equality blooms with spring

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by yolland

I'm not an innately superior parent or partner or citizen, I'm not Premium Grade Select anything;

well, no, not at least compared to other heterosexuals.

[yolland]

I understand and agree with your point, but I do think that questioning these underlying assumptions about the role of gender in "stable" families is necessary also. Otherwise it's too easy to fall back on the old, "Oh I don't judge gay people's relationships, I've known some wonderful gay couples blah blah blah, I just think the main reason why marriage is important is because of children, and children need a mother and a father." What children need is the consistent presence of responsible, mature adults who put the child's welfare first and are mutually committed to working together to make that happen. And two such adults are better than one, though one can work too with the right support from others.

[INDY500]

Originally Posted by yolland

On the topic of formal changes to the definition of 'family' and their effects...

There's currently a slew of articles out there about the latest CDC data showing that some 40% of US births are now to unmarried women.

Wake up--people who clearly share your regard for the value of committed marital relationships to society, to children, and to couples are NOT your enemy. I'm not sure all these unmarried parents actually intend any disrespect to marriage either, but if you're looking for a fire to fight, may I suggest that you've been looking the wrong way altogether.

Hey, Dan Quayle did almost 20 years ago and... what a shock, he was called anti-woman, vilified, ridiculed and told to mind his own business. The out-of-wedlock birth rate then, by the way, was 30%.

Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan warned of the breakdown of the black family in 1971 when their illegitimacy rate was around 25%. Now it's nearing 75% with higher rates in the inner cities. And with that comes the pathologies of drugs, gangs, crime, high drop out rates and sadly wasted young lives.

Two things. First, proof of the folly of the fiscally conservative/socially liberal theory. Sorry, but there are always costs to irresponsible behavior. You can try and prevent such behavior in the first place (and risk being called a hater, a fascist and or just mean) -- or pay for the damage they wreak later.

Second, proof that all opposition to same-sex marriage is not based in hate and homophobia. Most conservatives have been, and remain, just as outspoken about the threats to society and traditional marriage that out-of wedlock births and high divorce rates pose as we are about the future potential consequences of redefining marriage.

We were right about the first two.

[anitram]

Originally Posted by INDY500

Hey, Dan Quayle did almost 20 years ago and... what a shock, he was called anti-woman, vilified, ridiculed and told to mind his own business. The out-of-wedlock birth rate then, by the way, was 30%.

We were right about the first two.

I think you totally missed the point here.

The social studies that indicate that children born to single mothers in Scandinavia do not fare worse than those born to married couples indicates that there are other, significant social factors at play in the U.S. rather than your relatively simplistic view.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by INDY500

Second, proof that all opposition to same-sex marriage is not based in hate and homophobia. Most conservatives have been, and remain, just as outspoken about the threats to society and traditional marriage that out-of wedlock births and high divorce rates pose as we are about the future potential consequences of redefining marriage.

We were right about the first two.

for you to connect the plight of single mothers in the inner-city to two gay men living in Newton, MA, is absolutely, 100% based in hate and homophobia.

one has nothing -- nothing -- to do with the other.

[AliEnvy]

Originally Posted by INDY500

the future potential consequences of redefining marriage.

Which are what if I may ask?

[martha]

Originally Posted by INDY500

We were right about the first two.

And what have social conservatives done to support single-parent families?

[BVS]

Originally Posted by INDY500

Hey, Dan Quayle did almost 20 years ago and... what a shock, he was called anti-woman, vilified, ridiculed and told to mind his own business. The out-of-wedlock birth rate then, by the way, was 30%.

Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan warned of the breakdown of the black family in 1971 when their illegitimacy rate was around 25%. Now it's nearing 75% with higher rates in the inner cities. And with that comes the pathologies of drugs, gangs, crime, high drop out rates and sadly wasted young lives.

Two things. First, proof of the folly of the fiscally conservative/socially liberal theory. Sorry, but there are always costs to irresponsible behavior. You can try and prevent such behavior in the first place (and risk being called a hater, a fascist and or just mean) -- or pay for the damage they wreak later.

Second, proof that all opposition to same-sex marriage is not based in hate and homophobia. Most conservatives have been, and remain, just as outspoken about the threats to society and traditional marriage that out-of wedlock births and high divorce rates pose as we are about the future potential consequences of redefining marriage.

We were right about the first two.

Oi... I wouldn't even know where to start with such a post.

"First, proof of the folly of the fiscally conservative/socially liberal theory."

This isn't a complete thought, I have no idea what you are trying to say.

"Most conservatives have been, and remain, just as outspoken about the threats to society and traditional marriage that out-of wedlock births and high divorce rates pose as we are about the future potential consequences of redefining marriage."

Really? How many conservatives do you know that are pushing for stricter divorce laws? Tell me one.

[yolland]

Originally Posted by INDY500

Most conservatives have been, and remain, just as outspoken about the threats to society and traditional marriage that out-of wedlock births and high divorce rates pose as we are about the future potential consequences of redefining marriage.

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.

[INDY500]

Originally Posted by martha

And what have social conservatives done to support single-parent families?

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."

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by INDY500

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"?

[INDY500]

Originally Posted by yolland

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.

[phillyfan26]

Originally Posted by INDY500

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.

[indra]

Originally Posted by INDY500

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??

[INDY500]

Originally Posted by indra

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.

[anitram]

Originally Posted by INDY500

Many states have laws against artificial insemination or in vitro fertilization of unmarried women

Pretty outrageous.

Are these women also not permitted to have sex?

[deep]

I fly them in to CA, its the least I can do.

[INDY500]

Originally Posted by phillyfan26

This is a summary of everything that's wrong with conservatives, right there in two sentences.

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.

[yolland]

Originally Posted by INDY500

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.

[phillyfan26]

Originally Posted by INDY500

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.