I hope you know that there really are numerous cases where step parents provide as good or better loving care for step children than they ever experienced from their biological parents. Biological parents can be every bit as abusive and indifferent to their own children as the worst step parents.
I didn't ask if it was possible for a step parent to be a better parent than the biological parent. I asked how often do you think this is the case? I don't have an exact percentage either but my intuition says that stepmarriages more often than not stink for the children. They inevitably lose a parent. At one time marriage was a solemn commitment that you couldn't just walk away from for whatever reason you wanted. I think this law had the children in mind when it was made. In todays world marriage isn't really a commitment and you can just end the marriage for whatever reason you want. And I think far too many young people have this naïve expectation that when they get rid of one spouse no different to how they would get rid of a boyfriend or girlfriend the next husband or wife will be as good or better parent to their children than their biological parent. Perhaps they are this foolish or deep down their kids just aren't a priority for them.
Secondly we're not talking about extreme situations where divorce is the only option. We're talking about no fault divorce. This is the break down of the American family. It's the fact that marriage isn't a meaningful legal commitment anymore. Honestly I think many polygamous marriages are a more stable and loving environment for children than the serial monogamy that exists in American society today.
And when the confederates saw Jackson standing fearless as a stone wall the army of Northern Virginia took courage and drove the federal army off their land.
ajax18 wrote:How often do you think step parents provide better care than the biological parent?
Interesting you admitted in your other post you don't actually know the answer. You are still missing it. The problem for children is not that parents are not being forced to stay together. If we started to make people stay married it wouldn't make things better for children. It would probably make things worse for them by forcing people to stay married in loveless marriages. It is a very poor assumption that divorce is the problem.
Interesting you admitted in your other post you don't actually know the answer.
But you still haven't answered my question. Intuitively, do you think stepparents are better parents than the child's biological parents more often than not?
And when the confederates saw Jackson standing fearless as a stone wall the army of Northern Virginia took courage and drove the federal army off their land.
Interesting you admitted in your other post you don't actually know the answer.
But you still haven't answered my question. Intuitively, do you think stepparents are better parents than the child's biological parents more often than not?
That's not the comparison you are making your argument. The comparison is between parents who want to get divorced, but legally cannot and post-divorce parental situations.
There's good evidence that divorce isn't good for children on average, but that's not helpful to know in this context until you how harmful not getting divorced is.
Interesting you admitted in your other post you don't actually know the answer.
But you still haven't answered my question. Intuitively, do you think stepparents are better parents than the child's biological parents more often than not?
Don't know. I wouldn't make the assumption either way. EA's post shows he understands the issue while you still do not. I would suspect married couples who are happy enough not to want a divorce have less issues that affect children negatively then couples who do want a divorce. Forcing them to stay married will not fix those issues or the harm those issues may cause children. Forcing them to stay married will probably make it worse for children. You also ignore the fact people should have the freedom to start and end romantic relationships as they choose and not the state making those choices.
I had a friend I grew up with who was fun to be around but I knew had a lot of issues that would make him a poor parent and poor marriage partner. He married a young girl who was actually a very good person but young and naïve. She learned over the next years why marrying my friend was a poor decision even though he was probably not doing anything to qualify for a fault divorce. She wisely divorced him and her children are better for it and later their new step dad. You though want to take that freedom from her. Now of course a step parent may not be a good parent, but that is more likely due to the biological parent being a poor parent or poor at making decisions on who to date and marry. The problem is not no fault divorces, but not allowing them contributes to the problems.
You also ignore the fact people should have the freedom to start and end romantic relationships as they choose and not the state making those choices.
You're right, I don't think people should have the freedom to start and end marriage contracts whenever they want for whatever reason they want. I also think people should have to be legally married to legally have children.
Do you think consenting adults should be permitted to enter into polygamous relationships if they want?
And when the confederates saw Jackson standing fearless as a stone wall the army of Northern Virginia took courage and drove the federal army off their land.
ajax18 wrote:You're right, I don't think people should have the freedom to start and end marriage contracts whenever they want for whatever reason they want. I also think people should have to be legally married to legally have children.
I have said to you before that you are not big on personal freedom of others or democracy.
Do you think consenting adults should be permitted to enter into polygamous relationships if they want?
Sure, but these relationships don't necessarily need to be recognized by the state.
ajax18 wrote:You're right, I don't think people should have the freedom to start and end marriage contracts whenever they want for whatever reason they want. I also think people should have to be legally married to legally have children.
So, do you think people should be fined or imprisoned for having children out of wedlock if they subsequently refuse to marry? If so, what then do we then do for their innocent, resulting children?
No precept or claim is more likely to be false than one that can only be supported by invoking the claim of Divine authority for it--no matter who or what claims such authority.
“If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; but if you really make them think, they'll hate you.”
― Harlan Ellison
Back to the OP, I think decriminalization makes sense. We imprison way too many people. Other crimes that are associated with some polygamous groups can be policed on their merits.
“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”
― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951
So, do you think people should be fined or imprisoned for having children out of wedlock if they subsequently refuse to marry? If so, what then do we then do for their innocent, resulting children?
What did they do with the children of polygamous families when their fathers were imprisoned?
I have said to you before that you are not big on personal freedom of others or democracy.
That's true. The rights of others end when they start to infringe upon my rights, not to mention the rights of the children. If you don't believe the same, perhaps we should go into business together. I'll have my lawyer draw up the paperwork.
And when the confederates saw Jackson standing fearless as a stone wall the army of Northern Virginia took courage and drove the federal army off their land.