Conference quark::human_relations-v1

    If one can so easily divorce his/her own spouse, why can't one divorce
    their children?  At least one had some discretion in choosing the
    spouse, but none in choosing the children. 
    
    Why does this society put less emphasis on spousal relationship but
    more on children's well-being?  How can one really have one at the
    expense of the other?
    
    If I am so responsible for my children, what makes me give up on my
    wife?  Why can't I work as hard to make it work??
    
    - Vikas

    re: .1
    
        You can divorce your spouse because you entered into an agreement
    with another (supposedly) consenting adult.  The both of you should
    have known what you were getting into.  A child has no choice in
    coming into the world.  A child should be brought into the world
    by adults who are doing so with the understanding that they are
    responsible for this human.
    
        The reason society puts less emphasis on a spousal relationship
    is because of the reason above.  Both parties entered the relationship
    voluntarily.
    
        The relationship between two adults is very different than that
    between a responsible adult and a dependant child.
    
    ASP

>        because you entered into an agreement

    I have a problem in calling marriage an agreement.  Exactly what kind
    of agreement is that?  Is it possible that the fatalistic attitude
    e.g. the easy way of getting out of the agreement might actually be a
    major factor in the divorce itself? 

>    Both parties entered the relationship voluntarily. 
    
    Exactly.  Shouldn't it be easier to work out the differences then? 

>        The relationship between two adults is very different than that
>    between a responsible adult and a dependant child.
    
    The real difference is that we consider the first relationship
    temporary but the second permanent.  Put it bluntly, we consider the
    first relationship to be entirely disposable and to be kept as long
    as it is convenient.

    - Vikas

    re: .3
    
        Maybe I stated my first note badly.  It would have been better
    to have used the word relationship instead of agreement.  However
    a marriage is a relationship that is based upon certain agreements.
    The agreements usually differ based upon religious affiliation,
    but there are several basic agreements which are in most marriages.
    
        You state that we consider the marriage as a temporary relationship
    and the parent-child relationship as permenant.  I feel that the
    parent-child relationship may be considered less permenant than
    a marriage because the clear cut obligation of both parties is limited
    to an 18 year period.  The parent and child may wish to continue
    the relationship after that point, but there is no requirement to
    do so.  I have known people who wanted nothing to do with their
    parents after that obligation was over.  It's very sad.

    re: Agreement(s)
    
    Since my base note is a concern for the "establishing fair well
    being for the children", and a request for people to put their ideas
    on that subject here,I hope succeeding people will return to that
    concept and not  go down a rathole about semantics which describe
    adult relationships.
    
    Thank You 
    Bob Early (Is .0 that badly  worded that the intent got lost ?)
    

    > How can we be assured that dependent children will be well cared
    > for ...?

    My answer:
        
    1. Stay alive.
    2. Stay employed.
    3. Inherit a fortune so I afford to send him to Harvard (class of 2006).

    I'm working on #1 and #2. I'll let my ex work on #3.
    
            - Rich