Reducing inequality: Not more government - More marriage.

[chanel]

I have two sons who have been reminded for years that anyone they knock up, they will marry. So they better love her.

Son #1 busts my chops constantly saying he thinks he'll make a great "baby daddy" someday and knows I will fall in love with his little bastards. Fortunately, both my kids are serial monogamists and have great taste in girls.


Unwanted pregnancy is sooooo preventable. It has to stop. Unwanted children are a national disgrace.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Does that go for the queers too?

Getting pregnant out of wedlock?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I had read somewhere, that in the 1950's, out of all marriages in the USA, 60% of those that had children within the first year of marriage, their child was born before 7 months of marriage. What's that mean folks? It means these women and men were expecting a baby before they tied the knot. So to me, although it is looser than goose today, it was pretty loose for the times back then too! BUT the difference was that MEN married the girl they got pregnant....no?

Ultimately, they got married.

 

[Care4all]

I seriously question the number.....

But that does not mean that I don't believe that men and women were any less horny back then than they are now.

However, they got married. For better or for worse. When women hit the workforce, they were less likely to stay in tough marriages (not necessarily bad marriages....tough ones).

We've really dropped the ball in a lot of ways.

Do women today really enjoy that men don't show them respect ?

Do men of today really enjoy being with women they don't respect?

You are not a guy, are you ?

Respect isn't in our genes. It has to be learned. And we are doing a piss poor job of teaching young men what it is.

No not a guy, I am as girly as girls come...strong, but very happy with being female!

 

[ConzHateUSA]

I have a friend who works in an inner city school. She is white and has five kids. Her story:

A young black 1st grader is talking to her. He asks how many kids she has. She says five. He asks how many "daddies" to the kids have. She says one. The kid says "bulls**t, ain't no two kids have the same daddy."

She says that to talk to them, it is pretty much accepted that no two kids from the same woman has the same father, but that the same guy can father several kids by different mothers.

And some want us to think that is O.K.

I teach high school and the majority of my students come from single parent homes. The students who have relationships with their fathers (or have siblings with the same last name) talk about their dads constantly. They like others to know they have one. It's both sweet and terribly sad.

My sister teaches Special Ed, Middle school, in a very poor white area of Florida. A few years ago when I was down there on vacation, I volunteered at her school and was able to work within her class room. She had about 25 students, and none of the students had both parents still married or with each other EXCEPT, this one 13 year old boy, who was adopted at birth by a male Gay couple....he still had both of the same parents....I had about 10 students that i had in a group and was teaching them how to crochet while my sister had parent/teacher meetings that were scheduled that day....he was my best student and the sweetest of the bunch as far as personality!

Many of the student's pappy was living with other student's mothers and mothers living with other kid's daddies....2 girls had a mother that was a prostitute to make ends meet....WHAT A MESS.....It was like a regular ole swap meet as far as parents were concerned....I walked away shocked, and cried that night when thinking about it....my sister's heart breaks every day she works with them....and most all of these impoverished white kids attend church on Sunday and want creationism taught in school...I'm just saying....these are the poor people that I have met in person.

what, i thought all kids living with single mothers were Black?

i mean, if you listen to racist shit bag terrorist frightened assholes, anyway

 

[nodoginnafight]

Does that go for the queers too?

I do not see this as a gay/straight issue.

Marriage isn't a gay/straight issue...or it shouldn't be. The OP is calling for more marriage. Does that include us or not?

OP doesn't include a stable gay marriage in his/her formula. Made that quite clear in the original Post.

 

[Seawytch]

Does that go for the queers too?

Getting pregnant out of wedlock?

Sure, why not? I got pregnant "out of wedlock" because there was no "wedlock" for me at the time.

 

[Papageorgio]

Does that go for the queers too?

When you've got something useful to contribute, I won't think of you as a the jackass you seem to be.

You can't answer the question either? The OP is calling for more marriage right? I'm asking if that includes us or not. Does it? Does the call for more marriage apply to all or just the heterosexuals?

I'd love to jump on y'alls "more marriage" bandwagon, but not if you make me trail behind the cart.

No you wouldn't, because you have an agenda that supersedes your wanting to help. You want your agenda accepted no matter the results. You care not for the mothers or the children, you only care about your agenda. It is reflected in your attitude in this entire thread.

 

[Peach]

Does that go for the queers too?

I do not see this as a gay/straight issue.

Marriage isn't a gay/straight issue...or it shouldn't be. The OP is calling for more marriage. Does that include us or not?

It should, and I know "unwed" mothers who do well in life, one a Corrections Officer, soon to graduate from college, another owns a busy restaurant nearby. In no way a shame, but the mothers must realize the WORK they took on when giving birth.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The solution to reducing inequality isn’t more government, but more marriage. Although the government has no power to make people marry before having children, branding marriage a social justice issue might inspire liberals to focus less on social programs and more on that stifling, patriarchal institution called the traditional family.

Conservatives are indeed an intolerant, authoritarian lot. And they’re very fearful: fearful of change, diversity, and dissent. The authoritarian conservative disdains individual liberty and seeks to compel conformity.

Who are conservatives to dictate what is or is not a ‘traditional family.’

Traditional families have two parents, one parent, and same-sex parents.

 

[Listening]

The solution to reducing inequality isn’t more government, but more marriage. Although the government has no power to make people marry before having children, branding marriage a social justice issue might inspire liberals to focus less on social programs and more on that stifling, patriarchal institution called the traditional family.

Conservatives are indeed an intolerant, authoritarian lot. And they’re very fearful: fearful of change, diversity, and dissent. The authoritarian conservative disdains individual liberty and seeks to compel conformity.

Who are conservatives to dictate what is or is not a ‘traditional family.’

Traditional families have two parents, one parent, and same-sex parents.

Is there any way you don't post something that sound so pompous ?

 

[g5000]

For the most part in this country, when women were shunned for being pregnant out of wedlock, abortion was not legal. (And the men who got the girl pregnant were shunned and shamed as well, in to marrying whomever they got pregnant...it's not that women were not screwing before marriage back then like some seem to imply, but it was the MEN who took responsibility for knocking up their girl back then, and THIS is what has changed imho)

Today, abortion is legal and it could be a fine line in shunning the women for being pregnant and keeping their child to be, or shunning them enough to push them through shame, in to keeping it hush hush and having an abortion.

Unless that is all fine and dandy with the right wing, they better be careful of what they propose regarding this issue...think it through from all angles....

Modern technology has made the solution to the out of wedlock problem and the abortion problem very easy to achieve if we really want to.

Birth control education.

Too many couples are not using any birth control of any kind when having sex, or they are misusing it. 46 percent of all abortions are the result of the non-use of birth control during the sex which led to the unwanted pregnancy. No doubt that is a factor in unwanted pregnancies that aren't aborted as well.

Of course, before birth control existed and abortion was legal, this was a problem, too.

So what has changed?

Something obviously has since out of wedlock births are skyrocketing.

Are we more promiscuous now?

I doubt that. The syphilis and gonorrhea epidemics of history suggest we have always been promiscuous.

Have our morals shifted?

I think so.

I think whoever said that getting a girl pregnant in days of old automatically meant getting married was right on target.

Today, it is not automatic.

I have serious doubt the rate of unintended pregnancies has changed over the centuries. With the advent of birth control, it has probably declined, actually.

So it has to be something else. And that something else appears to be the automatic marriage kicker that came with unwanted pregnancies. That's what has changed.

 

[g5000]

what, i thought all kids living with single mothers were Black?

i mean, if you listen to racist shit bag terrorist frightened assholes, anyway

I have never heard anyone say all single parent families were black.

But it is a fact the rate of black single parent families greatly exceeds all other demographics.

 

[Seawytch]

When you've got something useful to contribute, I won't think of you as a the jackass you seem to be.

You can't answer the question either? The OP is calling for more marriage right? I'm asking if that includes us or not. Does it? Does the call for more marriage apply to all or just the heterosexuals?

I'd love to jump on y'alls "more marriage" bandwagon, but not if you make me trail behind the cart.

No you wouldn't, because you have an agenda that supersedes your wanting to help. You want your agenda accepted no matter the results. You care not for the mothers or the children, you only care about your agenda. It is reflected in your attitude in this entire thread.

And yet my "agenda" isn't that far removed from your own if more married people is the goal you seek. I fully support the idea of a stable, secure family structure and marriage is a fundamental part of that. Married people are happier...http://www.livescience.com/20649-married-people-happier.html

People who are in stable married relationships have better child rearing outcomes. http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPorta...&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=ED476114

Why wouldn't I want to be a part of that and why would any freedom loving conservative want to deny a tax paying, law abiding citizen that right?

At its best, it [marriage] is a stable bond between two individuals who work to create a loving household and a social and economic partnership. We encourage couples to marry because the commitments they make to one another provide benefits not only to themselves but also to their families and communities. Marriage requires thinking beyond one's own needs. It transforms two individuals into a union based on shared aspirations, and in doing so establishes a formal investment in the well-being of society. The fact that individuals who happen to be gay want to share in this vital social institution is evidence that conservative ideals enjoy widespread acceptance. Conservatives should celebrate this, rather than lament it.~ Theodore Olson.

 

[Seawytch]

what, i thought all kids living with single mothers were Black?

i mean, if you listen to racist shit bag terrorist frightened assholes, anyway

I have never heard anyone say all single parent families were black.

But it is a fact the rate of black single parent families greatly exceeds all other demographics.

Actually, Native American comes pretty damn close.

United States
Non-Hispanic White 24%
Black or African American 66%
American Indian 52%
Asian and Pacific Islander 16%
Hispanic or Latino 41%
Total 34%

http://datacenter.kidscount.org/data/acrossstates/Rankings.aspx?ind=107

 

[Papageorgio]

You can't answer the question either? The OP is calling for more marriage right? I'm asking if that includes us or not. Does it? Does the call for more marriage apply to all or just the heterosexuals?

I'd love to jump on y'alls "more marriage" bandwagon, but not if you make me trail behind the cart.

No you wouldn't, because you have an agenda that supersedes your wanting to help. You want your agenda accepted no matter the results. You care not for the mothers or the children, you only care about your agenda. It is reflected in your attitude in this entire thread.

And yet my "agenda" isn't that far removed from your own if more married people is the goal you seek. I fully support the idea of a stable, secure family structure and marriage is a fundamental part of that. Married people are happier...http://www.livescience.com/20649-married-people-happier.html

People who are in stable married relationships have better child rearing outcomes. http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPorta...&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=ED476114

Why wouldn't I want to be a part of that and why would any freedom loving conservative want to deny a tax paying, law abiding citizen that right?

At its best, it [marriage] is a stable bond between two individuals who work to create a loving household and a social and economic partnership. We encourage couples to marry because the commitments they make to one another provide benefits not only to themselves but also to their families and communities. Marriage requires thinking beyond one's own needs. It transforms two individuals into a union based on shared aspirations, and in doing so establishes a formal investment in the well-being of society. The fact that individuals who happen to be gay want to share in this vital social institution is evidence that conservative ideals enjoy widespread acceptance. Conservatives should celebrate this, rather than lament it.~ Theodore Olson.

All for civil unions, but I don't base whether I support a cause by them agreeing to my conditions. Your own words tell the story more than you reply.

You can link all the stuff you want, my contention is whether marriage or civil unions are good or bad, it is that you placed a condition on it, which shows that you don't care.

That's fine by me, you have your choice, that is what makes us a great nation.

 

[buckeye45_73]

Does that go for the queers too?

Getting pregnant out of wedlock?

Sure, why not? I got pregnant "out of wedlock" because there was no "wedlock" for me at the time.

So how did that work? I mean you said you were a lesbian, did you switch hit? You know the Gay groups dont like bisexuals (and do you have a gay and hetero gene fused together?)

 

[Old Rocks]

The largest predictor of child poverty is a single-parent household. Family instability, and not racism or bias, has created different classes of children. And since liberals are big on class warfare and social justice, they should wage war on single parenthood and make marriage — the legal union between one man and one woman — a social justice issue. In the name of human rights, strongly recommend people marry before having children. Marriage would decrease children’s risk of poverty and the social pathologies associated with growing up in a home with no father.

Liberals spent years undermining the family. Now Daddy Government has replaced irreplaceable biological fathers, and the result is inequality. The irony is bitter. In the warped world of traditional family opponents, however, it seems a far, far better thing that a woman and her children depend on the government instead of a husband and father.

The solution to reducing inequality isn’t more government, but more marriage. Although the government has no power to make people marry before having children, branding marriage a social justice issue might inspire liberals to focus less on social programs and more on that stifling, patriarchal institution called the traditional family.

That irony is sweet.

PJ Media » Marriage: A Social Justice Issue?

Well now, I have considered the solution, but my wife and the government states that one wife is all I get. See, Chanel, I do agree with you occasionally. The government is in the way of a perfectly rational solution to the problem.

 

[chanel]

You'd like more than one wife? Are you sunni man?

It just seems to me that for all the bloviating about income inequality, social justice, white privilege, etc., this simple remedy is often overlooked.

If marriage became the norm, instead of the exception, amongst poor people, imagine what a better country we could be.

a. less abuse and neglect
b. less drug abuse
c. less crime
d. less drop-outs

Believe it or not, some of us do "care about the children".

How do we turn that around? Or should we just not care?

 

[Seawytch]

No you wouldn't, because you have an agenda that supersedes your wanting to help. You want your agenda accepted no matter the results. You care not for the mothers or the children, you only care about your agenda. It is reflected in your attitude in this entire thread.

And yet my "agenda" isn't that far removed from your own if more married people is the goal you seek. I fully support the idea of a stable, secure family structure and marriage is a fundamental part of that. Married people are happier...Married People Are Happier | Marriage & Happiness | LiveScience

People who are in stable married relationships have better child rearing outcomes. Are Married Parents Really Better for Children? What Research Says about the Effects of Family Structure on Child Well-Being.

Why wouldn't I want to be a part of that and why would any freedom loving conservative want to deny a tax paying, law abiding citizen that right?

At its best, it [marriage] is a stable bond between two individuals who work to create a loving household and a social and economic partnership. We encourage couples to marry because the commitments they make to one another provide benefits not only to themselves but also to their families and communities. Marriage requires thinking beyond one's own needs. It transforms two individuals into a union based on shared aspirations, and in doing so establishes a formal investment in the well-being of society. The fact that individuals who happen to be gay want to share in this vital social institution is evidence that conservative ideals enjoy widespread acceptance. Conservatives should celebrate this, rather than lament it.~ Theodore Olson.

All for civil unions,

Yeah, me too. For everyone. I can't support Civil Unions only for gays and lesbians.

but I don't base whether I support a cause by them agreeing to my conditions. Your own words tell the story more than you reply.

Yeah, color me selfish for not wanting to support an agenda that doesn't want to include me.

You can link all the stuff you want, my contention is whether marriage or civil unions are good or bad, it is that you placed a condition on it, which shows that you don't care.

Asking if this drive for more marriage includes us is hardly putting a "condition" on it.

That's fine by me, you have your choice, that is what makes us a great nation.

No, in 44 States I don't have "my choice" so that, unfortunately, makes us a slightly less great nation. Fortunately, it won't be the case forever.