pugsville wrote:Then you are now agreeing that having a fifty percent split is not the best thing.
False. I am saying that it is
optimal to have BOTH parents involved in raising a child, not simply one. I don't see how you could come to that conclusion based on what I said.
pugsville wrote:There lies, there are dammed lies and then there are statistics without context statistics can be extremenely misleading.
Yes, and that applies to the statistics your brought forward, which don't actually contradict anything I posted.
pugsville wrote:Marriage is recognition by society of a partnership. There is no need for children.
If there are no children, the need for marriage evaporates, for the most part.
pugsville wrote:Nor do you need to be married and cohabiting to co-parent.
No, but historically this has been the best situation possible for raising children. It hasn't changed, and single parent homes are an increasing problem.
The results are not good for the children, and often results in lacking a female or male role model, unless the children are particularly lucky. Trying to keep
both parents involved in a child's life should be of paramount importance when custody is considered.
This highlights some problems...
What Are the Disadvantages of a Single-Parent Family?https://www.medicinenet.com/disadvantag ... rticle.htmI apologize if I am an avid supporter of the traditional nuclear family(married and with children), of which I now am a part of.
“Let me never fall into the vulgar mistake of dreaming that I am persecuted whenever I am contradicted.” ― Ralph Waldo Emerson