As the economy improves, divorce rates increase as people can afford to split up again. - Polidicks

[QUOTE=sgman91;42240758]The tribe is an extension of the family. I would therefore argue that the family is more foundational. Not every society has tribes, but every society has families.[/QUOTE] Good point.

[QUOTE=glitchvid;42240775]No, the 'foundation' of society is teamwork; the global 'tribe' if you will. Families have had many forms over the years of human history, but it all just breaks down into people supporting each other; and Marriage is NOT a required part of that.[/QUOTE] "The Family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the state." (Article 16 of The Universal Declaration of Human Rights) Notice how it doesn't say "a natural and fundamental group." It says "THE natural and fundamental group." All of human history has recognized the family as the essential and necessary part of society and based on any objective analysis the family simply can't exist in a way we have recognized it throughout modern history without some sort of marriage institution. [editline]18th September 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=glitchvid;42240775]It's also significantly important to mention Correction does not imply causation. Being FROM a single parent home does not CAUSE you to have higher chances of have problems, as much as HAVING problems causes you to have a higher chance of making split homes.[/QUOTE] When essentially every negative societal statistic correlates with a certain type of familial structure there is good reason to question the effectiveness of that structure. There are very logical reasons that seem to suggest a causal chain. For example, a single parent simply doesn't have the same amount of time to give to a child as two parents would. Another example would be the obvious financial burden a family would be under with only one source of income as opposed to two. It's also been shown that boys have a much more negative result from single mother households, which make up the vast majority of single parent households, than girls because they don't have a male role model in the home.

[QUOTE=sgman91;42239402]Other than being the foundational building block of society.[/QUOTE] Great joke to start my morning.

[QUOTE=Van-man;42241420]Great joke to start my morning.[/QUOTE] Great useless comment to end my day.

My parents got separated, about this time last year, and are just now beginning to finalize their divorce. All of my parents assets are pretty much owned by my dad. My mom has nothing.

[QUOTE=glitchvid;42240775]'Single parent home', which does not expressly imply Marriage.[/QUOTE] I just noticed that I skipped over this statement. In short, the number of long term unmarried two parent households isn't significant enough to consider.

I think the divorce rate just rotates around people who were actually the terrible room mates of the world. Seriously, its not that hard to live with some stranger, how can it be more difficult to live with someone you love. Then again, I had share my room with a younger brother for most of my life so I could see the arguments. But honestly, I wouldn't trade it for anything else. [editline]19th September 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Van-man;42241420]Great joke to start my morning.[/QUOTE] He's kinda right.

Fun fact: In the Netherlands people are currently SPLITTING UP because of finance. No, they didn't get mad and split up because they couldn't agree on what fun stuff to buy. Short explanation: There's a maximum pension people get nowadays. Lets say 1400 for one elderly. When this elderly is married to another, the joined pension increases. To about what, 1600. Anything made by one or the other party, over a certain amount (and thats like 200 euro's a month) will be deducted from the pension. Don't take my word on the actual numbers, but these ARE about right. This is done in combination with less and less benefits (down to none) and higher costs of living (from electricity to gas to water to taxes) TL;DR People in The Netherlands splitting up to get the pensions they deserve. Hooray for fucktards in power! [B]Edit:[/B] How did we get to tribes.

[QUOTE=sgman91;42239402]Other than being the foundational building block of society.[/QUOTE] You mean a stable family. Marriage is not necessary for a stable family.

[QUOTE=DaysBefore;42243180]You mean a stable family. Marriage is not necessary for a stable family.[/QUOTE] Sure, it's possible for an unmarried couple to be stable, but reality shows that it's VERY unlikely. "Single-parent and cohabiting-couple families are both more susceptible to family instability than are traditional married-couple families. Studies have shown that family structure at birth is highly predictive of family instability, affirming that cohabiting couples experience the most instability, followed by single-parent families, and then traditional two-parent families." - [URL]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3074431/[/URL] Unmarried couples were even less stable than single-parent homes. "Even after controlling for the selection of different types of individuals into different types of family structure, the authors concluded that children who spent time in divorced- or unwed-mother households fared considerably worse than those remaining in intact two-parent families throughout their childhood and adolescence. While they were still in high school, they had lower test scores, college expectations, grade-point averages, and school attendance, and as they made the transition to young adulthood, they were less likely to graduate from high school and college, more likely to become teen mothers, and somewhat more likely to be “idle” (a term that refers to those who are disengaged from both school and work)." - [URL]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3074431/[/URL] [editline]19th September 2013[/editline] "In addition, although the differences were not large (and not always statistically significant), children of unwed parents tended to fare worse than those with divorced parents, even after taking into account differences in basic demographic characteristics such as race, sex, mother's and father's education, number of siblings, and residence." - [url]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3074431/[/url] So it seems unwed couples are even worse, on average, for children than single parents.

[QUOTE=sgman91;42243672]Sure, it's possible for an unmarried couple to be stable, but reality shows that it's VERY unlikely.[/QUOTE] Quit posting press releases and essays and start posting the actual academic articles. I've been chasing down the source material all morning and can't even find half of it because the places you're linking to aren't citing things correctly, or at all. Pretty much all of your studies keep bringing up the fact that most of the issues involving single parent families or divorced families stem from being financially disadvantaged. Like, they clearly state that there is little statistical significance concerning these "disadvantages" when you adjust for socioeconomic status. Also, there are plenty of other reasons one might be financially disadvantaged after divorce. A mother not earning as much as her male colleagues kind of falls into that category. From the article you referenced in your previous post citing WebMD (DOI: [url]http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(03)12324-0[/url] ) [QUOTE]Much of the raised risks recorded in children living with only one parent in our analyses can be accounted for by differences in socioeconomic circumstances, a finding much the same as those in previous studies.1, 5, 14, 25 and 26 Parental economic distress, in general followed by inconsistent parental discipline, was associated with behavioural problems such as delinquency and drug misuse among children.27 Lipman28 used the same method in her analysis of Canadian data—ie, regression analysis with adjustments for other factors that could contribute to child outcome— and found that inclusion of sociodemographic variables such as household income, lessened the increase in risk. In our study, the main explanation for the increase in risk was lack of household resources, as indicated by receipt of social-welfare benefit and housing situation. These factors seemed to serve as intermediate paths through which single parenthood affects children's health and wellbeing. Somewhat smaller contributions were made by the factors we assumed to occur before the existing family situation (parental age, socioeconomic group, residence, country of birth, addiction and mental illness in parents). Of these factors, socioeconomic group played the biggest part, while a very small part of the raised risk can be accounted for by addiction and mental illness, both of which were more frequent in single parents than in those with a partner. Such factors have an important effect on interaction patterns between parents and children, and there could also be a genetic component involved. Significant risk increases remained unaccounted for even in our fully adjusted model. Factors such as parental absence, lack of social support, and family conflict could have been important in accounting for these increases. In one-parent households the adult takes on many different roles, including that of being the only breadwinner, which constrains attention, help, and supervision of the child. The loss of one parent as a role model in the home could also be important, especially for boys who grow up with a single mother.29 and 30 Our results do not, however, lend support to the view that the sex of the custodial parent or child affects the difference in risk. The sons of single parents had worse outcomes than girls only in psychiatric and drug-related disease. When divorce is the cause of the family breakdown, this process is usually preceded by family conflict, which in many cases continues well beyond actual separation. Hostility between the parents creates an aversive home environment in which children become stressed, unhappy, and insecure. The results of several studies1, 7 and 24 have suggested that children are better off in a single-parent family with a low level of conflict than in an intact family with a high level of conflict.[/QUOTE] Basically, shitty relationships foster shitty kids. That last bit is pretty important. You know, the part where it says married families with high levels of family conflict do worse than single parent households with normal levels of conflict? Unless you can account for the reasons of the divorce, quality of life before and after divorce, there's a lot of data missing before you can go about and say single parent households are "absolutely horrible" for children.

Economic problems are still a problem associated with being in a single-parent home. So I'm not quite sure why it's relevant. Having a single source of income is going to put more strain on one's finances. [QUOTE]Pretty much all of your studies keep bringing up the fact that most of the issues involving single parent families or divorced families stem from being financially disadvantaged. Like, they clearly state that there is little statistical significance concerning these "disadvantages" when you adjust for socioeconomic status. [/QUOTE] The conclusion of the study you posted basically says the opposite of what you just claimed: "Growing up in a single-parent family has disadvantages to the health of the child. Lack of household resources plays a major part in increased risks. [B]However, even when a wide range of demographic and socioeconomic circumstances are included in multivariate models, children of single parents still have increased risks of mortality, severe morbidity, and injury[/B]" So, even with those things taken into account single-parent homes were worse off. [editline]19th September 2013[/editline] I honestly don't even know why this is an argument. Single parents have less time, less financial ability, less emotional support, etc. than the same parent in a stable marriage, on average.

[QUOTE=sgman91;42240816]"The Family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the state." (Article 16 of The Universal Declaration of Human Rights) Notice how it doesn't say "a natural and fundamental group." It says "THE natural and fundamental group."[/QUOTE] Yeah and you can read the Bible and believe that what is written in it is absolutely true as well. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is all well and good, but you have to recognise that it's just the current civilisations attempt at understanding, creating morality and making sense of things that are apparent at the time. It's not like a gospel of absolute truth. Besides, family can exist without marriage. Relationships can exist without marriage. It really just depends on how much dogmatism you want to bring into it - do you go for a full-blown religious church wedding or a non-religious civil partnership in a law firm? [QUOTE=sgman91;42244415]Economic problems are still a problem associated with being in a single-parent home. So I'm not quite sure why it's relevant. Having a single source of income is going to put more strain on one's finances.[/QUOTE] Economic problems are a problem associated with having an economy.

[QUOTE=gsp1995;42239364]It's hard to see any benefits in marriage nowadays.[/QUOTE] there are plenty of legal benefits.

[QUOTE=SCopE5000;42244515]Economic problems are a problem associated with having an economy.[/QUOTE] Around 8% of married homes are in poverty compared to ~25% of single father homes and ~40% of single mother homes. So it most definitely is associated with having single parent homes to a substantially higher degree than two parent homes.

[QUOTE=sp00ks;42244570]there are plenty of legal benefits.[/QUOTE] Having a child without marrying is an absolutely terrible idea due to the legal side of things

[QUOTE=sp00ks;42244570]there are plenty of legal benefits.[/QUOTE] The only benefits.

[QUOTE=sgman91;42239690]I'm not sure why so many people disagreed with this. The family, which is marked by marriage in almost every case, is unarguably the most foundational unit in society. Studies have shown time and time again that single parent households are absolutely horrible for the children in them.[/QUOTE] marriage is a human invention. you sign something and do a ceremony and then you are married. the chemicals in the brain that produce love is what makes people stick together and love probably exists for the evolutionary purpose of raising children. people are alive for much longer than they used to be and its showing that most love isnt really that eternal especially when the parts begin to sag but christians insist on doing things the stone age way.

marriage in this context is just for tax and legal purposes, sure its easy to live togather and have children, but wait till they get into school and you have to deal with all the paperwork associated with that, the same goes for drivers licenses, medical insurance. it just allows two people to claim guardianship of the children. the fact is otherwise there's no real reason to get married if things aren't working out

[QUOTE=sgman91;42240065]Sure, let me find them and I'll post them up. Alright, here are some sources: 1) "It found that stepchildren and children with lone parents were most likely to be badly behaved. Fifteen per cent of stepchildren and 12 per cent of children with lone parents fell into this category, compared with six per cent living with both natural parents." - [URL]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/8064435/Children-in-single-parent-families-worse-behaved.html[/URL] That's over a 100% higher chance of misbehaving in a single parent or divorced household when compared to a steady two parent household. 2) "56% of jail inmates said they grew up in a single-parent household or with a guardian." - [URL]http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/pji02.pdf[/URL] Kids from single parent homes are very over represented in jail. Around 30% of homes were single parent in 2002. 3) "They found the risk of suicide was more than twice as high among children in one-parent households compared with those living with both parents." - [URL]http://www.webmd.com/baby/news/20030123/absent-parent-doubles-child-suicide-risk[/URL] 4) "Children in single-parent homes were also twice as likely to have a psychiatric disease, have alcohol-related problems, and were up to four times more likely to abuse drugs, says study researcher Gunilla Ringbäck Weitoft, MD, of the Centre for Epidemiology at the National Board of Health and Welfare in Stockholm, Sweden." - [URL]http://www.webmd.com/baby/news/20030123/absent-parent-doubles-child-suicide-risk[/URL] Basically, any negative statistic is high with people from single parent homes.[/QUOTE] There are a lot of factors this is ignoring, however. For instance, there is a considerably higher divorce rate in poor areas; poverty could be just as much a factor in any of those statistics as whether or not the children came from single-parent households.

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;42245530]There are a lot of factors this is ignoring, however. For instance, there is a considerably higher divorce rate in poor areas; poverty could be just as much a factor in any of those statistics as whether or not the children came from single-parent households.[/QUOTE] Poverty is very much exacerbated by having single parent homes. A single income is going to be smaller, on average, than multiple incomes.

[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;42244675]Having a child without marrying is an absolutely terrible idea due to the legal side of things[/QUOTE] Yes. [editline]19th September 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Van-man;42244750]The only benefits.[/QUOTE] Well, a lot of people think it's very romantic etc.

[QUOTE=sp00ks;42245761]Yes. [editline]19th September 2013[/editline] Well, a lot of people think it's very romantic etc.[/QUOTE] [I]~romance~[/I]

[QUOTE=sp00ks;42245761]Well, a lot of people think it's very romantic etc.[/QUOTE] It's only kept alive by tradition.

Are people really arguing about the obvious disadvantages of single parent households?