Break-up of families costs £30bn each year

Former Member

Any thoughts on why the UK has the highest divorce rate in Europe?

Two in five marriages end in divorce and one child in four will experience family break-up before they are 16.

With so much money at stake there's a huge financial reason for governments to get involved, do you think they should? And if so what can be done?

Former Member

The Government should assist families, not scorn marriage like our intolerant family-hating Labour Government. They hang on to the discredited doctrine that all lifestyles are equal to one another. Perhaps bringing back the Married Couples Allowance would be a start. But under this right-on, politically correct nannying government, will it happen? Of course it won't.

Former Member

I think some of the things they are attributing to family breakdowns, such as the need for more special needs teachers, are stupid.

The welfare state is there for reasons such as this but I do believe that the pain caused to children and even adults when a family breaks up should be of more concern. The individuals themselves should not be made into statistics.

Former Member

Originally posted by BumbleBee
I think some of the things they are attributing to family breakdowns, such as the need for more special needs teachers, are stupid.

Not at all. There is quite a lot of evidence to show that family breakdown has a harmful effect on children's education.

Former Member

Originally posted by stargalaxy
Not at all. There is quite a lot of evidence to show that family breakdown has a harmful effect on children's education.

Perhaps the definition of a special needs teacher has changed since I left school then. :rolleyes:

Former Member

Originally posted by stargalaxy
The Government should assist families, not scorn marriage like our intolerant family-hating Labour Government.

How are Labour "family hating"?

Originally posted by stargalaxy
They hang on to the discredited doctrine that all lifestyles are equal to one another.

What lifestyles? Discredited how? By whom?

Former Member

Originally posted by Blagsta
What lifestyles? Discredited how? By whom?

It is the false idea that has existed for many years that somehow or other children can be brought up successfully under all kinds of family arrangements. That said, as a Christian, I've got some firm views on this.

Former Member

What lifestyles exactly? And who has discredited them?

Former Member

For example, take a family with a single mother. Now, let us not forget they work hard to bring up their kids, credit is due for that. However, I have always believed that a two parent family is better than one. (though not in every circumstance, of course)

Former Member

Originally posted by stargalaxy
However, I have always believed that a two parent family is better than one. (though not in every circumstance, of course)

I agree, though I think in every circumstance it is better.

Former Member

Originally posted by Fiend_85
I agree, though I think in every circumstance it is better.

Accepted.

Former Member

Originally posted by stargalaxy
For example, take a family with a single mother. Now, let us not forget they work hard to bring up their kids, credit is due for that. However, I have always believed that a two parent family is better than one. (though not in every circumstance, of course)

Ideally kids would be the responsibility of the whole community and extended family - mother, father, aunts, uncles, grandparents, neighbours, friends etc. Unfortunately our society is atomised and disparate due to capitalism.

Former Member

Originally posted by Fiend_85
I agree, though I think in every circumstance it is better.

Even when the father is abusive?

Former Member

Originally posted by Blagsta
Even when the father is abusive?

Obviously not. In such a situation, it would be better if the father was taken out of the equation.

Former Member

Originally posted by Blagsta
Even when the father is abusive?

I didn't say who would be the 'two parents'. Ideally, there wouldn't be an abusive father. But I know how you hate 'ideals', but I always thought you were a bit of a dick for that.

Former Member

Aaaah, abuse for having a debate.

You silly cunt.

Former Member

Originally posted by Blagsta
Aaaah, abuse for having a debate.

You silly cunt.

Mr Pot, I'd like to introduce you to Mr Kettle.

It's a statement of fact, you never like when I talk about ideal situations.

Former Member

Originally posted by Fiend_85
But I know [Blagsta] hate 'ideals', but I always thought you were a bit of a dick for that.

To blagsta, a family arrangement where children are used as pawns by feuding parents would appear to be better than that where the parents are in a loving relationship, not necessarily married.

Former Member

Fiend_85

Hey look...

Originally posted by Blagsta
Ideally kids would be the responsibility of the whole community and extended family - mother, father, aunts, uncles, grandparents, neighbours, friends etc. Unfortunately our society is atomised and disparate due to capitalism.

...I'm talking about an ideal situation, but then placing it into context. Your problem is that you don't place anything in context. You just want a Platonic ideal world.

Former Member

Originally posted by stargalaxy
To blagsta, a family arrangement where children are used as pawns by feuding parents would appear to be better than that where the parents are in a loving relationship, not necessarily married.

I haven't said that. Stop misrepresenting me. :mad: :mad:

Former Member

Originally posted by Blagsta
I haven't said that. Stop misrepresenting me. :mad: :mad:

That very much seems to be exactly what you are saying.

Former Member

Originally posted by stargalaxy
That very much seems to be exactly what you are saying.

Sorry, what? I haven't said anything of the sort. Please quote me where I have.

Former Member

Originally posted by Blagsta
Sorry, what? I haven't said anything of the sort. Please quote me where I have.

It's quite clearly implied in what you have said. Far from living in a dream world, I have seen the effects of family breakdown. I suggest that your views are driven by a hatred of convention.

Former Member

It's only implied in your twisted little mind.
Try reading what I post for a change.

Former Member

Originally posted by Blagsta
It's only implied in your twisted little mind.
Try reading what I post for a change.

I would suggest that with your hatred for the conventional family that you are the one with the twisted mind. A man who believes the expression "pot, kettle, black" is racist (source) is not a man whose views I can take seriously.

Former Member

Sorry, where have I expressed hatred for the traditional family?

Former Member

yup, i would attribute the high divorce rate, and kids being born out of wedlock down to the breakup of the nuclear family, instigated by the govt. encouraging women to abandon their natural role as mothers and wives for careers (see my thread on feminism?) and the effect this is having on our society is unmeasurable.......

Former Member

I'd attribute the breakup of the extended family (far healthier than the nuclear family IMO) to capitalism, materialism and greed.

Former Member

Originally posted by apollo_69
yup, i would attribute the high divorce rate, and kids being born out of wedlock down to the breakup of the nuclear family, instigated by the govt. encouraging women to abandon their natural role as mothers and wives for careers...

There is something in this. For example, our current government's Trade Secretary believes that stay-at-home mothers are a "problem". However, I also accept to an extent Blagsta's analysis that materialism and greed (and selfishness, I would add) are exacerbating the problem.

Former Member

Originally posted by apollo_69
encouraging women to abandon their natural role as mothers and wives for careers (see my thread on feminism?) and the effect this is having on our society is unmeasurable.......

How is wife a "natural" role? Marriage is a social institution.

Former Member

Originally posted by stargalaxy
A man who believes the expression "pot, kettle, black" is racist (source) is not a man whose views I can take seriously.

Fuckin'ell you thick cunt, that was a pisstake. Have you had a sense of humour bypass or something?

Jesus, what the fuck is the matter with you? :rolleyes: