posted
The quote you used didn't have anything to do with Gays. It had to do with the current state of marriage in our society. The degradation from the 50's until today. Which in my opinion is very hard to dispute against. (although there's always someone who thinks marriages are stronger, better and less prone to Divorce, but I'm not seeing it)
He's not saying Gays shouldn't be allowed to be married because of the deterioration of marriage.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oooh! Let's talk about marriages in the 50s! Depressed housewives! Emotionally stunted husbands! I'm not certain the 50s are something we want to emulate.
posted
Really? Because my grandparents were all married then and happy then and now. And still married.
They were doing something right that is not being done today.
Oh and that's my opinion, but maybe high divorce rates are a sign of strong marriages to some people.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I really would love to discuss 50s marriages. There is an excellant book called (I think) "The Way We Were" that's very interesting in that it compares how the structure of the family has changed since the 50s.
As far as divorce rates go - I don't know. Divorce wasn't as acceptable in the 50s, and single women with children didn't have as many options then. I don't know if we can attribute the rise in divorce rates since the 50s by blaming it on the fact that we don't have "strong marriages" now.
posted
Eh...wait. Perhaps I have my books confused. The book I read had a great breakdown about marriages/families in the 50s and why marriages/families are different today. It proposed that instead of looking dreamily back into the 50s as the epitome of marriage and the family that we realize that societal changes have changed the state of marriage and the family. I wonder which book it was now!
Do you agree with the assertion that children of divorce are only mating in marriage-like patterns? Because that is one of the things Card has said in this article. One of your statements on this thread is that you agree with everything he said in the article.
A yes or no would be sufficient for this particular question.
Posts: 157 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Do you agree with the assertion that children of divorce are only mating in marriage-like patterns? Because that is one of the things Card has said in this article. One of your statements on this thread is that you agree with everything he said in the article.
Every one? No. Because there are other factors that can lead to divorce. However, aren't the studies pretty overwhelming that state that children who come from broken homes have an astronomically higher chance of being stewards over broken homes themselves?
I haven't seen any studies anywhere that state that children who are the product of broken homes are more likely to stay married and have strong marriages.
Is that what you are disagreeing with? If so I would like to know what leads you to believe such.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Oooh! Let's talk about marriages in the 50s! Depressed housewives! Emotionally stunted husbands! I'm not certain the 50s are something we want to emulate.
Between you and me, SO, we don't agree on this. But the truth is that neither one of us was in the fifties and neither one of us has any experience with being married back then. All we know is what we've heard or thought about it. I'd be really interested to know what people who were actually married in the fifties have to say about it.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Have I stated agreement or disagreement with that statement?
Your answer is agreement with a statement different from that which was made. That is, that statistically, children of divorce are more likely to get divorced. I'm certainly not going to disagree with that. However, Card's phrasing is unambiguous in it's cause-effect relationship: If your parents got divorced, you cannot have a real marriage.
Do you understand that there is a difference between the two? Do you understand that when you say you agree with everything he has said, you are agreeing with everything he has actually said?
Do you agree with his statement?
Posts: 157 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
Do you feel you have gone under my radar? If so, it wasn't at all on purpose. I am partial to funny. Hobbes is funny, and Hobbes is more often very sweet and extremely principled, and that gets attention from me, too, but there's no denying that the best way to my heart and mind is through the Funny.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
