Ray From Cleveland
Diamond Member
- Aug 16, 2015
- 97,215
- 37,438
- 2,290
16.4 per 1000 married women now? 22.6 at it's peak in the late 70s? Wow, all that proves is that the disintegration has been a complete fabrication. Thanks for proving my point!
Nope, it only proves mine. ?
Divorce rates dramatically increased throughout the women's lib movement which Democrats stood strongly behind. It wasn't until Reagan took office when the rates started to decrease slightly. We are s Most marry for hot romance and sextill on a downtrend of divorce but not nearly to the point we were at before it started.
1.6% is hardly an epidemic. 2.2% shows that it was never an epidemic.
Why do you feel that divorce is categorically a bad thing? I'm surprised that the rate is so low. The fact is that there will always be a certain number of people who are unhappy in their marriages. It's good that they have an out.
If anything a high divorce rate shows that people should think a whole lot harder before they get married. Most marry for hot romance and sex...and 'cause the girls always dream of their wedding day. Then their supposedly stuck together for life. That sucks!
Nevertheless it was the liberal movement that caused such high divorce rates. It also led to out of wedlock births which is still on the rise:
http://www.heritage.org/~/media/images/reports/2010/b2465/b2465_chart3.ashx?w=500&h=640&as=1
High rates of children born out of wed lock are the product of choices made by people. Especially women.
Given freedom, that's what they choose.
A very big part of freedom is the freedom to do things that may be considered dumb. In a totalitarian state people are forced to live by the dictates of the government...often times in their best interests...is that what you want?
Yes, people do choose to have children with no husband. Who do you suppose promoted that? Do you suppose those very same people are unaware that single-partent homes are related to poverty?