equality blooms with spring

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Strengthened "deadbeat dad" laws.

Argued for school vouchers so the children of single-mothers can have the type of education our president's children have.

Removed the marriage penalty from the tax code to disincentify divorce for strictly financial reasons.

Built child credits into the law to help low income families including single-parent households.

With Bill Clinton reformed welfare in an attempt to end the cycle of dependency which is the underlying cause of the problem.

Not to mention private organizations and churches that conservatives give their time and money to that help single-mothers.

What we're not keen on doing is just throwing money at the problem and calling it "compassion."



first, it's funny to think that school vouchers will mean that All Children Go To Sidwell, and all of your suggestions are about money, and i'm not sure how people on the left are just throwing money at a problem and calling it "compassion" -- seems to me that's a criticism of Bush.

but, putting that aside, aren't all these things far more productive than calling Adam and Steve a "threat"?
 
No, you haven't, because the former is just lip service, whereas you're bringing the instruments of law to bear on the other. You've done nothing at all to actually PREVENT unmarried or divorced heterosexuals from becoming or remaining parents. Of course any such efforts would have ethically unconscionable results, and when it's heterosexuals we're talking about you're able to see that.

Many states have laws against artificial insemination or in vitro fertilization of unmarried women or without the permission of the husband in married women.

Ease of divorce varies from state to state.

Anyway, some of us aren't looking for more "instruments of law," just a rollback to a modicum of societal disapproval with a smidgen of shame thrown in when it comes to divorce and out-of-wedlock births. And definitely less governmental incentives that encourage and subsidize such behavior. And we'd really be happy with the return of a little "Johnny strike up the band" to the ideal of one father and one mother as the best family arrangement for both children and society.

Against the current of the pop culture I know.
 
And we'd really be happy with the return of a little "Johnny strike up the band" to the ideal of one father and one mother as the best family arrangement for both children and society.

Against the current of the pop culture I know.

This is a summary of everything that's wrong with conservatives, right there in two sentences.
 
Anyway, some of us aren't looking for more "instruments of law," just a rollback to a modicum of societal disapproval with a smidgen of shame thrown in when it comes to divorce and out-of-wedlock births.

Do you really think shaming their parents -- and them -- helps these kids? Do you really think being an outcast -- because that's what you are advocating, no matter what you call it -- is good for the kids in these situations? Honestly, do you? Really??
 
Do you really think shaming their parents -- and them -- helps these kids? Do you really think being an outcast -- because that's what you are advocating, no matter what you call it -- is good for the kids in these situations? Honestly, do you? Really??

I think everyone realizes some divorces are for the best but... if a little shame means parents work harder at relationships and less children go through the agony that divorce brings, yes. If more children can have the blessing of a loving father, yes.

You dance around one good point however. I hesitate to use the term "illegitimate" because we really shouldn't stigmatize the children. They don't choose to be born into less than ideal situations.

There aren't any illegitimate children, certainly not in the eyes of God.
 
Many states have laws against artificial insemination or in vitro fertilization of unmarried women or without the permission of the husband in married women.
The former proscription is the only thing you listed that might qualify as actual legislation to prevent 'nontraditional families'. Can you give examples of some states whose laws actually specify no AID or IVF for unmarried women? Laws requiring the husband's consent aren't the same thing because they wouldn't apply if there was no husband.
 
Wow, I didn't know I was so succinct.

Yet Noam Chomsky has been trying to explain "everything that's wrong with conservatives" in book after book, article after article, for 40 years.

I simply mean the whole attitude that liberal viewpoints are nothing more than fads of popular culture, which is a childish attitude to have.
 
S
Argued for school vouchers so the children of single-mothers can have the type of education our president's children have.



With Bill Clinton reformed welfare in an attempt to end the cycle of dependency which is the underlying cause of the problem.


Further details are needed on these two. Gutting public education doesn't serve anyone, and providing corporations with indentured servants hardly helps children flourish.
 
Many states have laws against artificial insemination or in vitro fertilization of unmarried women or without the permission of the husband in married women.

Ease of divorce varies from state to state.

Anyway, some of us aren't looking for more "instruments of law," just a rollback to a modicum of societal disapproval with a smidgen of shame thrown in when it comes to divorce and out-of-wedlock births. And definitely less governmental incentives that encourage and subsidize such behavior. And we'd really be happy with the return of a little "Johnny strike up the band" to the ideal of one father and one mother as the best family arrangement for both children and society.

Against the current of the pop culture I know.



what does any of this have to do with two people seeking legal recognition for their relationship?

i do think you have a blinkered view of divorce -- that it only happens because selfish Mommy and selfish Daddy want to fuck other people, so off to daycare with you, Johnny! sometimes, Daddy beats the crap out of Mommy, and sometimes, Mommy and Daddy are so miserable and fight so much all the time that everyone is actually much happier with them under separate roofs.

and, as an aside, i've been told i'd make a wonderful mother.
 
We need a double-take smiley. :huh:



this reminds me of a time when i was marching in a pro-choice rally here in DC, and i was walking with two women, and they were holding signs, and an anti-choice protester pointed at one of the women and started shouting, "WHERE IS YOUR HUSBAND?!? DOES YOUR HUSBAND KNOW YOU ARE HERE?!?! WHERE IS YOUR HUSBAND!?!? HE WOULD BE ASHAMED OF YOU!!!"

it was kind of amazing. and we stopped for a moment and realized that, he was right, she shouldn't be doing things without her husbands permission. like driving, or even voting. sure, she has the right to vote, but he should at least have discussed her options with her and helped her to make the right decision about who to vote for. so we promptly left the rally and went home and baked brownies.

of course, she wasn't married. but, you know, she should have been.
 
Anyway, some of us aren't looking for more "instruments of law," just a rollback to a modicum of societal disapproval with a smidgen of shame thrown in when it comes to divorce and out-of-wedlock births.

Taliban_public_execution_of_Zarmeena_1999.jpg
 




a slippery slope argument, indeed.

you're right -- we get all paranoid about men marrying gay goats or an entire colony of ants because Adam and Steve can get married in most of New England. i see no reason why divorce shouldn't be the same thing. we know it's bad for children, so in order to protect children, we must prevent the divorce from happening. what would send a stronger message about the value we place on the ideal, sacred family structure of one man/one woman bonded for life than the taking of the life of those that violate that sacred family structure?

none of this, of course, is actually misogynist at it's core and obsessed with the sexual control of women, and that sexual control is violated in a gay couple when at least one of the men (shock! horror!) assumes the (weak, female, dirty) position.

maybe those Taliban are on to something! and those Shiite clerics in Iraq. it makes perfect sense to glue shut the anuses of gay men. got to teach them that they're men, right? it's all about the promotion of an ideal, right?

speaking of which, let's also stop men and women from having anal sex. that's not the ideal, right? that's not what the anus is "for," right? and, likewise, let's clamp down on oral sex.

again, not the ideal. it's best to make all but the ideal illegal, since we want to promote ideals.
 
Anyway, some of us aren't looking for more "instruments of law," just a rollback to a modicum of societal disapproval with a smidgen of shame thrown in when it comes to divorce and out-of-wedlock births.

Some of us aren't looking for more "intelligent answers," just a rollback to a modicum of societal disapproval with a smidgen of shame thrown in when it comes to ignorance and hypocrisy.

Why should I feel shame when I played no part in my divorce? How is society to judge me when they have no clue as to what exactly happened? I put 110% into my marriage and I realized that my 110% will only ever be 50% of the marriage, I cannot make up for the other person's lack of participation. Unless of course you think we should go back to the days where the woman can't divorce the husband. This is something YOU and those that believe like you do will never understand, yet you still insist to implement your ignorance.

Do you honestly believe your god is going to judge me for something I had no power over? But given your responses over the years, I'm guessing you do. You like your neat little boxes, and anything outside those boxes you want to ban or force shame upon.
 
i'd also like to point out that the state with the lowest divorce rate is ... Massachusetts.

it's the more culturally conservative, Bible Belt states that have much higher divorce rates.

it seems that the belief that "popular culture" and not economics, or getting married or pregnant too young, is the cause of divorce is, itself, a form of prejudice.

the studies in the Netherlands and Sweden bear this out. it's not the "traditional family" that's the constant in the success, or not, of a child. it's the security of that family that's raising the child, whether a married man and woman, an unmarried man or woman, a single parent, or a gay couple.

again, it's content, and not form, that matters.
 
Yes, it's from last year - sorry sorry sorry!

I found the story on another site, posted it here, went back to read comments on the other site and saw the comments full of "this is from 2008."

I hoped no one saw it before I edited the post.

BAH. :grumpy:
 
On Thursday, Uruguayan President Tabare Vazquez announced that his government will “allow gays to join the armed forces by scrapping military rules that define homosexuality as a disorder.” Vazquez explained his decision saying, “The Uruguayan government does not discriminate against citizens based on their political, ethnic or sexual identity.”

:up:

Uruguay leading by example.
 
She told her diverse East Dallas congregation that homosexuality is not a big issue in the Bible and that Christians should be more focused on subjects such as health care, greed in the corporate world, and the welfare of children.

East Dallas Methodist pastor counters First Baptist sermon with 'Why Gay Is OK' message | News for Dallas, Texas | Dallas Morning News | Latest News






As a side note, this reminded me of something I heard today, something that really perplexed me.

A Notre Dame alumni called into Rush today and said he was there at the commencement speech that Obama gave and said he was very conflicted that his daughter was going to Notre Dame, not just because Obama was allowed to give the speech but that the school in general was focusing too much on "social justice", "giving to the poor", and that "healthcare was a moral issue"... it saddened me that this man actually thought these things were actually contradictory to the Bible. It makes me wonder what Bible he's reading...:sad:
 
i'd also like to point out that the state with the lowest divorce rate is ... Massachusetts.

it's the more culturally conservative, Bible Belt states that have much higher divorce rates.
Meaningless.

Is that divorces per marriage or divorces per population? The divorce rate in Nevada per marriage is off the chart low... because everyone goes there to get married but gets divorced back home. If per population, then a state with a lower marriage rate would be expected to have an equally lower divorce rate. What is the marriage rate in Massachusetts compared to "Bible-belt states"?
Rates of divorce would also be affected by racial make-up, median age of first marriage, divorce laws and other factors.

You'll have to put your stats into context before I'll extrapolate any political meaning from them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom