I got something for you Oliver Cromwell....To save yourself further ridicule
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 ...
What is the point of having offspring? Any moron can do that. It certainly should not be a point of pride.
Just because having children gratifies some personal desire on your part does not mean that everyone else needs the same kind of gratification. Nor does it contribute in a meaningful sense to the well-being of the country. Doing a job well in the abstract is worth what it is worth, the same as any other.
I've "looked" at him more often that you will ever know.
But the point you are making is absolutely irrelevant. Sorry you cannot see that.
Thinking differently does not mean to be thinking badly. Reflect on that.
He knew, by the inverse square law, that if he stayed far enough from women, he wouldn't be in danger of being attracted to one.
Yeah. And what does it have to do with marriage, anyway?
Oh, I read your nonsense completely and broke it down to its essence, that man ideally lives for society. It is a preposterous opinion you hold which you never attempted to defend.
You must be one of those people who confuses condescension for intelligence.
sad.
What is the point of having offspring? Any moron can do that. It certainly should not be a point of pride.
It's a sad testament to the current state of morals and ability to think that you do not realize that, for most people and for most of human history, having offspring meant not just giving birth to but raising children. And, no, not a single moron can do that.
It is quite shocking that you have no clue about the difference. But that is not entirely your fault: you've been betrayed by the previous generation that did not give a reason to learn these matters.
Just because having children gratifies some personal desire on your part There you go: what do you know about ME, and why can't you think about ideas without reference to messengers of those ideas? Ah, here too you've been betrayed: you probably have a diploma, but cannot think logically.
does not mean that everyone else needs the same kind of gratification. Nor does it contribute in a meaningful sense to the well-being of the country.
Here too you go again the basic truths that survived the millennia across cultures. If you do not pro vice offspring, it is my child that will be defending the country when you are old, taking you out of the fire, and helping you sit up in your nursing home. No offspring --- none of that is available. The clients you helped in your profession, your neighbors with whom you were friendly, your buddies whom you treated with loyalty and respect --- none of them will be available for those jobs.
That is why both civilized societies and primitive tribes encouraged childrearing. It has always been, up until a few decades ago, a self-evident truth: your children are yours to raise but they are an asset to the entire society.
What I said is far from being merely philosophical. The Western society is literally dying precisely the aforementioned eternal principle has been abandoned. Western Europe imports Muslims to do the jobs that children of European could do but cannot --- because they have not been born.
Finally, and most importantly, regardless of what one thinks of the foregoing, the following is wrong:
Doing a job well in the abstract is worth what it is worth, the same as any other.
The point actually is, why doing one's job well AND having children was considered a standard throughout American history, and now only the former suffices? And, even if it does suffice, how can one be proud of doing less than previous generations did routinely? Shouldn't doing more, not less, be a source of pride?
Leave the country, and you're a fugitive from the law. Quit working, and you get thrown in jail for being a deadbeat dad.
My brother's X filed for divorce, took his kids, and the judge required so much child support from him that he was relegated to renting a room in a house with two other guys. My husband got laid off from his job that paid very well, but he was still legally obligated to pay his X the same amount of child support predicated on his former job's salary. In order to change that, we had to hire a lawyer, at the expense of many thousands of dollars, to get child support recalculated.
As you can see, the unfairness of child support laws with regard to fathers is a real sore point with me. But child support is only money. Worst is the fact that ex-dads are completely at the mercy of the "custodial parent" -- i.e., their Xs -- with regard to any kind of parental authority they have over their kids, regardless of anything written in the divorce agreement. Visitation, for example, is easly "frustrated" by the X, and dad may go for months without seeing the kids because she makes it impossible. In order to have it remedied, he has to hire a lawyer (thousands of dollars) and bring it to court to force the mom to cooperate with visitation -- make the kids available, and so forth. There is nothing, nada, zilch, required of the custodial parent to prove that the child support money actually goes to the kids.
These moms can divorce dad for any reason whatsoever. He can be faithful, never have abused drugs, never have been physically or mentally abusive, yet if the mom gets bored, or feels "unfulfilled," she can divorce him, get child support, get the kids, and go on with her life and afford to remarry and have more kids. If dad wants to remarry, how can he afford to support a second family?
American males get screwed every which-way -- dads and the sons who lose them -- and have been for the past 35 years. And people wonder at a male youth music culture that has such contempt for females in its lyrics. I say it was a long time coming -- treat men like crap for three and a half decades, and there's going to be a backlash.
You are correct, of course.
An alternative explanation: his women were not massive enough to attract him sufficiently.
Well, I tried, but this is a complete nonsense.
I tried, I failed. You heard the noise and could not figure out the direction it was coming from. Next time when you butt into someone's conversation do that first: this will spare you from spewing nonsense and putting words into someone else's mouth.
Have a good day.
It always slays me when 'conservatives' get all preachy and declare that the point of having children is so that they can be exploited for the benefit of older generations. Oh, they rarely state it quite like that, but that is what they are saying.
Having children for the purpose of extracting some future benefit is the epitome of being self-centered -- fine moral stance, that. Like all the geezers who think that their children and grandchildren should be forced to pay for their Viagra.
In any event, that is not my position, and that is not what I said, so your grievance, although perhaps justifiable, is misdirected. I outlined the benefits that society derived has from having healthy and numerous offspring. That was in response to someone's statement to the contrary. I did NOT say that derivation of those benefits is the purpose of having children.
Thank you for you comment.
You're sure? What do you base it on? Before you answer, take a look at all of the countries where the law gives greater power to men & find one you think demonstrates it.
I don't think marriage turns anyone psycho. I think they were psycho before the marriage & the people marrying them turn a blind eye to it. Both genders are quite capable of being guilty of the kind of vicious behavior you talk about.
Wny would that be a disincentive to marry?!! How can anybody wonder why men stay single? From a purely economic standpoint, marriage is a huge risk--a lopsided contract without legal protection for the male. I suppose the best a guy can do, if he wants to marry, is find a woman who sees the difference (and irony) between morality and legality.
IMO, the BEST thing, is to get government out of the marriage business altogether. Let marriage contracts be negotiated the way business contracts are, and leave the government out of it until there is a contractual dispute. Then, the court should treat it as it would ANY other contract.
Separation of marriage and state--no legal recognition of "marriage" whatsoever, only contractual obligations. That is the best solution.
A side benefit would be that we would no longer have to be inundated with coverage of same-sex marriage on the news.
If you enter into it while you are in a rational state of mind, YES! OTOH, if you let your hormones make your selection for you, not on your life!
After reading some of your other statements, I realize you are not worth talking to. Enjoy your stay at FreeRepublic.
In contrast to this trend, rentals are going from single individual to two or more and all their friends.
"The question is: Is it a rational thing?"
Oh, absolutely not! There is no way, in this day and age, that anyone can conclude that having children is a rational act-- it simply isn't.
Nevertheless, I had my children in full knowledge that it was an act from my heart, not my head, and my children are
my finest accomplishment and, along with my husband, my greatest joy. I take my youngest off to college in 5 days-- seems almost impossible to believe that my days of raising children are over. But, when I look at them, I'm just awed and overwhelmed and grateful.
Life is just so much BIGGER than I ever thought it would be. The size of my joys, the size of my sorrows. Having children, participatinig in the succession of generations, is a large part of what makes my life big.
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.