Divorce faster, cheaper; More kids will lost parents.

[bjre]

Ont. to try making divorce faster, cheaper

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2009/12/16/ontario-divorce-law413.html

More kids will lost one or both of parents.

Shelters, CAS, court system will earn more from the tax you pay.

Lawers will earn more.

More family problems will be converted to social problems.

Edited December 18, 2009 by bjre

[Guest TrueMetis]

So your going to make claims without evidence again. You would really think you would learn.

More kids will lost one or both of parents.

Big deal. 38% of kids already have and society has yet to see any really negative effects.

Shilters, CAS, count system will earn more from the tax you pay.

The article says in big words "No new funding", and whats a "shilter"?

Lawers will earn more.

No as divorces will take less time lawyers will make less money. Do you think that if this happens everyone will try to get divorced?

More family problems will be converted to social problems.

The divorce rate in Canada is that 38 per cent of married couples will divorce by their 30th wedding anniversary. What social problems has this caused?

Edited December 17, 2009 by TrueMetis

[Machjo]

So your going to make claims without evidence again. You would really think you would learn.

Big deal. 38% of kids already have and society has yet to see any really negative effects.

The article says in big words "No new funding", and whats a "shilter"?

No as divorces will take less time lawyers will make less money. Do you think that if this happens everyone will try to get divorced?

The divorce rate in Canada is that 38 per cent of married couples will divorce by their 30th wedding anniversary. What social problems has this caused?

While I can certainly agree with streamlining bureaucracy with regards to divorce, I could still see the needd to require them to be legally separated for a year before being allowed to finally divorce so as to avoid people just divorcing on a whim. It could be viewed as a cooling period for reflection before making the final decision to divorce.

[Machjo]

As for the social cost of divorce, the emotional insecurity it can cause especially if it's a particularly ugly divorce can affect how well the child learns in school. Multiply that by a large segment of the population, and it adds up. Also a person divorced once will be more hesitant about marrying and having kids later, meaning a lower birth rate in the country. Also, divorced parents having to live in two houses instead of one, plus the time and money spent to ship the kids back and forth means less time for studying and less money for college. Again, multiply that across the economy, and it certainly affects demographics in terms of access to skilled labour. And with a low birth rate, we may rely more on foreign labour, adding the cost of language training too.

It all adds up.

[bjre]

Big deal. 38% of kids already have and society has yet to see any really negative effects.

WHY MARRIAGE MATTERS FOR CHILDREN

http://www.cief.ca/guest_articles/marriage_matters.htm

Children from biological two-parent families have, on average, test scores and grade-point averages that are higher, they miss fewer school days, and have greater expectations of attending college than children living with one parent. Additionally, of those from either type of family who do attend college, those from two-parent families are seven to 20 percent more likely to finish college.

Children from divorced homes are 70 percent more likely than those living with biological parents to be expelled or suspended from school.

The Progressive Policy Institute, the research arm of the Democratic Leadership Council, reports that the

“relationship between crime and one-parent families” is “so strong that controlling for family configuration erases the relationship between race and crime and between low-income and crime.

This conclusion shows up time and again in the literature

The vast majority of children who are raised entirely in a two-parent home will never be poor during childhood. By contrast, the vast majority of children who spend time in a single-parent home will experience poverty.

The National Center for Health Statistics found that children living with their biological parents received professional help for

behavior and psychological problems

at half the rate of children not living with both biological parents.16 Other studies show the general health problems of children from broken homes is increased by 20 to 30 percent, even when adjusting for demographic variables.

Child poverty soars in suburbs

http://www.thestar.com/article/546882

While Toronto's child poverty rate (before taxes) is the highest at 32 per cent, up from 24 per cent in 1990, the suburbs have seen more dramatic increases. Markham jumped from 8 per cent to 20 per cent, and Mississauga has increased from 12 per cent to 21 per cent.

The article says in big words "No new funding", and whats a "shilter"?

For children living in families headed by a single mother, the likelihood of living in poverty is greater than 70%.

http://http-server.carleton.ca/~sparlow/canada.htm

The journal Pediatrics reported in 2002 that, “Children residing in households with adults unrelated to them were 8 times more likely to die of maltreatment than children in households with 2 biological parents. Risk of maltreatment death was elevated for children residing with step, foster, or adoptive parents.”21 It is critical to note that it is impossible for a child living in a same-sex parented family to live with both biological parents. It should deeply concern us that that child will be living in one of these family forms that increases risk of death by maltreatment.

http://www.cief.ca/guest_articles/marriage_matters.htm

Poor families are more likely be targets of women’s shelters and CAS

No as divorces will take less time lawyers will make less money. Do you think that if this happens everyone will try to get divorced?

It makes devoice easier, makes demand increase, more people will like to divorce without Legal Aid. And with the cases of increase abuse and crime, lawyers will have more work to do.

The divorce rate in Canada is that 38 per cent of married couples will divorce by their 30th wedding anniversary. What social problems has this caused?

Poverty, Crime, more tax need, less educated people, and more other problems.

The women's shelters movement, CAS, the legal system is destroying more and more families for profit. They destroy the proven traditional value that formed in thousands of years. One of the largest problem it caused is developed country's developing speed becomes slower than some developing countries.

Edited December 18, 2009 by bjre

[Guest TrueMetis]

WHY MARRIAGE MATTERS FOR CHILDREN

http://www.cief.ca/guest_articles/marriage_matters.htm

Children from biological two-parent families have, on average, test scores and grade-point averages that are higher, they miss fewer school days, and have greater expectations of attending college than children living with one parent. Additionally, of those from either type of family who do attend college, those from two-parent families are seven to 20 percent more likely to finish college.

Children from divorced homes are 70 percent more likely than those living with biological parents to be expelled or suspended from school.

The Progressive Policy Institute, the research arm of the Democratic Leadership Council, reports that the

“relationship between crime and one-parent families” is “so strong that controlling for family configuration erases the relationship between race and crime and between low-income and crime.

This conclusion shows up time and again in the literature

The vast majority of children who are raised entirely in a two-parent home will never be poor during childhood. By contrast, the vast majority of children who spend time in a single-parent home will experience poverty.

The National Center for Health Statistics found that children living with their biological parents received professional help for

behavior and psychological problems

at half the rate of children not living with both biological parents.16 Other studies show the general health problems of children from broken homes is increased by 20 to 30 percent, even when adjusting for demographic variables.

How about a scientific study and not something from a fundie group? The author supports only same sex marriage and as such is a biased source. Machjo is probably right about there being a lot of disadvantages but I will not accept that source. I'm more inclined to think that the differences have more to do with a stable enviroment than the actual marriage itself.

Child poverty soars in suburbs

http://www.thestar.com/article/546882

While Toronto's child poverty rate (before taxes) is the highest at 32 per cent, up from 24 per cent in 1990, the suburbs have seen more dramatic increases. Markham jumped from 8 per cent to 20 per cent, and Mississauga has increased from 12 per cent to 21 per cent.

Yep poverty sucks what is your point?

For children living in families headed by a single mother, the likelihood of living in poverty is greater than 70%. http://http-server.c...rlow/canada.htm

Because there are now less sources of income.

Poor families are more likely be targets of women’s shelters and CAS

Targeted? lol. Ok you've made me laugh now prove that this will result in more taxation and increased funding. The Article says funding will be shifted to legal aid.

It makes devoice easier, makes demand increase, more people will like to divorce without Legal Aid. And with the cases of increase abuse and crime, lawyers will have more work to do.

By that logic we could make killing easier and than more people would commit suicide. What your saying doesn't make sense.

Poverty, Crime, more tax need, less educated people, and more other problems.

The poverty rate is going down so is the crime rate, prove this will cause a increased tax rate and less educated people. (to do taht you would first have to prove this will cause a increase in divorce)

The women's shelters movement, CAS, the legal system is destroying more and more families for profit. They destroy the proven traditional value that formed in thousands of years. One of the largest problem it caused is developed country's developing speed becomes slower than some developing countries.

We have been through this before and you had your ass handed to you. If you are going to go with the "Traditional value" arguement than I have to point out that the most common from of marriage in history was polygamy and then point out that before that there was no marriage.

Edited December 18, 2009 by TrueMetis

[Machjo]

Also, reducing divorce bureaucracy and discouraging divorce are two totally separate issues. For example, the government could make it more difficult for people to divorce bureaucratically while eliminating legal restrictions to divorce. Or alternatively, it could introduce legal restrictions on divorce while still making it less cumbersome for those who meet the legal requirements to be allowed to divorce. The two are totally separate issues.

Looking at it that way, if the intent of the government is not to make it easier for people to divorce as such, or to encourage divorce, but merely to remove bureaucratic obstacles to divorce, then I can only applaud the government. And I'm assuming this is in fact the government's intent. I remember in Quebec for example, the actual process of divorce is quite straightforward even though you have to be legally separated for a year before being allowed to divorce. That I think is a good example of a good balance between making the procedure easy while still not allowing people to just divorce on a whim without having had some time to think about it.

[Mr.Canada]

Left wing Socialism is directly responsible for the higher divorce rate. Back in the perfect time of the 1950's there was a much lower rate of divorce. It wasn't until all this new thinking started that we started having social problems. Before that everyone knew their place and were content in it. Nowadays men want to women and women want to be men, God help us bring back the good old days.

[Sir Bandelot]

Left wing Socialism is directly responsible for the higher divorce rate. Back in the perfect time of the 1950's...

The perfect time of the 1950's was also the golden age of socialism in Canada. Tommy Douglas reigned as PM from 1944-1960. The social infrastructure in Canada was brought to fruition during those years, (although it was already developing by the 1920's) and many cities buildings and roads were constructed, and the health care system. In the decades that followed, there was a continual erosion of these social structures, sell off of crown corporations to private business, and US style capitalismo began to rise. Socialism puts the community first, the individual second. Since that was "the perfect time", as you admitted and I agree, and that time coincides with a perception of stronger family values, stronger community, better efficiency, accountablility of resources, one can only conclude that Capitalism is linked to hedonism and selfishness, as reflected in the number of broken families by divorce.

Edited December 18, 2009 by Sir Bandelot

[ToadBrother]

The perfect time of the 1950's was also the golden age of socialism in Canada. Tommy Douglas reigned as PM from 1944-1960. The social infrastructure in Canada was brought to fruition during those years, (although it was already developing by the 1920's) and many cities buildings and roads were constructed, and the health care system. In the decades that followed, there was a continual erosion of these social structures, sell off of crown corporations to private business, and US style capitalismo began to rise. Socialism puts the community first, the individual second. Since that was "the perfect time", as you admitted and I agree, and that time coincides with a perception of stronger family values, stronger community, better efficiency, accountablility of resources, one can only conclude that Capitalism is linked to hedonism and selfishness, as reflected in the number of broken families by divorce.

Am I the only who thinks basing our view of a decade on Leave It To Beaver is a rather flawed methodology?

[Michael Hardner]

Left wing Socialism is directly responsible for the higher divorce rate. Back in the perfect time of the 1950's there was a much lower rate of divorce. It wasn't until all this new thinking started that we started having social problems. Before that everyone knew their place and were content in it. Nowadays men want to women and women want to be men, God help us bring back the good old days.

We also have more videogames today than in the 1950s - maybe that's causing the divorce rate to go higher ? Also smoking is down... less cigarettes, more stress, more divorce...

My point is that you are taking two separate periods of time and cherry-picking differences between them as the "cause" of divorce.

"Nowadays men want to women " Did you mean to write "men want TWO women" ?

[Michael Hardner]

Two other points to address bjre's faulty justification:

Divorce doesn't necessarily cause all of these problems - a relationship doesn't mean that there's a causal relationship.

The point about lawyers making more makes no sense, and your defense is inadequate, but I'll leave it to the others on this thread to ably pick apart your posts as they have already done.

[ToadBrother]

Two other points to address bjre's faulty justification:

Divorce doesn't necessarily cause all of these problems - a relationship doesn't mean that there's a causal relationship.

The point about lawyers making more makes no sense, and your defense is inadequate, but I'll leave it to the others on this thread to ably pick apart your posts as they have already done.

From what I can tell, these changes would likely see divorce lawyers making less money. Right now the system is so difficult to work through that divorces are often pushed to trial, and that's where things get really expensive. Believe it or not, lawyers are not all money-grubbing monsters looking to throw up as many obstacles as they can to make a buck. In most cases, and with most lawyers, their first interest is their clients', and it is not a client's best interest to have a broken system which makes settlements harder to obtain.

[Sir Bandelot]

Am I the only who thinks basing our view of a decade on Leave It To Beaver is a rather flawed methodology?

No, because that was an American show. No socialist influences there, I think.

What is it that makes people want to get a divorce? I'm sure there are dozens of reasons, but on a general scale we could say, they are no longer willing to sacrifice themselves for the good of their family. In other words reconcile their differences enough that they can live together in a tolerable, constructive relationship despite the fact that their own needs are not fully met by it. Every marriage has problems, that's natural but people don't seem to be willing to tough it out, do whats right for the kids and not be so self-centred.

Video games are things mostly kids play with. Many of todays parents seem a lot like kids, when compared to the older generations. I know my Dad, my wifes Dad and a lot of people we know from back then seem a lot tougher, although they had their share of arguments and fights they stuck together. "For the kids". The point where someone gets a divorce, by and large is because they want something better for themselves. Me, me. Not you, not the kids.

In some cases divorce seems the best option, if the parents are fighting all the time and the home is unhappy, not a constructive upbringing for children. But here the problem still is, the two parents are only thinking of their own needs and wants, unable to reconcile for the greater good of the family. And that too is selfishness.

[ToadBrother]

No, because that was an American show. No socialist influences there, I think.

What is it that makes people want to get a divorce? I'm sure there are dozens of reasons, but on a general scale we could say, they are no longer willing to sacrifice themselves for the good of their family. In other words reconcile their differences enough that they can live together in a tolerable, constructive relationship despite the fact that their own needs are not fully met by it. Every marriage has problems, that's natural but people don't seem to be willing to tough it out, do whats right for the kids and not be so self-centred.

Video games are things mostly kids play with. Many of todays parents seem a lot like kids, when compared to the older generations. I know my Dad, my wifes Dad and a lot of people we know from back then seem a lot tougher, although they had their share of arguments and fights they stuck together. "For the kids". The point where someone gets a divorce, by and large is because they want something better for themselves. Me, me. Not you, not the kids.

In some cases divorce seems the best option, if the parents are fighting all the time and the home is unhappy, not a constructive upbringing for children. But here the problem still is, the two parents are only thinking of their own needs and wants, unable to reconcile for the greater good of the family. And that too is selfishness.

Would you care to actually back any of this up with hard numbers, or is this just the sort of thing I'm supposed to accept on faith.

Of the divorces in my family, all but one were because of spousal abuse, either psychological or physical. The other was because of infidelity. Anecdotal, yes, but it hardly seems to reflect your claim.

[Machjo]

Left wing Socialism is directly responsible for the higher divorce rate. Back in the perfect time of the 1950's there was a much lower rate of divorce. It wasn't until all this new thinking started that we started having social problems. Before that everyone knew their place and were content in it. Nowadays men want to women and women want to be men, God help us bring back the good old days.

What are you on about?

Everything is the commies' fault, or the Reich wing conservatices' fault, or the Liberals' fault, or the Muzzies' fault, or the Christians' fault, or the Jews' fault, etc. etc. etc. Take your pick. And in you your specific case, it's all the socialists' fault.

Could we cut past the partisan crap for once and present some facts please?

Yes, I agree that lack of faith plays a role in this, but no one particular ideology is responsible for this. If anything, it's our oversimplification stereotyping of the problem along ideological lines that's to blame for this.

[Machjo]

The perfect time of the 1950's was also the golden age of socialism in Canada. Tommy Douglas reigned as PM from 1944-1960. The social infrastructure in Canada was brought to fruition during those years, (although it was already developing by the 1920's) and many cities buildings and roads were constructed, and the health care system. In the decades that followed, there was a continual erosion of these social structures, sell off of crown corporations to private business, and US style capitalismo began to rise. Socialism puts the community first, the individual second. Since that was "the perfect time", as you admitted and I agree, and that time coincides with a perception of stronger family values, stronger community, better efficiency, accountablility of resources, one can only conclude that Capitalism is linked to hedonism and selfishness, as reflected in the number of broken families by divorce.

This, if nothing else, shows that no one political party or political ideology has a monopoly on family values. Thanks for the lucid response.