OK right wingers. I need you to treat me like a 6yr old!!(pt 1)

[Conservative65]

OK. I need some one to explain exactly how liberal policies destroyed families.

I heard a claim that public assistance chase the male parent out of the home--how exactly?

I really need some clarity on this claim. Is there some special rule to receiving that penalizes families with both parents? Is there some other argument?

Serious replies, please

In 1965, prior to the war on poverty and massive expansion of the welfare state, the illegitimate birth rate was less than 8%. Today, it's over 40%. When those that have children they can't afford know the government will force those of us not the baby daddy to support her kids while doing little/nothing to the actual sperm donor, they could care less. It enables having bastard children to be a money maker.

Whether the parents are married or single makes a difference. The daughter of my wife's friend had a bastard baby. The baby mama and baby daddy decided not to get married because as single, they received more combined in welfare than they would have received had they married.
Works the same way with taxes. A single parent can claim head of household and get a bigger standard deduction than if they claim single despite there being absolutely no difference in the situation.

 

[Seawytch]

[Society has now been "destroyed" because I get to file joint taxes? What do you take for your hyperbole syndrome?

Well thank you for the rare moment of honesty. Gay marriage was never about marriage. It was always about what perks and benefits the homosexual community could get from the government. The irony is that in most cases, you actually get penalized for filing joint taxes. My wife and I have had to file separately 5 out of the past 6 years.

Wait...so you straight folks gave yourselves cash and prizes for being married...but you get upset because gay couples said "hey, we want that too"? Feel free to get rid of the goodies...gays will still want to get married.

 

[g5000]

OK. I need some one to explain exactly how liberal policies destroyed families.

I heard a claim that public assistance chase the male parent out of the home--how exactly?

I really need some clarity on this claim. Is there some special rule to receiving that penalizes families with both parents? Is there some other argument?

Serious replies, please

It's easy. When a woman can marry Uncle Sam she doesn't need a guy hanging around.

In other words, liberal policies would work better if the government gave the assistance to the father? Because the whole point of the father is to be used by the woman and child?

I hate to say it but your argument tend to suggest there really is no benefit for a man to start a family.

That wasn't even close to what I said. Liberal policies don't work, period. If a woman can go on public assistance, ebt cards, housing, etc. she doesn't really need a guy around, especially if she can nail him with child support, which he should be paying anyway.

It's weird...I thought people stayed together because they love each other not because the man makes money. Guess I'm old fashioned?

Staying together because of an unexpected child very often has nothing to do with loving each other.

If the government provides a cash incentive for the male to leave, then you increase the odds the male will leave. Love has nothing to do with it.

 

[Conservative65]

It's weird...I thought people stayed together because they love each other not because the man makes money. Guess I'm old fashioned?

Even couples who genuinely love each other go through rough times. Being financially dependent on each other caused them to stay together through those rough patches - a decision that they would often later be thankful for.

Liberals keep making it easier and easier for married people to separate. That's not a good thing.

So people should stay together for financial reasons even though they loathe each other? Is that a good thing?

They got together. Apparently they had no problem doing that.

 

[Carl in Michigan]

Well thank you for the rare moment of honesty. Gay marriage was never about marriage. It was always about what perks and benefits the homosexual community could get from the government. The irony is that in most cases, you actually get penalized for filing joint taxes. My wife and I have had to file separately 5 out of the past 6 years.

It was more than that. They hate "breeders." They want to water down the institution. They want to destroy what they can never have.

 

[g5000]

It's weird...I thought people stayed together because they love each other not because the man makes money. Guess I'm old fashioned?

Even couples who genuinely love each other go through rough times. Being financially dependent on each other caused them to stay together through those rough patches - a decision that they would often later be thankful for.

Liberals keep making it easier and easier for married people to separate. That's not a good thing.

So people should stay together for financial reasons even though they loathe each other? Is that a good thing?

If getting out of a marriage was a lot more difficult, people might not get into them so quickly.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

OK. I need some one to explain exactly how liberal policies destroyed families.

I heard a claim that public assistance chase the male parent out of the home--how exactly?

I really need some clarity on this claim. Is there some special rule to receiving that penalizes families with both parents? Is there some other argument?

Serious replies, please

Families might stay together if they are economically dependent on the male bread winner since the female is left to raising the kids the male is left to bring in the money. The traditional family structure really doesn't exist anymore but if you think of the family unit as that then welfare may end that economic dependence on the male. She then leaves when she realizes that their is another option than staying with him.

First, I don;t see any evidence this actually happens. Second, you really want to starve a family a couple of hundreds of dollars a month to teach them a lesson?

I knew of one couple that the female got all assistance for her and their 2 kids. as far as social services went, they didn't know he was in the picture. So he worked and made an income, they pretended he wasn't involved and she collected assistance. They were doing rather well.
I turned them in. They were investigated, she lost the assistance and they ended up getting married.

What a lovely story, thankfully it happened so you could recount what a hero you are. I really am not interested in anecdotal stories, especially when politically motivated.

I'm so glad you commented. I was just saying to a friend of mine, Gee, I really hope I get some deep and thoughtful insight from HappyJoy.
Thank you so much

 

[Conservative65]

[Society has now been "destroyed" because I get to file joint taxes? What do you take for your hyperbole syndrome?

Well thank you for the rare moment of honesty. Gay marriage was never about marriage. It was always about what perks and benefits the homosexual community could get from the government. The irony is that in most cases, you actually get penalized for filing joint taxes. My wife and I have had to file separately 5 out of the past 6 years.

Wait...so you straight folks gave yourselves cash and prizes for being married...but you get upset because gay couples said "hey, we want that too"? Feel free to get rid of the goodies...gays will still want to get married.

They will? Then why mention the "goodies" if the real reason you want to get married is love?

There's a simple solution to the financial things homos SAY they aren't concerned with. Flat tax will solve that. If you want to give your money to someone when you die, go for it. It's your money. If you want whomever to make decisions about your care if you can't, go for it. It's your choice. However, if you say gays will still want to get married without the goodies involved, you shouldn't mention them as if they matter.

 

[P@triot]

They can and do have children...in EXACTLY the same manner that thousands of straight couples do. If a straight couple uses AI, IVF or adoption they aren't a "family"?

My wife and I have two children. We are their parents (legally too). We're not a family?

God Almighty, now we have to explain basic sex ed to liberals. My dear....two women cannot have children (even with IVF). Two men cannot have children (even with IVF). IVF requires sperm - two women cannot produce sperm no matter how hard they try. IVF requires an egg - two men cannot produce an egg no matter how hard they try. So there is no such thing as biological children of a gay couple.

Now...they could adopt of course. But that is incredibly selfish and so wrong. Every child deserves to grow up with a mom and a dad. Does that happen in the real world? Of course not. Too many selfish people who are more worried about themselves and their own happiness than the welfare of their children. But...intentionally placing children into that situation is insane. It's bad enough it happens anyway without creating it. And then they are forced to spend their most impactful years in a very unnatural situation where they are subjected to more bullying than normal as everyone they know wants to know why they have two mom's or two dad's.

Now - to answer your question "are you a family"? I would have to say no. You might be providing a wonderful home for your children (I have no idea who you are, where you live, how you parent, etc. so I can't really say one way or the other) - but I don't see how a homosexual couple adopting children equates to a "family". It might have some semblance of a family. It might even function as a family. But it's like saying because I have a combustible engine and 4 wheels I have a Lamborghini. There is a monumental difference between a Lamborghini and a Ford even if they have some similarities.

 

[Conservative65]

It's weird...I thought people stayed together because they love each other not because the man makes money. Guess I'm old fashioned?

Even couples who genuinely love each other go through rough times. Being financially dependent on each other caused them to stay together through those rough patches - a decision that they would often later be thankful for.

Liberals keep making it easier and easier for married people to separate. That's not a good thing.

So people should stay together for financial reasons even though they loathe each other? Is that a good thing?

If getting out of a marriage was a lot more difficult, people might not get into them so quickly.

When all four sets of great grandparents married, they said "till death do up part" and they did. Same for both sets of grandparents. Same for my parents. Today, too many go into it with the attitude that if it doesn't work out, they'll part ways.

 

[HappyJoy]

OK. I need some one to explain exactly how liberal policies destroyed families.

I heard a claim that public assistance chase the male parent out of the home--how exactly?

I really need some clarity on this claim. Is there some special rule to receiving that penalizes families with both parents? Is there some other argument?

Serious replies, please

Families might stay together if they are economically dependent on the male bread winner since the female is left to raising the kids the male is left to bring in the money. The traditional family structure really doesn't exist anymore but if you think of the family unit as that then welfare may end that economic dependence on the male. She then leaves when she realizes that their is another option than staying with him.

First, I don;t see any evidence this actually happens. Second, you really want to starve a family a couple of hundreds of dollars a month to teach them a lesson?

I knew of one couple that the female got all assistance for her and their 2 kids. as far as social services went, they didn't know he was in the picture. So he worked and made an income, they pretended he wasn't involved and she collected assistance. They were doing rather well.
I turned them in. They were investigated, she lost the assistance and they ended up getting married.

What a lovely story, thankfully it happened so you could recount what a hero you are. I really am not interested in anecdotal stories, especially when politically motivated.

I'm so glad you commented. I was just saying to a friend of mine, Gee, I really hope I get some deep and thoughtful insight from HappyJoy.
Thank you so much

You're welcome.

 

[P@triot]

Gay people getting married did not break up your, or anyone else's marriage.

A tremendous illustration of what simpletons the liberal minions are. He actually thinks family = gay marriage. Two completely and totally separate concepts.

You do stupid like nobody else antontoo. If I were a liberal, I would cringe every time you posted. Sadly though, most of them are too stupid to realize how embarrassing your posts are to the ideology.

How is it a separate concept? Gays, when they marry, become a family unit just exactly like straight couples with the ability to make decisions for each other.

What is your definition of a "family"?

The argument was that the promotion of homosexuality plays a role in destroying the family since homosexuals cannot procreate (thus they cannot create a family). His response to that was "gay people getting married did not break up your marriage". He didn't understand that nobody was claiming anything about homosexual marriage being legal. It's the fact that they are even homosexual which prevents actual family. That was the point.

 

[imawhosure]

It's weird...I thought people stayed together because they love each other not because the man makes money. Guess I'm old fashioned?

Even couples who genuinely love each other go through rough times. Being financially dependent on each other caused them to stay together through those rough patches - a decision that they would often later be thankful for.

Liberals keep making it easier and easier for married people to separate. That's not a good thing.

So people should stay together for financial reasons even though they loathe each other? Is that a good thing?

If getting out of a marriage was a lot more difficult, people might not get into them so quickly.

When all four sets of great grandparents married, they said "till death do up part" and they did. Same for both sets of grandparents. Same for my parents. Today, too many go into it with the attitude that if it doesn't work out, they'll part ways.

I have a two part question------------>

1. Are men and women treated equally in family court as far as physical custody of children when a divorce happens? ANSWER: No. The courts have claimed that both parents have equal rights, and are equal in the eyes of the law, and both can nurture the children as well as the other, and yet women get physical custody of the children more than 90% of the time.

2. With that being said, who has the upper hand when "same sex marriage" couples get a divorce? When it is two men, aren't they both terrible by courts statistics? And what about two women? Aren't they both equally as pure as the wind driven snow? Who/whom is the one to file "abuse charges" on the other? In a hetero divorce, it is the 1st thing a woman does to get leverage.

Anyway..........I contend that same sex couples; depending upon the sex of the child involved, send mixed signals to said child. Who is the role model? I believe they are certainly loving parents, but children are easily confused. Science has created a way for these couples to have children that biology did not. In my opinion, the left would like nothing more than for everyone to be gender neutral in their behavior. Biology doesn't work that way. Both men and women are hard wired, and hard wired differently.

We should all find it absolutely amazing, that the biggest leftists in this country; Hollywood............sell their wares to America virtually exclusively on sex. And yet, they are the ones who fight the hardest through crocodile tears, to convince everyone that gender has no meaning, while they laugh all the way to the bank. Kinda like Hillary and Wall Street, but that is another topic entirely!

 

[P@triot]

[Society has now been "destroyed" because I get to file joint taxes? What do you take for your hyperbole syndrome?

Well thank you for the rare moment of honesty. Gay marriage was never about marriage. It was always about what perks and benefits the homosexual community could get from the government. The irony is that in most cases, you actually get penalized for filing joint taxes. My wife and I have had to file separately 5 out of the past 6 years.

Wait...so you straight folks gave yourselves cash and prizes for being married...but you get upset because gay couples said "hey, we want that too"? Feel free to get rid of the goodies...gays will still want to get married.

Honestly - not at all. I have no problems with homosexuals wanting that as well (though I will say that government should stay the hell out of marriage as that is between two people, God, and the church). My problem all along is the problem I always have with the left - the lies. It was always about the benefits but they wouldn't admit it. They want to make it out to be some bullshit Hallmark sentimental nonsense and that was never the case.

The reason we have such a problem with debating in this country is not because of the "24x7 media" (which always gets blamed) but rather because liberals start with nothing but lies and build on it from there. I would have had infinite respect for liberals had they said "yes - I want homosexual marriage because of the benefits". At least we could have a real debate based on real merits.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

According to the 1965 Moynihan Report, the rate of out of wedlock black children was 23.6 percent, not 7 percent.

Nearly One-Quarter of Negro Births are now Illegitimate. Both white and Negro illegitimacy rates have been increasing, although from dramatically different bases. The white rate was 2 percent in 1940; it was 3.07 percent in 1963. In that period, the Negro rate went from 16.8 percent to 23.6 percent.

Liberals avoid talking about the current 72 percent (give or take) illegitimacy rate among blacks as much as possible.

However, it should be noted the birth rate in the black community has plummeted, and is at its lowest rate ever recorded. For married black women, the birth rate was higher than the married white birth rate in 1965, but is now lower than the white birth rate.

The unmarried birth rate for blacks has dropped, while the unmarried birth rate for whites has been rising.

The Moynihan report said that out of wedlock births were a major issue, children raised in them were more likely to be poor, uneducated and dependent on the government. So, of course, LBJ and the Dems made that the core of their strategy to create a permanent underclass beholden to the Dem party.

Grats, Guy. It worked!

 

[AntonToo]

You know what REALLY changed the "good ol'" family dynamics?

Freedom and education. When women are independent, have good jobs, have control when they get pregnant, have that hand up available as last resort, it's that much less they are willing to put up with.

So yes in that sense liberal movement and policies did contribute AND THAT'S A GOOD THING.

 

[Seawytch]

They can and do have children...in EXACTLY the same manner that thousands of straight couples do. If a straight couple uses AI, IVF or adoption they aren't a "family"?

My wife and I have two children. We are their parents (legally too). We're not a family?

God Almighty, now we have to explain basic sex ed to liberals. My dear....two women cannot have children (even with IVF). Two men cannot have children (even with IVF). IVF requires sperm - two women cannot produce sperm no matter how hard they try. IVF requires an egg - two men cannot produce an egg no matter how hard they try. So there is no such thing as biological children of a gay couple.

Now...they could adopt of course. But that is incredibly selfish and so wrong. Every child deserves to grow up with a mom and a dad. Does that happen in the real world? Of course not. Too many selfish people who are more worried about themselves and their own happiness than the welfare of their children. But...intentionally placing children into that situation is insane. It's bad enough it happens anyway without creating it. And then they are forced to spend their most impactful years in a very unnatural situation where they are subjected to more bullying than normal as everyone they know wants to know why they have two mom's or two dad's.

Now - to answer your question "are you a family"? I would have to say no. You might be providing a wonderful home for your children (I have no idea who you are, where you live, how you parent, etc. so I can't really say one way or the other) - but I don't see how a homosexual couple adopting children equates to a "family". It might have some semblance of a family. It might even function as a family. But it's like saying because I have a combustible engine and 4 wheels I have a Lamborghini. There is a monumental difference between a Lamborghini and a Ford even if they have some similarities.

Just at shows how very little you know in your narrow world. Straight couples use AI and IVF more than gays do.

And we ARE a family. Try to tell OUR kids differently.

 

[Seawytch]

Gay people getting married did not break up your, or anyone else's marriage.

A tremendous illustration of what simpletons the liberal minions are. He actually thinks family = gay marriage. Two completely and totally separate concepts.

You do stupid like nobody else antontoo. If I were a liberal, I would cringe every time you posted. Sadly though, most of them are too stupid to realize how embarrassing your posts are to the ideology.

How is it a separate concept? Gays, when they marry, become a family unit just exactly like straight couples with the ability to make decisions for each other.

What is your definition of a "family"?

The argument was that the promotion of homosexuality plays a role in destroying the family since homosexuals cannot procreate (thus they cannot create a family). His response to that was "gay people getting married did not break up your marriage". He didn't understand that nobody was claiming anything about homosexual marriage being legal. It's the fact that they are even homosexual which prevents actual family. That was the point.

Gays can and do procreate...destroying your "argument" (bigotry is a more apt description)

 

[Conservative65]

You know what REALLY changed the "good ol'" family dynamics?

Freedom and education. When women are independent, have good jobs, have control when they get pregnant, have that hand up available as last resort, it's that much less they are willing to put up with.

So yes in that sense liberal movement and policies did contribute AND THAT'S A GOOD THING.

The problem is many of those women (40%) are having bastard children they can't afford to feed. That means they aren't independent since they rely on someone else to do their job as a parent. So much for your opinion.

 

[Conservative65]

Gay people getting married did not break up your, or anyone else's marriage.

A tremendous illustration of what simpletons the liberal minions are. He actually thinks family = gay marriage. Two completely and totally separate concepts.

You do stupid like nobody else antontoo. If I were a liberal, I would cringe every time you posted. Sadly though, most of them are too stupid to realize how embarrassing your posts are to the ideology.

How is it a separate concept? Gays, when they marry, become a family unit just exactly like straight couples with the ability to make decisions for each other.

What is your definition of a "family"?

The argument was that the promotion of homosexuality plays a role in destroying the family since homosexuals cannot procreate (thus they cannot create a family). His response to that was "gay people getting married did not break up your marriage". He didn't understand that nobody was claiming anything about homosexual marriage being legal. It's the fact that they are even homosexual which prevents actual family. That was the point.

Gays can and do procreate...destroying your "argument" (bigotry is a more apt description)

Two males CANNOT procreate with each other and neither can two females. Biology lesson for today if you're capable of learning.