Which is better solution to broken families in USA?

[Anonymous]

Both options are simplistic and won't fix everything, but which do you think could help most or make the more positive impact?

Make divorce, separation, and single custody illegal—don't allow families to break no matter what!

Make family/marriage counseling and childcare free—give preventative support against family breaks!

[lightbulb27]

given the choices I chose family training for free. but blech...

we really do need training. we need parents, intervention to break the cycles, trauma recovery.

it isn't free... but does need to br affordable for those generating a lot of the trauma.

[FunkyMonkee]

Get married based on LOVE and TRUST in each other, NOT because of MONEY, STATUS or how hot the other looks!! STOP being so motherfucking PLASTIC!!!

[Asker]

Sounds good but how would you enforce that?

[FunkyMonkee]

Refuse to marry `til you get to know each other very well.

[Asker]

People already do that. So your solution is to change nothing?

[FunkyMonkee]

SOME people do that! Too often, they meet, they go home and fuck, they decide that night to get married in a few weeks and a few months later it's divorce time. It's NOT a race! There's NO major rush, TAKE YOUR TIME!! If they took the time to get to know each other better, they would've figured out they weren't good to be married to each other and the divorce would've never happened. Or, they would've found they ARE great to be married and STILL the divorce would've never happened.

[Asker]

That's a good solution for those people, but those people are only minority of broken families.

[Asker]

I do agree that you should take your time and not rush in.

[FunkyMonkee]

I don't think it's a minority. Look at how many married couples there are that never got divorced compared to how many get a divorce, especially if the get one over and over again!
Cher: Married to Sonny for about a decade, she divorces him and married Gregg Allman. By the end of the first week, they're divorced! She marries Gene Simmons, a short while later, she divorces him!! I lost track after that! she wasn't in love with these guys! They were just somebody to fuck!!!

[Asker]

Oh I was talking about normal people, not celebrities...

[FunkyMonkee]

It happens to normal people, too, you just don't hear about it as much.

[Anonymous]

Oh, you made a fake pink profile to spam us with this some more. Awesome.

[Asker]

For the record I think option B is better.

[Gold618]

The second option. The first sounds far too authoritarian.

[Anonymous]

Both are shitty solutions. Why does every "solution" always seem to involve either removing freedoms or forcing other people to pay for your shit?

[Asker]

What would you suggest instead? It doesn't have to be a fix all, just a start.

[Opinion Owner]

Shaming single parents.

[Asker]

People already do that. Do you have some more extreme form of shaming in mind, or is your suggestion that we just do nothing different than we already are doing?

[seeyounexttuesday]

Eliminate or cut public benefits so that fathers aren't replaced by government.

[Asker]

What would happen to the families that have fathers die?

[seeyounexttuesday]

how is that relevant to your question about broken families.

[Asker]

Those families are also broken. I understand it's an exception though, so maybe your idea would work for a general solution like the other ones proposed, even if some families fall through the cracks like they always do.

To be honest though I don't see how fathers are being replaced by public benefits to begin with. Most families on public benefits do have a father.

[seeyounexttuesday]

really? 76% of black families do not have a father. This increase correlates directly with the increase in social programs.

[Asker]

There's a lot of non black families on public benefits, and not all black families are on public benefits. That's a concerning statistic if it's true though and would make me reconsider my initial concern more broadly—what would happen to those 76% of black families who don't have fathers if public benefits were cut?

[seeyounexttuesday]

Then mothers wouldn't replace fathers with government.

[Asker]

Those mothers do not have the fathers, you just said, so what will they do?

[seeyounexttuesday]

They will not spread their legs for guys who won't stay with them, because they'll know the freebies are gone.

[Asker]

But what will happen to them and the kids they have?

[seeyounexttuesday]

They'll have to figure it out.

[Asker]

What are their options? The father is gone and now so is public benefits.

[seeyounexttuesday]

Private charities, get a job... I don't know.

[Asker]

If it's over half of the black population it's not an exception, and maybe something you want to consider before proposing a "solution" that completely overlooks all those families...

[seeyounexttuesday]

You asked what would fix broken families. The answer is to make it less financially attractive.

[Asker]

That doesn't address over 50% of black families. That seems like a major oversight in your proposed solution, not just an exception like any solution is bound to have.

[seeyounexttuesday]

Again, they’re going to have to get jobs.

[Asker]

Then how would your solution solve anything? All moms could just get jobs (most have them already) and then fathers would just be "replaced" by jobs instead of by government...

[seeyounexttuesday]

lol, no.

[Asker]

If public benefits replace fathers, but moms can just get jobs to replace public benefits, then how would those jobs not just replace the replacement for the father and you're back to square one? I don't understand how it would help broken families.

[seeyounexttuesday]

How do white people have in tact families and jobs?

[Asker]

Do they? You said 70% of black families don't have a father. You didn't say anything about white families or anyone having jobs—or being on public benefits.

[Anonymous]

just implement at-fault divorce to replace no-fault divorce

if people wanna divorce, then fine but they shouldn't be rewarded with child custody, finances and assets just out of boredom and infidelity

[Asker]

What do you mean "at fault divorce"?

[Opinion Owner]

at-fault divorce is where one party or both parties are responsible for the divorce and therefore alimony, child support, child custody needs to be carefully considered when it comes to possible distribution

no-fault divorce doesn't allow that and a cheater could get away with alimony, child support or child custody simply because there is no responsibility being placed on either party

[Asker]

Actually no fault divorce allows for cheaters to get away with less, because their partner does not have the responsibility to prove that they cheated before they are allowed to do anything about it. They can divorce right away and if there is disagreement on custody, alimony, child support etc then it still has to go to court and be carefully considered no matter the reason for divorce.

[Opinion Owner]

which is why no-fault divorce should be replaced with at-fault divorce

[DrPepper12]

Adoption? Free health care n education is a great start

[beefcakebradybatson]

Second, yes. First, H**L to the NO !!!