BTW, I haven't met your kid either.
Posted on 08/17/2005 2:56:58 PM PDT by Constitutionalist Conservative
Single-adult households have displaced two-parent families with children as the most common kind of U.S. household, the Census Bureau reported yesterday.
The change demonstrates "the growing complexity" of American households, researchers said in a new report, "Examining American Household Composition: 1990 and 2000."
"It's breathtaking how many people still think that the 'mom, pop and two kids' is the majority of households," said Peter Francese, the founder of American Demographics magazine.
Nuclear-family households -- two married parents and a child -- were the most common as recently as 1990, when there were 25 million such households.
But by 2000, nuclear-family households fell to second place, both because there were almost a half-million fewer of these type of homes and because the number of single-adult households surged past 27 million.
Married households without children remained the third most common, with 20 million in 1990 and 22 million in 2000.
Mr. Francese, who has studied U.S. demographic trends for 35 years, said single-adult households are continuing to grow and might even hit 34 million by the 2010 census.
--Snip--
(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...
Tell the truth. There are enough women willing to have unmarried sex with all you men so you don't have make any committment whatsoever.
Naw, newbie. The standard of idiocy on this thread has been set by your comments.
Firstly, he did not sat anything about homeownership.
It was clear from the context of his comments. Some of us don't need to have everything spelled out to us in crayon.
Secondly, homeownership, which you apparently worship, is the "American Dream" manufactured by the Realtors Association in 1950s.
I do not worship home ownership. However, owning one's home has been a proud American tradition for centuries.
You, on the other hand, would prefer the welfare queen, popping out child after child, over the unmarried, homeowning taxpayer.
Thirdly, and most importantly, none of this is relevant to my post.
Your post was irrelevant to any rational discussion to begin with.
Having offspring, in of itself, is nothing to be proud of. Anything that a couple of drunken 16 year-olds can accomplish isn't something that inherently creates pride.
Well, I tried, but this is a complete nonsense.
I agree- it is complete nonsense. But you're the one spewing the nonsense.
You heard the noise and could not figure out the direction it was coming from.
We heard the noise and saw that it was spewing from your mouth (or keyboard, as the case may be). It's just that we don't have a sufficient level of ignorant pomposity to understand your drivel.
Word of advice, newbie: Exasperated condescension only qualifies as intelligence in liberal circles. You'll have to do better if you want to play with the big boys on a conservative website.
That they had me does not prove they are not. Indeed, the circumstances of my birth does not lend any support to the idea that they were particularly wise or responsible. But I don't see the relevancy.
I can see why a parent might have pride if their kids turn out exceptionally well if the parents had a big hand in making that happen (and getting knocked up does not constitute 'making it happen'). Pride should be the result of considerable acquired skill and effort that produces fine results; having pride in a windfall is misplaced.
just get a prenup and stop whining
Please do, by all means.
First, nobody is forcing "someone else's children" to do these things and I've certainly never asked anyone to. That is irrelevant (speaking of non sequitur). You breath air, and that is the fact. Nobody says that you are forces by any human to do so, and nobody asked you to do so. But you do, and you get a benefit from it.
"someone else's children" are being directly compensated, so that hardly constitutes a "handout".
What is compensation for loss of one's life? Does the two-year pay of an army sergeant if a full compensation for his loss of life? This is not to start the debate on the issue but to show that your statement is far from obvious.
It was not charity when I served in the Army and saved people's lives, I am sure it was not, but the rest of the sentence does not follow from the premise:
and no one owes me anything for my actions.
A truly kind person helps someone out of his own beliefs and does not ask for anything in return. It is often said that the giver is himself enriched in the process. But NOBODY --- not a single minister, priest or rabbi --- would ever agree with your statement: the recipient of kindness owes something. Thanks in the very least, and then one can get into the extent of those thanks.
This too has been a self-evident truth for millennia across cultures but abandoned in ours a couple of decades ago.
Your adult offspring have no obligation to you,
You are a true product of present-day American culture. Regardless of what I believe in and say, it is YOUR intellectual obligation to notice that all of human experience --- at least since Judeo-Christian values have been accepted --- flatly contradicts your statement. It is for you to reconcile it with the facts.
To honor one's parent is actually one of the main Commandments in Judeo-Christian morality.
It is the "Greatest" generation that, for the first time in our history," started to ship elderly parents to nursing homes. It is for you to explain why prior to that elderly parents have been taken care of by their adult offspring.
You were the first to use characterizations, allow me one: your statement is not only amoral (if not immoral) -- you don't seem to have reflected on morality for a long time (or visited your church or synagogue).
Now, I do not want to broaden the discussion further and would like to offer you the main point, saved for last. When you think of value, compensation, etc, you apply criteria for evaluating transactions of private goods (I want something you have and have something you want; we make a transaction according to our valuations; it's in self-interest of both parties; NOBODY owes anybody anything after we are done). What we were discussing, and what I hinted at originally, were PUBLIC goods (those that are characterized by indivisible consumption). Your logic does not apply to these. Read up on the distinction between private, club and public goods, and then think again about these matters.
And please, take a refresher course on Ten Commandments.
Mr./Mrs. Palmer. This was a continuation of a joke between to posters. Take it easy. Read a little. Most importantly, live a little and let live too.
There you go. You must be a real pride of FR.
Emasculation of men is the greatest robbery that feminists committed against women.
I never claimed to be the pride of anything.
But pompous intellectual masturbators (like you) grate on me.
Prenups can not address custody or child support. Furthermore, they are routinely set aside if the courts do not find them to be "equitable".
You are a fool if you think alimony waivers can/will not be set aside by the court.
I've served in the Army, I've saved people's lives at risk of my own, and I know as much about the Church and the Bible as you do (my father is a preacher with a graduate degree in said subject, so being 'raised in the Church' and that I may have been involved in the Church is an understatement). I've known poverty and sacrifice most of my life.
I am not some suburban twit spouting platitudes from behind my keyboard. You are asking hypothetical questions about people I have been; you may be pulling these questions out of your butt, but my answers are based on a connection with reality. Wishful thinking and vapid prognostication have no connection to the real world, so it is probably a good thing that you have no ability to try and force the real world to fit into the mold of your imaginary one.
And here!
BTW, I haven't met your kid either.
I blame women's lib. Women's lib led to:
* The largest single erosion in individual earning power and the greatest ever incremental increase in labor and knowledge worker availability ever in history. And of course, the lesson was not lost on employers.
* Male irresponsibility. If I am not tasked with being a breadwinner and the master of the house, then that means I no longer need to be responsible. In fact, why do I even need to be a husband, let alone a dad?
* The feminization of decision processes. Pacifism, globalism, diversity mania, and numerous other ills are definitely bolstered by the introduction of the points of view of women, and ardent feminazis in particular, into both the private sector and public halls of power and board rooms.
* Etc
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.