social change and resume eye-rolling and and finger-wagging at the mere mention of a loving unmarried couple "living in sin." But that's not going to happen, for a variety of reasons beyond the scope of a digg post. Moral crusaders are free to move to Utah. The rest of us will continue ***** arbitrarily in consumerist two-income childless hedonism, unless your lot gets in power and illegalizes divorce and unmarried co-habitation.
Finally:
""There is no government solution to broad social trends. It'll all work itself out."
What evidence do you have for that?"
The evidence is that we're all still here. The fire-and-brimstone crowd has been shrieking for the last millenium that moral decay will bring God's wrath. And it never comes. The problems associated with the decline of marriage in Western society are merely the corrective costs we're paying for decades of social progress. Women are no longer tethered to loveless indentured service arrangements; they are free to pursue their own careers and goals outside the context of legalized slavery. There's a price to be paid for this disruption of authoritative stability, and free Western democratic societies have decided that this price is worth it. Feel free to sulk in moral indignation; you are a minority. - aukxsona, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5feel sorry for you...
you missed out on all the gripes of a whole generation.
Actually I would say your lucky except you can't relate. - Gerz1219, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8@THX1212 -- The problem, of course, is that your implicit solution is some sort of government ban on divorce or unmarried cohabitation. There is no government solution to broad social trends. It'll all work itself out.
- apzdsx, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7...what?
- THX1212, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6'Left wing "economics" isn't economic, as the last century shown.'
I said he was a left-wing economist, not that he was employing left-wing economics (let alone Marxist economics). Dean Baker is anything but a Marxist and his article is based on stuff anyone with even an elementary understanding of economics, regardless of political affiliation, should be capable of comprehending. Enough of the ad hominem. - galore, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Oh, and for a good example of how wonderful a society is where people are trapped in a marriage, may I suggest http://movies.yahoo.com/movie/1808403975/info
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Here's a clip where Aaron Russo explains why the Rockefeller foundation wanted women in the workforce so badly. It's not about sexism. It's about money and control.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/january2007/290107rockefellergoal.htm - cmwotring, on 10/12/2007, -5/+8I agree that marriage is not something that should be taken lightly. My grandparents have been married 60 years and it's awesome. It would be great if that were the outcome for all marriages. The reality is that people change during their lives. I have a hard time believing that most people get married and divorced on a whim. When there are issues in a marriage that cannot be resolved, it's not inexcusably bad to get divorced. The way I see it, if there are children involved, is it really good for the growth and health of the family to be a part of an argument every night?
I'm not saying that a couple should take the easy way out and get divorced. There was something that brought them together in the first place and maybe it needs to be found again. I'm tired of hearing that marriage is an unbreakable bond and implying that staying together is the best solution. I'm sure it's a wealth of growth and positive energy in a house where the parents are just staying together for the children. - bobcrotch, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7Vertinox,
So you're just a pissed off religious person who is offended by all of this?
""You don't have to be a Christian to be married, you don't have to be a member of any sort of religious sect. You could be married by a notoriezed official."
If it is non-religious then why can't same sex couples marry each other or multiple people get married?"
What? Are you just like typing things and hoping they come out making sense?
Jews, Muslims, Agnostics, Christians of all kinds, Satanists, what ever it doesn't matter you can or cannot be religious and get married. There isn't any sort of requirement. - Elranzer, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7"Who do we blame? The Muslims, Atheists or Gays?!?!? Won't somebody think of the children!!"
Actually there is someone you CAN blame: the feminists.
That and young, hip, successful males are discovering their inner homosexuality, or they're straight but realizing they don't need to marry their gold-digging sluts just to get laid. - DiggsOnlyNeoCon, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6@Ignignokt01
Fair enough -- I just misunderstood your point. - Dustin00, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Kentucky or one of it's neighbors is putting in place a "cool down period" of 6 months where you have to file intention to get divorced, wait 6 months, then you can start the process.
Fun, fun, fun! - Dustin00, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4“What will happen if we break up?” Those who marry don’t have to wrestle with that.
Ummm... huh? Divorce takes months, if not years. It is agonizingly painful to have your entire life dragged out into the public and just makes the pain last and last and last... and after the divorce, the chaos just continues, espeically if you have kids. - Cougaboy, on 10/12/2007, -6/+8@ THX
Link to said well-documented social pathologies? - profOblivion, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2George Carlin's rule: Before you marry someone, ask yourself, "Am I willing to give this person half of my stuff?"
- aukxsona, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6what would those be exactly....
I hear so many versions today like...love, faith, trust, compassion...
But I see so much more like, hate, murder, sexism, intolerance, vulgarity, - vertinox, on 10/12/2007, -12/+14@"Marriage is a semi-ridiculous ritual that really doesn't carry much meaning anymore (despite people wanting it to or not). "
My problem is that Government is not supposed to recognize or favor any type of religion, but it recognizes marriage via tax benefits and various other governmental regulations. I think this is would be unconstitutional myself.
I don't have a problem with marriage, but it shouldn't be recognized by the state as something holy or under religious aspects at all. It should be between two people and their god or church or whatever they believe in but the fact that government recognizes it means they favor a certain type of religion over others. Mostly Juedo-Christian over say Islam, atheism, or other non-majority religions.
If government would just say marriage is not recognized and you don't get any tax benefits or monetary allotments from your partner this would solve the problem. Really... This whole issue is really about money and not marriage at all and kind of makes me think marriage has really lost its value if we can't remove it from the hands of government officials.
Lastly, what about people who don't or can't have kids and don't get married. We don't give them any benefits for that. It is hypocritical. -
Show 51 - 100 of 136 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is