Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
You all are forgetting a very important truth to all this.
Not all single mothers started out that way.
There's this legal procedure we call DIVORCE here in America. Were a married couple can legally dissolve their marriage.
So you're saying that the state should take children that have been with their parents all of their lives and stick them in the foster care system to be adopted?
Against the will of the parents and child?
Do you realize how illegal, cruel and sick your views are?
Once again you conservatives show you're nothing but liars when you say you want a small government and government out of your lives.
You want a big nanny government to monitor our lives from conception to death.
I'm a believer in a different style of marriage where divorce is much less common. I'm not a big believer in the appropriateness of divorce either.
When it does happen the kids should be taken and placed with foster/adoptive parents, not left in some Government home.
I've never said I want a small Government, just one that's focused on the proper things.
When it does happen the kids should be taken and placed with foster/adoptive parents, not left in some Government home.
I have heard some crazy ass shit on this board but this takes the cake by far . Do you have any idea what you are advocating? What the impact on the child would be.? I do because I worked in a foster care and adoption agency for 26 years and I can tell you that removal is devastating!
Even children who have been abused are still bonded to the parents and are traumatized by removal. What next? Should parental rights be terminated if one the parents does not remarry in a certain amount of time to take the child back?
What else would you call for, the removal of all children born to single women at birth? You really haven't thought much about this have you.
Oh and those foster homes are government homes. They are licensed and funded by the government
Got kids?
You all are forgetting a very important truth to all this.
Not all single mothers started out that way.
There's this legal procedure we call DIVORCE here in America. Were a married couple can legally dissolve their marriage.
So you're saying that the state should take children that have been with their parents all of their lives and stick them in the foster care system to be adopted?
Against the will of the parents and child?
Do you realize how illegal, cruel and sick your views are?
Once again you conservatives show you're nothing but liars when you say you want a small government and government out of your lives.
You want a big nanny government to monitor our lives from conception to death.
I'm a believer in a different style of marriage where divorce is much less common. I'm not a big believer in the appropriateness of divorce either.
When it does happen the kids should be taken and placed with foster/adoptive parents, not left in some Government home.
I've never said I want a small Government, just one that's focused on the proper things.
When it does happen the kids should be taken and placed with foster/adoptive parents, not left in some Government home.
I have heard some crazy ass shit on this board but this takes the cake by far . Do you have any idea what you are advocating? What the impact on the child would be.? I do because I worked in a foster care and adoption agency for 26 years and I can tell you that removal is devastating!
Even children who have been abused are still bonded to the parents and are traumatized by removal. What next? Should parental rights be terminated if one the parents does not remarry in a certain amount of time to take the child back?
What else would you call for, the removal of all children born to single women at birth? You really haven't thought much about this have you.
Oh and those foster homes are government homes. They are licensed and funded by the government
Got kids?
Divorce isn't the only way a married woman becomes a single parent.
Death happens too. The husband dies and she's left with their children.
I guess that right winger thinks that the government should pile on more trauma and hurt on the woman and her children by taking them from the mother by force and putting them in a complete stranger's house. To be adopted by other strangers.
The right winger who posted it has to be totally nuts.
I heard Tony Perkins of family research council say that gay marriage is bad but heterosexual marriage is better for children. It is because a child needs a mother and a father for healthy growth and a good life.
If that is true, then why don't gay marriage opponents also object to children staying in single parent homes? About half of US children live in single parent households.
If you object to gay marriage on the grounds that a child needs a mom and a dad, then the gay marriage haters should have actively pursued constitutional and legal changes within our family structures that prohibit single parent households as vociferously as they opposed gay marriages. Seems to me one mom would be far worse choice than having two moms.
Your thoughts?
You are making the assumption that being a single parent is always by choice. We live in a promiscuous society of self indulgence, where people often don't think about the consequences of their actions. How many dad's decide to move on when it's discovered she is pregnant. Just to be fair, I'm sure there are cases where the opposite is true and she leaves him with a baby to raise. We are not a country that values marriage any more than a simple piece of paper, it's always simpler to move on to fulfilling our own goals, advancing our own careers, seek another relationship, because (quite simply) it's too much of an effort to make a relationship work.
I don't give a shit about relationships. The question was about children. Adults can decide whatever they want to do or not do. You object to kids being raised without both parents. So instead of attacking GM, you should attack the single parenthood.
However, the homophobes only attack gay parents. They don't legislatively attack single parents. You wanted to oppose GM because kids need a mom and dad. You do not oppose single parenthood as vigorously as you oppose GM.
Thus I called your BS and labeled you people as a group homophobes. You people are homophobes, nothing more, nothing less.
I heard Tony Perkins of family research council say that gay marriage is bad but heterosexual marriage is better for children. It is because a child needs a mother and a father for healthy growth and a good life.
If that is true, then why don't gay marriage opponents also object to children staying in single parent homes? About half of US children live in single parent households.
If you object to gay marriage on the grounds that a child needs a mom and a dad, then the gay marriage haters should have actively pursued constitutional and legal changes within our family structures that prohibit single parent households as vociferously as they opposed gay marriages. Seems to me one mom would be far worse choice than having two moms.
Your thoughts?
You are making the assumption that being a single parent is always by choice. We live in a promiscuous society of self indulgence, where people often don't think about the consequences of their actions. How many dad's decide to move on when it's discovered she is pregnant. Just to be fair, I'm sure there are cases where the opposite is true and she leaves him with a baby to raise. We are not a country that values marriage any more than a simple piece of paper, it's always simpler to move on to fulfilling our own goals, advancing our own careers, seek another relationship, because (quite simply) it's too much of an effort to make a relationship work.
I don't give a shit about relationships. The question was about children. Adults can decide whatever they want to do or not do. You object to kids being raised without both parents. So instead of attacking GM, you should attack the single parenthood.
However, the homophobes only attack gay parents. They don't legislatively attack single parents. You wanted to oppose GM because kids need a mom and dad. You do not oppose single parenthood as vigorously as you oppose GM.
Thus I called your BS and labeled you people as a group homophobes. You people are homophobes, nothing more, nothing less.
I never did specify that I was against gay marriage in my response now did I? Yet again.... you base your arguments on a lot of assumptions, yet don't care to really have a discussion on the subject at all, but simply looking to sustain an argument based on just your perception and no one else's thoughts. YOU began the discussion by bringing up children that are raised by a single parent, not I. So let's start by getting all the facts straight. I merely corrected you by stating that not all single parents are in fact by that individual's choice, rather some are the result of the father or (in other cases) the mother abandoning their responsibility of caring for the child. We are talking about "the child", as that was one of the main basis of your argument regarding same sex couples. Now you say you "don't give a shit about relationships ", now that doesn't sound like someone who really cares about the needs of "the child" (to use your argument and the focus of the opening op). So we are back to the real focu of the discussion... which is freely engaging in a permiscuous relationship that has absolutely nothing to do with children, or a what kind of parents they need to be in a healthy relationship (be it gay or straight), and you are only interested in engaging in an argument ... not a discussion. So if you are not interested in anyone else's thoughts, then don't ask.
My apologies for the delay in responding. My real life does require certain amounts of attention at times.....
I see parenthood and children very differently than most people. I see them more as a JOB than as some emotional attachment. The job of the PARENTS is to support the children and to ensure they are properly educated and taught appropriate morals and values based on their gender. The job of a child is to learn these things and prepare themselves to be productive and appropriate members of society once they reach adulthood.
To that end I believe we need a totally new system for dealing with children.
First, we need to start LICENSING parents. If you cannot prove the ability to financially, educationally and morally support your kids, you don't get to have them. Additionally, proof that there are additional family assets (aunts, uncles, grandparents, etc...) who can take the child in if something happens to the parents increase the chances of the license being awarded.
Next, the parents need to be held responsible for the proper care and feeding of the child. If, after the child is born, it comes to light that the child is not being properly cared for, fed, disciplined, etc.... the child would be placed with the other relatives, or taken from the parents. Likewise, as the child begins schooling, the parents would be held responsible for the behavior and grades of the child. As the child grows, the parents would also be responsible for ensuring the child learns proper morals, values and social/cultural norms along with being held mutually laible for any crime or civil disobedience on the part of the child.
In the case that the State determines the parents are not living up to their responsibilities or that the child is not responding to their leadership, the child would be placed with relatives who are also licensed to parent, or placed with another couple who have been licensed. The State would not be liable for any expenses incurred in this transition or after re-placement. This process would also be used for divorces, deaths of parents, etc.....
Children who are habitually resistant to proper conditioning or who choose to ignore their education will be removed from the population, permanently.
No, I don't have kids; largely because I do not believe the current society allows for proper parenting or assists the parents in any way.
My apologies for the delay in responding. My real life does require certain amounts of attention at times.....
I see parenthood and children very differently than most people. I see them more as a JOB than as some emotional attachment. The job of the PARENTS is to support the children and to ensure they are properly educated and taught appropriate morals and values based on their gender. The job of a child is to learn these things and prepare themselves to be productive and appropriate members of society once they reach adulthood.
To that end I believe we need a totally new system for dealing with children.
First, we need to start LICENSING parents. If you cannot prove the ability to financially, educationally and morally support your kids, you don't get to have them. Additionally, proof that there are additional family assets (aunts, uncles, grandparents, etc...) who can take the child in if something happens to the parents increase the chances of the license being awarded.
Next, the parents need to be held responsible for the proper care and feeding of the child. If, after the child is born, it comes to light that the child is not being properly cared for, fed, disciplined, etc.... the child would be placed with the other relatives, or taken from the parents. Likewise, as the child begins schooling, the parents would be held responsible for the behavior and grades of the child. As the child grows, the parents would also be responsible for ensuring the child learns proper morals, values and social/cultural norms along with being held mutually laible for any crime or civil disobedience on the part of the child.
In the case that the State determines the parents are not living up to their responsibilities or that the child is not responding to their leadership, the child would be placed with relatives who are also licensed to parent, or placed with another couple who have been licensed. The State would not be liable for any expenses incurred in this transition or after re-placement. This process would also be used for divorces, deaths of parents, etc.....
Children who are habitually resistant to proper conditioning or who choose to ignore their education will be removed from the population, permanently.
No, I don't have kids; largely because I do not believe the current society allows for proper parenting or assists the parents in any way.
I heard Tony Perkins of family research council say that gay marriage is bad but heterosexual marriage is better for children. It is because a child needs a mother and a father for healthy growth and a good life.
If that is true, then why don't gay marriage opponents also object to children staying in single parent homes? About half of US children live in single parent households.
If you object to gay marriage on the grounds that a child needs a mom and a dad, then the gay marriage haters should have actively pursued constitutional and legal changes within our family structures that prohibit single parent households as vociferously as they opposed gay marriages. Seems to me one mom would be far worse choice than having two moms.
Your thoughts?
You are making the assumption that being a single parent is always by choice. We live in a promiscuous society of self indulgence, where people often don't think about the consequences of their actions. How many dad's decide to move on when it's discovered she is pregnant. Just to be fair, I'm sure there are cases where the opposite is true and she leaves him with a baby to raise. We are not a country that values marriage any more than a simple piece of paper, it's always simpler to move on to fulfilling our own goals, advancing our own careers, seek another relationship, because (quite simply) it's too much of an effort to make a relationship work.
I don't give a shit about relationships. The question was about children. Adults can decide whatever they want to do or not do. You object to kids being raised without both parents. So instead of attacking GM, you should attack the single parenthood.
However, the homophobes only attack gay parents. They don't legislatively attack single parents. You wanted to oppose GM because kids need a mom and dad. You do not oppose single parenthood as vigorously as you oppose GM.
Thus I called your BS and labeled you people as a group homophobes. You people are homophobes, nothing more, nothing less.
I never did specify that I was against gay marriage in my response now did I? Yet again.... you base your arguments on a lot of assumptions, yet don't care to really have a discussion on the subject at all, but simply looking to sustain an argument based on just your perception and no one else's thoughts. YOU began the discussion by bringing up children that are raised by a single parent, not I. So let's start by getting all the facts straight. I merely corrected you by stating that not all single parents are in fact by that individual's choice, rather some are the result of the father or (in other cases) the mother abandoning their responsibility of caring for the child. We are talking about "the child", as that was one of the main basis of your argument regarding same sex couples. Now you say you "don't give a shit about relationships ", now that doesn't sound like someone who really cares about the needs of "the child" (to use your argument and the focus of the opening op). So we are back to the real focu of the discussion... which is freely engaging in a permiscuous relationship that has absolutely nothing to do with children, or a what kind of parents they need to be in a healthy relationship (be it gay or straight), and you are only interested in engaging in an argument ... not a discussion. So if you are not interested in anyone else's thoughts, then don't ask.
OK I don't have time for your verbal gymnastics. I simply asked a very simple question, so please don't make it more complicated than it needs to be.
The focus of my question was never about relationships between adults. I asked the audience a general question: If GM opponents are opposed to GM because a child needs mom and dad, then why haven't they opposed the single parents from keeping their kids?
That is all I am asking. The rest is all hagallobigallo and let's not go there.
So, it's better to hear the fighting, watch the infidelity, experience the loved one get high on drugs than to live with one healthy parent in a stress free environment?You expose the basic flaw in the argument used by Silhouette and Where r my Keys. They simply wouldn't answer the challenge, so they kept getting kicked in the metaphorical head until their eyes crossed.
Single Mother Statistics Single Mother Guide
In mother-only families, children tend to experience short-and long-term economic and psychological disadvantages; higher absentee rates at school, lower levels of education, and higher dropout rates (with boys more negatively affected than girls); and more delinquent activity, including alcohol and drug addiction.....
Later, as children from single-parent families become adults, they are more likely to marry early, have children early, and divorce. Girls are at greater risk of becoming single mothers as a result of nonmarital childbearing or divorce (McLanahan and Booth 1989). Although the research findings are mixed on long-term effects, the majority of children adjust and recover and do not experience severe problems over time (Coontz 1997).
A common explanation for the problems found among the children of single parents has been the absence of a male adult in the family (Gongla 1982). The relationship between children and non-custodial fathers can be difficult and strained. Fathers often become disinterested and detached from their children; in one study more than 60 percent of fathers either did not visit their children or had no contact with them for over a year. The loss of a father in the family can have implications beyond childhood (Wallerstein and Blakeslee 1989). However, the lack of a male presence may not be as critical as the lack of a male income to the family. The economic deprivation of single-parent family life, in combination with other sources of strain and stress, is a major source of the problems experienced by both parents and children.
Read more: Single-Parent Families - The Effects On Children - Family, Family, and Divorce - JRank Articles Single-Parent Families - The Effects On Children - Family Family and Divorce - JRank Articles
This was at just first glance.
Parents: there's a lot to be said for staying together for the children's sake. After the kids leave home, who gives a damn what you do!!
Greg
I heard Tony Perkins of family research council say that gay marriage is bad but heterosexual marriage is better for children. It is because a child needs a mother and a father for healthy growth and a good life.
If that is true, then why don't gay marriage opponents also object to children staying in single parent homes? About half of US children live in single parent households.
If you object to gay marriage on the grounds that a child needs a mom and a dad, then the gay marriage haters should have actively pursued constitutional and legal changes within our family structures that prohibit single parent households as vociferously as they opposed gay marriages. Seems to me one mom would be far worse choice than having two moms.
Your thoughts?
You are making the assumption that being a single parent is always by choice. We live in a promiscuous society of self indulgence, where people often don't think about the consequences of their actions. How many dad's decide to move on when it's discovered she is pregnant. Just to be fair, I'm sure there are cases where the opposite is true and she leaves him with a baby to raise. We are not a country that values marriage any more than a simple piece of paper, it's always simpler to move on to fulfilling our own goals, advancing our own careers, seek another relationship, because (quite simply) it's too much of an effort to make a relationship work.
I don't give a shit about relationships. The question was about children. Adults can decide whatever they want to do or not do. You object to kids being raised without both parents. So instead of attacking GM, you should attack the single parenthood.
However, the homophobes only attack gay parents. They don't legislatively attack single parents. You wanted to oppose GM because kids need a mom and dad. You do not oppose single parenthood as vigorously as you oppose GM.
Thus I called your BS and labeled you people as a group homophobes. You people are homophobes, nothing more, nothing less.
I never did specify that I was against gay marriage in my response now did I? Yet again.... you base your arguments on a lot of assumptions, yet don't care to really have a discussion on the subject at all, but simply looking to sustain an argument based on just your perception and no one else's thoughts. YOU began the discussion by bringing up children that are raised by a single parent, not I. So let's start by getting all the facts straight. I merely corrected you by stating that not all single parents are in fact by that individual's choice, rather some are the result of the father or (in other cases) the mother abandoning their responsibility of caring for the child. We are talking about "the child", as that was one of the main basis of your argument regarding same sex couples. Now you say you "don't give a shit about relationships ", now that doesn't sound like someone who really cares about the needs of "the child" (to use your argument and the focus of the opening op). So we are back to the real focu of the discussion... which is freely engaging in a permiscuous relationship that has absolutely nothing to do with children, or a what kind of parents they need to be in a healthy relationship (be it gay or straight), and you are only interested in engaging in an argument ... not a discussion. So if you are not interested in anyone else's thoughts, then don't ask.
OK I don't have time for your verbal gymnastics. I simply asked a very simple question, so please don't make it more complicated than it needs to be.
The focus of my question was never about relationships between adults. I asked the audience a general question: If GM opponents are opposed to GM because a child needs mom and dad, then why haven't they opposed the single parents from keeping their kids?
That is all I am asking. The rest is all hagallobigallo and let's not go there.
I have already a response informing you that single parenthood is not always by choice, a lot of the time they have been abandoned to take care of the child themselves. Show me a statistic where every single parent is the resort of a divorce and not simply abandonment from some deadbeat that left other with the child. Now, when you come to grips with that fact ... Why on earth would someone feel the need to take away the child, simply because they are left alone with the responsibility that the other person just doesn't want to add to their life? I commend the single parent for sticking it out, to take on the bigger role under those difficult and stressful conditions. I will never "assume" it's the single parent's fault for the situation they find themselves in.
Also, if you happen to not personally care at all about the "relationship", why should it at all matter to you whether it's a single parent or not caring for the child? It doesn't really matter at all what "lifestyle" you are, none are immune to its challenge.
You are making the assumption that being a single parent is always by choice. We live in a promiscuous society of self indulgence, where people often don't think about the consequences of their actions. How many dad's decide to move on when it's discovered she is pregnant. Just to be fair, I'm sure there are cases where the opposite is true and she leaves him with a baby to raise. We are not a country that values marriage any more than a simple piece of paper, it's always simpler to move on to fulfilling our own goals, advancing our own careers, seek another relationship, because (quite simply) it's too much of an effort to make a relationship work.
I don't give a shit about relationships. The question was about children. Adults can decide whatever they want to do or not do. You object to kids being raised without both parents. So instead of attacking GM, you should attack the single parenthood.
However, the homophobes only attack gay parents. They don't legislatively attack single parents. You wanted to oppose GM because kids need a mom and dad. You do not oppose single parenthood as vigorously as you oppose GM.
Thus I called your BS and labeled you people as a group homophobes. You people are homophobes, nothing more, nothing less.
I never did specify that I was against gay marriage in my response now did I? Yet again.... you base your arguments on a lot of assumptions, yet don't care to really have a discussion on the subject at all, but simply looking to sustain an argument based on just your perception and no one else's thoughts. YOU began the discussion by bringing up children that are raised by a single parent, not I. So let's start by getting all the facts straight. I merely corrected you by stating that not all single parents are in fact by that individual's choice, rather some are the result of the father or (in other cases) the mother abandoning their responsibility of caring for the child. We are talking about "the child", as that was one of the main basis of your argument regarding same sex couples. Now you say you "don't give a shit about relationships ", now that doesn't sound like someone who really cares about the needs of "the child" (to use your argument and the focus of the opening op). So we are back to the real focu of the discussion... which is freely engaging in a permiscuous relationship that has absolutely nothing to do with children, or a what kind of parents they need to be in a healthy relationship (be it gay or straight), and you are only interested in engaging in an argument ... not a discussion. So if you are not interested in anyone else's thoughts, then don't ask.
OK I don't have time for your verbal gymnastics. I simply asked a very simple question, so please don't make it more complicated than it needs to be.
The focus of my question was never about relationships between adults. I asked the audience a general question: If GM opponents are opposed to GM because a child needs mom and dad, then why haven't they opposed the single parents from keeping their kids?
That is all I am asking. The rest is all hagallobigallo and let's not go there.
I have already a response informing you that single parenthood is not always by choice, a lot of the time they have been abandoned to take care of the child themselves. Show me a statistic where every single parent is the resort of a divorce and not simply abandonment from some deadbeat that left other with the child. Now, when you come to grips with that fact ... Why on earth would someone feel the need to take away the child, simply because they are left alone with the responsibility that the other person just doesn't want to add to their life? I commend the single parent for sticking it out, to take on the bigger role under those difficult and stressful conditions. I will never "assume" it's the single parent's fault for the situation they find themselves in.
Also, if you happen to not personally care at all about the "relationship", why should it at all matter to you whether it's a single parent or not caring for the child? It doesn't really matter at all what "lifestyle" you are, none are immune to its challenge.
Really? Parents don't have kids while not being married? Bristol Palin got pregnant accidentally? You mean to tell me people don't have kids out of wedlock?
I just showed your hypocrisy about your ridiculous attempt to demand that gay marriages should be banned because "kids need mom and dad". I simply informed you and you choose to ignore it that if you think kids need mom and dad, then you should ban single parents from keeping their kids.
I don't know why you are having a hard time understanding the dilemma of homophobes who oppose GM but support single parenthoold even though they've repeatedly said a child needs a mom and a dad.
This is a dirct contradiction of their own beleifs.
LICENSING, STANDARTING, DISCIPLINE, MORALS...AND NO EMOTIONAL ATTACHMENTS...
Yes, you're right
