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.

 sebster wrote:

 Monster Rain wrote:
Absolutely. Without posting lurid examples, I think it is sufficient to say that there is reason to be concerned about a steady flow of strangers moving through a house in which children live. I think the knee-jerk reaction from some that "this law is ridiculous" is based on ignorance.

No... sigh. It's based on the basic, this century reality that stable, functioning homes with healthy relationships doesn't actually mean married. That's a line of thinking that's at least two generations dead. Having a law that relies on the assumption that unless a person is remarried then any relationship is unsavoury and not the kind of thing children should be exposed to is ridiculous.

So you don't actually know anything about why this type of law is in place, and are appealing to your idea that your worldview is objectively correct.

The marriage aspect is arguable, but having laws in place to keep children in more stable environments is an unfortunate necessity. I'll leave it to you to research why, since reading that sort of thing depresses me and I'm in a rare good mood.

 Monster Rain wrote:
The marriage aspect is arguable, but having laws in place to keep children in more stable environments is an unfortunate necessity. I'll leave it to you to research why, since reading that sort of thing depresses me and I'm in a rare good mood.

The problem is that you are still presenting married = stable and unmarried = floozy/unstable/whatever, when that model was debunked some time ago. Marriage status has nothing to do with being in a stable, nurturing environment.

 Ahtman wrote:

 Monster Rain wrote:
The marriage aspect is arguable, but having laws in place to keep children in more stable environments is an unfortunate necessity. I'll leave it to you to research why, since reading that sort of thing depresses me and I'm in a rare good mood.

The problem is that you are still presenting married = stable and unmarried = floozy/unstable/whatever, when that model was debunked some time ago. Marriage status has nothing to do with being in a stable, nurturing environment.

Which is why I said that the marriage aspect of it is debatable. Stability is the important factor here. Marriage may have once been a way to quantify stability, but it would seem that we may need to come up with a different metric.

 Ahtman wrote:

 Monster Rain wrote:
The marriage aspect is arguable, but having laws in place to keep children in more stable environments is an unfortunate necessity. I'll leave it to you to research why, since reading that sort of thing depresses me and I'm in a rare good mood.

The problem is that you are still presenting married = stable and unmarried = floozy/unstable/whatever, when that model was debunked some time ago. Marriage status has nothing to do with being in a stable, nurturing environment.

Statistically marriage is more stable. Remember folks this is designed to help deal with the edge of the bell curve of crazy.

I'd be interested to see the data indicating that married households are no more stable than unmarried since it has now been definitively stated that this is the case by two different people.

Damn phone...

Forcing a woman to move out from her partner and household is making a family less stable though, isn't it.

This was a nasty move on the ex husband's part and a questionable decision by the judge. There is certainly no valid evidence that a same sex couple are any less capable parents than a mixed gender parenting couple.

There isn't. There's even data that suggests that a stable single parent home is better than transitioning families repeatedly in order to have two parents. Stability is the issue, and married couples are statistically more stable. I know, divorce rate, domestic violence, etc but the data is there if you choose to see it.

I think most people agree that this was a stupid thing to have happen, and according to what I've read, flies directly in the face of what this type of law is intended to achieve. There could easily be a compromise where the scope of what constitutes a stable family within the law is broadened to address family stability without being quite so outdated.

 Monster Rain wrote:
...and married couples are statistically more stable.

Is that still the case if you only consider married couples who are on their second or subsequent marriage?

Remember that we're talking about people who have already been divorced at least once.

 insaniak wrote:

 Monster Rain wrote:
...and married couples are statistically more stable.

Is that still the case if you only consider married couples who are on their second or subsequent marriage?

Remember that we're talking about people who have already been divorced at least once.

Growing up when my folks divorced... and they remarried a couple of years later...

Having gone through a divorce myself (luckily an amicable split)... with 2 young kids.

I can certainly see the case that it's more stable for the kids living with two parents, instead of the single parent.

Having said that... that Ex-Husband is a dick hole.

 insaniak wrote:

 Monster Rain wrote:
...and married couples are statistically more stable.

Is that still the case if you only consider married couples who are on their second or subsequent marriage?

If the average length of a marriage is eight years I think only living through one or two would encompass the majority of someone's formative years.

And, you know, outliers and stuff.

*Looks at nationality-flag*

Oh, thank (Insert-deity-of-choice)!

*Breathes a sigh of relief*

Don't judge the whole country by Texas, for good or for ill.

If it's a standing order on all divorces, I don't see how this doesn't violate free association.

 insaniak wrote:
It fails from both sides, IMO, since it's equally ridiculous to assume that a parent remarrying is automatically better for the kids. I'm living proof that this isn't always the case.

Fair point, didn't think of it that way. So yeah, it's even sillier than I thought.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Monster Rain wrote:
So you don't actually know anything about why this type of law is in place, and are appealing to your idea that your worldview is objectively correct.

It's a law that says, straight up on the tin, that a marriage is needed in order for a relationship to be stable and supportive of children. Stop me if I'm wrong with any part of that.

The marriage aspect is arguable, but having laws in place to keep children in more stable environments is an unfortunate necessity. I'll leave it to you to research why, since reading that sort of thing depresses me and I'm in a rare good mood.

Yes, that's right - it is important to have laws that keep children in more stable environments. The issue that I have explained a lot of times now, is the unbelievably outdated notion that a relationship can only be sufficiently stable it its a married relationship.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Monster Rain wrote:
There isn't. There's even data that suggests that a stable single parent home is better than transitioning families repeatedly in order to have two parents. Stability is the issue, and married couples are statistically more stable. I know, divorce rate, domestic violence, etc but the data is there if you choose to see it.

No, there isn't such data. There's plenty of data to show that long term couples are more stable and better for the children, and of course a greater proportion of long term, stable couples are married. But looking just at the 'married?' issue is confusing the legal form with the underlying reality of the relationship.

Consider a case coming before a court, involving a dispute over custody of their children from their marriage that broke up 6 years ago. One parent has been with their new partner for four years, and have plans to get married in the future, but right now they just want to get some more money behind them to best provide for the children. The other parent just spent an awesome weekend in Vegas where they met and married some random stranger.

By the nonsense of this 'only stable relationship is a married relationship' standard, the latter couple should be favoured over the former. I am simply stating that this is very obviously a very stupid result.

A good friend of mine had a father that went through 7 marriages. Understandably he is messed up when it comes to relationships with women in that he can't commit to one. The result is that he is now 54 years old, has never been married or had kids and is desperatly lonely and depressed.
I would say, seeing the results of his father's choices, he should have been removed far from that man and his Henry the 8th lifestyle.

Relapse wrote:
A good friend of mine had a father that went through 7 marriages. Understandably he is messed up when it comes to relationships with women in that he can't commit to one. The result is that he is now 54 years old, has never been married or had kids and is desperatly lonely and depressed.
I would say, seeing the results of his father's choices, he should have been removed far from that man and his Henry the 8th lifestyle.

Look, any kid of Greg Allman is going to have a hard time regardless.

Relapse wrote:
I would say, seeing the results of his father's choices, he should have been removed far from that man and his Henry the 8th lifestyle.

That said, Henry the 8th did have one pretty successful child. She was a bit messed up on the relationship front though.

 sebster wrote:
No, there isn't such data.

You're so wrong, but I didn't think you would be objective about this.

 Monster Rain wrote:

 sebster wrote:
No, there isn't such data.

You're so wrong, but I didn't think you would be objective about this.

At the moment neither of you have produced data to back up your claim. You're both effectively going:
"Nuh Uh!"
"Yeah Too!"
"Well you would say that wouldn't you!"

 Goliath wrote:

 Monster Rain wrote:

 sebster wrote:
No, there isn't such data.

You're so wrong, but I didn't think you would be objective about this.

At the moment neither of you have produced data to back up your claim. You're both effectively going:
"Nuh Uh!"
"Yeah Too!"
"Well you would say that wouldn't you!"

Actually, it's closer to...

Person 1: "[Spurious claim]"
Person 2: "Prove it."
1: "No. [Spurious claim.]"
2: "I'm waiting for you to prove it."
1: "You're wrong."

 Monster Rain wrote:
Don't judge the whole country by Texas, for good or for ill.

Seems to be standard practice outside the US. The entire country is quite often judged as a whole on what happens in;
- New York
- Texas
- California

 Melissia wrote:

Person 1: "[Spurious claim]"
Person 2: "Prove it."
1: "No. [Spurious claim.]"
2: "I'm waiting for you to prove it."
1: "You're wrong."

I think we could optimize dakka by having every thread outside of P&M simply redirect to this post.

 Goliath wrote:

 Monster Rain wrote:

 sebster wrote:
No, there isn't such data.

You're so wrong, but I didn't think you would be objective about this.

At the moment neither of you have produced data to back up your claim. You're both effectively going:
"Nuh Uh!"
"Yeah Too!"
"Well you would say that wouldn't you!"

You haven't been reading very closely. It's worth noting that I asked for a source before anyone else, being a generally open-minded person.

Orange text is a link, in some cases. I researched the subject a bit, not that I'm any sort of expert, but a quick googling could show that the data to which I refer does in fact exist. Now I could very well go and build a solid case for it to be dismissed in a manner similar to what you have described, but I choose not to. If you are interested in the topic, by all means research it.

Since this doesn't seem like it is terribly productive, I would simply like to restate the idea that this was a terrible decision made by the courts, and the law needs updating.

 Monster Rain wrote:
You're so wrong, but I didn't think you would be objective about this.

You're little effort at quoting me there was really disingenuous, and more than a little lazy. After that little quote I went on to explain that the problem with the data as presented is that it doesn't seperate the strong correlation of marriage with long term relationships... and what really establishes stability is a long term relationship. As such, empowering judges to look past the legal form of married or not married, and in to the realities of the relationship such as how long they've been together is obviously a better situation.

I even gave an example, of a long term but unmarried couple against a slap dash spur of the moment marriage, and how a properly empowered judge would be able to pick which was obviously the more stable by looking at he substance of each, and not just their legal form.

You ignored all of that, and just quoted the first bit to say 'nuh uh'. Your effort was just pathetically lazy,


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Goliath wrote:
At the moment neither of you have produced data to back up your claim. You're both effectively going:
"Nuh Uh!"
"Yeah Too!"
"Well you would say that wouldn't you!"

You've gotten that impression because of the way Monster Rain quoted only part of my answer. Here is my actual post in full, followed by Monster Rain's response;

No, there isn't such data. There's plenty of data to show that long term couples are more stable and better for the children, and of course a greater proportion of long term, stable couples are married. But looking just at the 'married?' issue is confusing the legal form with the underlying reality of the relationship.

Consider a case coming before a court, involving a dispute over custody of their children from their marriage that broke up 6 years ago. One parent has been with their new partner for four years, and have plans to get married in the future, but right now they just want to get some more money behind them to best provide for the children. The other parent just spent an awesome weekend in Vegas where they met and married some random stranger.

By the nonsense of this 'only stable relationship is a married relationship' standard, the latter couple should be favoured over the former. I am simply stating that this is very obviously a very stupid result.

You're so wrong, but I didn't think you would be objective about this.

It should be clear that I'm trying to form an argument, explain why marriage alone is a poor indicator of stability, even providing examples. Monster Rain, on the other hand, is just saying 'nuh uh'.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Monster Rain wrote:
You haven't been reading very closely. It's worth noting that I asked for a source before anyone else, being a generally open-minded person.

Orange text is a link, in some cases. I researched the subject a bit, not that I'm any sort of expert, but a quick googling could show that the data to which I refer does in fact exist. Now I could very well go and build a solid case for it to be dismissed in a manner similar to what you have described, but I choose not to. If you are interested in the topic, by all means research it.

bs. Complete bs.

I explained what it wrong with the data, because I've also read about it. And while, like yourself, I'm not expert, I've read the opinions of people who are, and they've said that marriage isn't a good indicator, and the reports claiming it is are failing to account for marriage typically being a long term relationship. That is to say, a short term marriage is no more stable than short term de facto relationship. And a long term marriage is no more stable than a long term de facto relationship.

To which you responded 'nuh uh'.

 Monster Rain wrote:
Don't judge the whole country by Texas, for good or for ill.

Laugh now, one day all will be swearing allegiance while singing the Yellow Rose of Texas!*


*Hey how many countries do you know have a historic song about a high end hooker?

Also isn't the divorce rate like 40% in the US? So it's pretty common for kids to be raised in a non-married environment which is part of the reason this current law feels dated and pointless, single parents should be able to still date while raising kids especially considering how much more

common it is to be divorced or unmarried these days.

 Cheesecat wrote:
Also isn't the divorce rate like 40% in the US?

Yes... and no. This number is commonly thrown around, but it's a simple answer for a complicated question. The people who have multiple marriages also have multiple divorces and that really skews the numbers (think Larry King, or Donald Trump, or Relapse's friend's dad with 6 marriages), and some of these divorces don't happen for many years - if you've been married 25 years before divorcing, is that likely to affect the development of your children, who are probably starting families of their own by that point?

Here is some useful info on how it breaks down. Also, here.

 Cheesecat wrote:
Also isn't the divorce rate like 40% in the US? So it's pretty common for kids to be raised in a non-married environment which is part of the reason this current law feels dated and pointless, single parents should be able to still date while raising kids especially considering how much more

common it is to be divorced or unmarried these days.

But of course this law does nothing to prevent single parents from dating.

 sebster wrote:

I explained what it wrong with the data, because I've also read about it. And while, like yourself, I'm not expert, I've read the opinions of people who are, and they've said that marriage isn't a good indicator, and the reports claiming it is are failing to account for marriage typically being a long term relationship. That is to say, a short term marriage is no more stable than short term de facto relationship. And a long term marriage is no more stable than a long term de facto relationship.

To which you responded 'nuh uh'.

 Monster Rain wrote:
I'd be interested to see the data indicating that married households are no more stable than unmarried since it has now been definitively stated that this is the case by two different people.

Remember when I asked for some sort of evidence other than your opinion? You know, in that post I just quoted?

I'm really not interested in arguing about the argument though, man. I'm going to drop this line of conversation now.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Monster Rain wrote:
Don't judge the whole country by Texas, for good or for ill.

Laugh now, one day all will be swearing allegiance while singing the Yellow Rose of Texas!*


*Hey how many countries do you know have a historic song about a high end hooker?

Don't get me wrong, Texas has its great points too!

I wasn't hating. I'd hate for someone to go to Delaware and expect there to be really great barbecue, you know what I mean? I'm not hating, other than your communist no-bean chili.