Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

You know Libertarians aren't into regulating the bedroom either. Just saying...

 Vulcan wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Ok lets look at this from a the perspective of various social conservatives.
Many social conservatives are concerned with but one thing, families, primarily their own. And they believe that there is only one type of way for a family to survive, the social conservative way. Which tends to align a little with christian faiths, such as no sex before marriage, sex is for children only, and you shouldn't be having it unless you want one. So families perpetuate to create more families it is reasonable to conclude. The way to create new families is babies, so you cant get rid of babies.
That is why i think abortion is so highly contested, many believe it is a breakdown of the family. Same to why Contraceptives are so highly debated topic. Breakdown of familes.

No fault divorce shattered that little fairy tale a couple decades back. If they want to perserve the sanctity of marriage, they should look into that.

Especially since most gay and lesbian couples I've met tend to be much more committed to each other than the average straight couple.

Yup... and I concur on both points. 'specially the No Fault Divorces...

The gay couple I know are fricking hilarious... they just have a unique outlook in life that's enlightening...

There are still people that hold onto that ideal a large number infact.

 d-usa wrote:
I'll just join the copy & paste train and leave this here:

Illinois Republican Rep. Joe Walsh is under fire for comments he made Thursday night in his final debate against Democrat Tammy Duckworth -- he said he opposes abortion "without exception," even when the life of the mother is at stake.

The trouble came when the Tea Partier doubled down on his position with the media afterward:

There's no such exception as life of the mother. And as far as health of the mother, same thing, with advances in science and technology, health of the mother has become a tool for abortions anytime under any reason.

The facts Walsh used to justify his position have been proven absolutely false. In fact, studies show that pregnancy-related deaths for women are on the rise.

Well, allowing abortion for the health of the mother has something of a track record in being used to allow any and all abortions. Here in Western Australia the only law in place allowing abortion says it can be performed only when the health of the mother is in danger... and abortion is safer than pregnancy therefore every abortion can be justified and the effect is as if the process is entirely legal.

Now, that doesn't explain any of the crazy not science about pretending pregnancy doesn't have dangers or anything like that, but the reality is that if you want to stop abortion then you either have to remove or heavily restrict any exception for the health of the mother... which is, of course, really just another reason that stopping abortion is probably just a bad idea.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
sex is for children only...

I read that and thought 'the feth dude, that's extremely harsh and kind of out of nowhere'... and then I realised you meant 'for making children

Bit of a brain fart on my part.

The wording is off, lol, i changed the post.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
There are still people that hold onto that ideal a large number infact.

Oh, of course. Let's face it, no one gets married expecting to get divorced in the future.

And yet over half of all marriages end in divorce, and most of those are 'no fault' divorces.

 Vulcan wrote:
And yet over half of all marriages end in divorce, and most of those are 'no fault' divorces.

Which of course proves the necessity of no fault divorce laws, since otherwise half of all marriages would just result in misery.

Though I guess if we removed no fault divorce it would be a good business opportunity for fault-providing services. Pay your fee, "cheat" on your spouse with a person provided by the service, and at the arranged time they arrive to "catch" you and provide grounds for divorce. The "sanctity" of marriage would last just long enough for the lawyers to figure out a way around it.

Remember, too, that the "half of all marriages" figure includes all the serial monogamists. People who get married every time they get into a serious relationship for a couple of years, then get divorced and get married again. Over and over.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Vulcan wrote:
And yet over half of all marriages end in divorce, and most of those are 'no fault' divorces.

Which of course proves the necessity of no fault divorce laws, since otherwise half of all marriages would just result in misery.

Though I guess if we removed no fault divorce it would be a good business opportunity for fault-providing services. Pay your fee, "cheat" on your spouse with a person provided by the service, and at the arranged time they arrive to "catch" you and provide grounds for divorce. The "sanctity" of marriage would last just long enough for the lawyers to figure out a way around it.

That is how it used to be done in the early 20th century.

Yes, read just about any Evelyn Waugh novel.

Thought: Maybe we should have a "Politician said something mind numbingly stupid" mega thread as opposed to starting a flurry of new ones every press conference?

I'd also like to reiterate my support for gay marriage, they have the right to be as miserable as everyone else.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Vulcan wrote:
And yet over half of all marriages end in divorce, and most of those are 'no fault' divorces.

Which of course proves the necessity of no fault divorce laws, since otherwise half of all marriages would just result in misery.

Though I guess if we removed no fault divorce it would be a good business opportunity for fault-providing services. Pay your fee, "cheat" on your spouse with a person provided by the service, and at the arranged time they arrive to "catch" you and provide grounds for divorce. The "sanctity" of marriage would last just long enough for the lawyers to figure out a way around it.

There is that, of course.

The conservaitves would just say 'without no-fault divorce they'd think a bit harder about getting married in the first place!' To which the obvious reply is, 'yeah, they'd just shack up for a while instead."

And watch their heads 'splode.

 Mannahnin wrote:
Remember, too, that the "half of all marriages" figure includes all the serial monogamists. People who get married every time they get into a serious relationship for a couple of years, then get divorced and get married again. Over and over.

Yeah, so when we look at first marriages it turns out 70% of them work out. And that rate is improving year on year.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
That is how it used to be done in the early 20th century.

Yeah, the private eye in all those hardboiled film noir was actually a real. Except instead of investigating murders and cracking crime rings, he was actually just looking through people's trash, and following around someone's spouse, looking for proof of fault in a marriage.

 sebster wrote:

 Mannahnin wrote:
Remember, too, that the "half of all marriages" figure includes all the serial monogamists. People who get married every time they get into a serious relationship for a couple of years, then get divorced and get married again. Over and over.

Yeah, so when we look at first marriages it turns out 70% of them work out. And that rate is improving year on year.

50% and getting worse here Sebs.

No, KM. That's what we're pointing out. You're hearing one statistic and thinking it means something else.

Around half of all marriages end in divorce, but only around 30% of first marriages do so. This is because a lot of those marriages which end in divorce are from the SAME people having MULTIPLE divorces. There are people out there getting married and divorced four, five, even six or more times. Each of their marriages counts toward the "all marriages" stat.

 Mannahnin wrote:
No, KM. That's what we're pointing out. You're hearing one statistic and thinking it means something else.

Around half of all marriages end in divorce, but only around 30% of first marriages do so. This is because a lot of those marriages which end in divorce are from the SAME people having MULTIPLE divorces. There are people out there getting married and divorced four, five, even six or more times. Each of their marriages counts toward the "all marriages" stat.

Hey... where are you getting that information?

I thought that was debunked...

Crap. Trying to find it now...

 Mannahnin wrote:
No, KM. That's what we're pointing out. You're hearing one statistic and thinking it means something else.

Around half of all marriages end in divorce, but only around 30% of first marriages do so. This is because a lot of those marriages which end in divorce are from the SAME people having MULTIPLE divorces. There are people out there getting married and divorced four, five, even six or more times. Each of their marriages counts toward the "all marriages" stat.

Ahhh sorry wasn't tracking. On a side note, Hi! I'm part of the statistic!

I'll let you all know how round two goes if it ever happens XD

 Mannahnin wrote:
Crap. Trying to find it now...

Indeed. I was of like mind of you - that the Larry Kings with many marriages throw off the numbers. However, I just went to find a source, and the best one I found in a few minutes of searching actually says the opposite - to wit, that "The probability of a first marriage reaching its 20th anniversary was 52% for women and 56% for men in 2006–2010. These levels are consistent with those reported in the NSFG in previous years, and in vital statistics data three decades ago".

Yeah, I found the CDC numbers quickly too, but I thought there was different data for some reason. Something more substantive than these, anyway.
http://psychcentral.com/lib/2012/the-myth-of-the-high-rate-of-divorce/all/1/
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-intelligent-divorce/201202/the-high-failure-rate-second-and-third-marriages

Maybe I'm on crack. Or maybe Seb was talking international numbers, not US, as KM initially supposed, and I owe him an apology.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
50% and getting worse here Sebs.

No, you're wrong. Debunked in the 70s wrong. That original study basically took the number of divorces happening in a year and the number of marriages happening in the same year, and threw math, good sense and reason out the window and declared dividing one by the other would give you a rate of successful marriage.

The chart below will show you not only did the divorce rate only just exceed 50% for all marriages, it's been dropping for three decades;

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-hughes/what-is-the-real-divorce-_b_785045.html

If your male you haven't lived life yet till your first divorce On number three now. SHe's keeping me since she feel sorry for me with all my injuries sustain from Afghanistan....of course I can throw the sad puppy eyes look to....clincher was I can cook and know my way aroud the kitchen ....I love her still even when she popped my shoulder out of joint last week.

 Jihadin wrote:
she popped my shoulder out of joint last week.

How did she do that?

 sebster wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
50% and getting worse here Sebs.

No, you're wrong. Debunked in the 70s wrong. That original study basically took the number of divorces happening in a year and the number of marriages happening in the same year, and threw math, good sense and reason out the window and declared dividing one by the other would give you a rate of successful marriage.

The chart below will show you not only did the divorce rate only just exceed 50% for all marriages, it's been dropping for three decades;

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-hughes/what-is-the-real-divorce-_b_785045.html

Fascinating, the public perception is definitely skewed.

It is at 50% for the military thereabouts if not higher XD

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Fascinating, the public perception is definitely skewed.

It is at 50% for the military thereabouts if not higher XD

I'd believe that. Military life is hard on families.

 sebster wrote:

 Mannahnin wrote:
Remember, too, that the "half of all marriages" figure includes all the serial monogamists. People who get married every time they get into a serious relationship for a couple of years, then get divorced and get married again. Over and over.

Yeah, so when we look at first marriages it turns out 70% of them work out. And that rate is improving year on year.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
That is how it used to be done in the early 20th century.

Yeah, the private eye in all those hardboiled film noir was actually a real. Except instead of investigating murders and cracking crime rings, he was actually just looking through people's trash, and following around someone's spouse, looking for proof of fault in a marriage.

Sometimes it was a sham. One spouse would agree to be "caught" with a "lover" in order to create evidence of infidelity to allow the divorce.

They just keep on coming:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/23/gop-senate-candidate-pregnancies-from-rape-gods-will/?hpt=hp_t2

"I struggled with it myself for a long time, and I realized that life is a gift from God, and I think even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something God intended to happen," Mourdock said

I would not cast aspersion on people's genuine religious or moral thoughts on this topic.

That said, society in general has decided that the sadness of abortion moderated within the cloak of the law is better than the evils of back street abortions, etc. which have been so widely experienced in the past.

I think there are many people who think it is a choice between widespread abortion on demand and no abortion, which is a false prospect at both sides.

Someone else said something about rape and abortion.
http://news.yahoo.com/gop-senate-candidate-god-intended-pregnancies-rape-061057785--abc-news-politics.html
So by that logic, Go intended for the rape to happen.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
That said, society in general has decided that the sadness of abortion moderated within the cloak of the law is better than the evils of back street abortions, etc. which have been so widely experienced in the past.

In my own experience, there are quite a few religious people who consider abortion a social evil but understand that a social evil cast into the light is better dealt with than left to the shadows.