Posted on 05/15/2009 6:11:14 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
She presents an ‘either/or’ argument, when it is an ‘and’ argument.
When you devalue marriage and family, it becomes more acceptable to skip marriage. When you redefine marriage to cover any perversity, why care about marriage?
I’d also point out it is far easier to stop gay marriage politically, than it is to get lower class females and males to treasure marriage. For lower class blacks and hispanics, and increasingly for whites, the NORM is getting pregnant by the latest boyfriend, whom no one expects to marry or care for anyone.
I’m all for cutting off welfare to unmarried parents. Do you want to guess how many people in America agree with me? You could count them on the fingers of one hand...
agenda ping?
When you have adults with no morals you get children with no morals. It seems alot of kids today have no dreams, no direction, no idea how they are going to support themselves. So the only thing they can do in their life that doesn’t require a lot of effort is start a family. “This baby will love me unconditionaly”. Can’t tell you how often I hear that excuse. So they are raising children with even fewer morals or direction.
Yeah, they actually are married to Uncle Sam. And of course they vote Rat in overwhelming numbers so the goodies don’t stop.
I agree - and the majority go along with it (and complain), because the alternative is to address morality. Most efforts to prevent pregnancy or childbirth have a limited rate of success, and one reason is that many people (rightly) reject the pro-death contention that pregnancy and children are bad things. It is not a sin to be pregnant, not wrong to give birth.
What is wrong (cue gasps of horror) is engaging in sexual relationships outside marriage, and this is wrong whether or not a child is conceived or born. But "we" as a society can't say that, because that would require addressing our own behavior, instead of that of some "other" group such as teenagers, minorities, immigrants, and so on.
BUT, all that aside, the evidence is clear that the incidence of unmarried childbearing directly correlates with the amount of financial benefit for same. The young women doing this may not be "smart," but they are acting rationally based on their perception of the incentives. When the incentives are changed, the behavior changes as well, even among the least educated and lowest social class.
I think many of the times alcohol and other party favors come into play..young people like to party. Circumstances occur that might of not led to the conclusions as when sober where poor judgment has not gone out the window.
Happens in the stereotypical best of families, not just the poorest.
Has not Obama dismissed abstinence programs?
Comical that the government believes people can make their own judgments in the sex discussion arena, but the Heavens open up, thunder roars and laws are brought to the table, on both state and federal levels, to be HR-Implemented if you eat french fries, drink a soda pop, smoke or eat Cheerios (especially both at the same time!), etc. Even wear a seat belt or helmet. Government's job is to protect the taxpayer and non-taxpayer. ;)
You would be surprised how many people agree with you. I have been saying this for years. Also if you want welfare get a job, or it stops.
We get a tax credit for 8 children, too, but that has nothing to do with our decision to have them, rear them, and educate them. The amount certainly isn’t relevant to what we actually spend!
I think that’s a wrong use of the tax system, anyway, and that tax rates and general interference should be lowered for everyone.
The US is great for straining out gnats and missing the logs. We let drugs be sold in every town and we worry about talking on the cell phone when one is driving; etc.
One thing to keep in mind -
rank and file leftists/liberals don’t believe “incentives” have any effect on behavior. “Why” took me a year’s study, so don’t expect it in one post.
It’s just part of their worldview that we have to keep in mind when discussing any issue.
You could ask them, "Do you love your parents unconditionally, and provide them with all the emotional support they need in their lives? If not, why do you expect a child to do this for you?"
Thomas Sowell explains it.
You got it, and that’s substantially where I got it.
I re-read “Conflict of Visions” after a year-long worldview study, and really GOT IT.
The disregard, or even disbelief, in incentives comes from their belief in “tradeoff-free solutions”. Negative behavior in response to the incentives created from one of these “solutions” is a tradeoff, and best ignored or dismissed as not a result of the “solution”.
Why should marriage be respected when it is just something else defined and managed by the gubberment? How many folks respect their welfare checks?
Freegards
I suspect that after the educational level of the parents, the presence (or absence) of two parents in the child's early life is more of the predictor of their economic and social well-being than the martial status at the time of birth of the child.
I spent four months, iirc (the library let me keep it ;-), with the earlier version, “Knowledge and Decisions.” That was a life-changing book for me, even though I was already a fan of Dr. Sowell’s. He is America’s greatest living intellectual, and I hope he lives to be 112!
.
The largest 'Professional Class' failure ever ! Black Clergy ?? ( See Je$$e Jaxson etc etc etc )
And some folks say there is no culture war.
Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson does a real number on the “establishment” black religious clique.
BTTT
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.