Artful Dodger: But such an a statement can be said to be rather one dimensional regarding one parent families. Also, as such this could be a one generation event and has in that no real value.

It also has not looked at why there are single parent families, ignoring that times have changed and so have people. Many single mothers now know that they are not tied to living a lie such as "healthy two-parent family structures" if the appearance is just a mask.

The cost to kids living in a house that is broken..... how do you measure that in dollars?

Übergeek 바둑이: excellent!

Over here in the UK studies have been going on about a more basic problem than being a single mother or how rich you are.. a simple question..

... are you happy?

Happiness cannot be bought, it's a state of mind.

I find the issues of single parenthood interesting since I myself grew up with a single mother. My father died when I was 6, so my mother had to cope alone with 3 children. Of course, while my mother being a single mother resulted out of widowhood, she was also a teenage mother (my older brother was born when she was 16.)

I am also a "Hispanic", which can mean anything as long as Spanish is your first language.

When I was a kid we were not rich. We were poor, but not miserably poor. My mother worked hard, but she managed to provide us with everything we needed. I started working when I was 13 to help pull my weight around the house. All three of us got a university education, and eventually all three of us grew up and got on with our lives.

Were we more or less happy that other families? I would say that we were the same in the sense that we had our share of good and bad times. Maybe I did not have a father growing up, but unlike my neighbor next door, I never had to see my dad get drunk and abuse my family. I never had to see my dad go out and cheat on my mom, only to find out later that I had half brothers and sisters here and there. Some of my relatives have brothers and sisters that were born out of wedlock and that they never even met.

My family was deeply religious (even though I I never believed in God, even as a child. Somehow I failed to have any faith.) My mother has remarked that if instead of weekly catechism classes she had had sexual education classes, she would not have ended up marrying at the age of 17 and having her children so young.

I find the religious arguments such as promoting "abstinence" instead of sexual education to be for the most part a failure. People have tried to suppress human sexuality not for years, not for decades, not for centuries, but for thousands of years. Abstinence always was and will always be a failed teaching because it denies human nature and the sexual nature of human behaviour. No offense to the religious out there, but promoting abstinence is hypocritical and foolish. It is like asking people to stop eating. You can't expect people to give up a very human need.

To say that children in marriages do better is not necessarily true. There are times when a single-parent family will do better than a badly dysfunctional two-parent family. Single parents might not have the same economic resources, but then neither do married couples in which one of the partners drinks or uses drugs or gambles, etc. Then when parenting money is only half the battle. Any parent can tell you that. If money was the only determining factor, the middle class would NEVER fail to parent well. Money helps, but it is not the key to parenting well.

To say that marriage is the key to parenting well, is also a misconception. There are happy marriages, and unhappy marriages. There are loving marriages, marriages of convenience and marriages of obligation. People stay married for a multitude of reasons. We wish it would always be love, but that is not always the case. Some people can parent well and marriage is an asset in that parenting process. Others can parent well, and never be married (as in some common law relationships). Some married in church, and others had only a civil marriage. The correlation between marriage and good parenting is at best coincidental. Some people have actually parented better AFTER divorce because once divorced the couple stopped fighting and could actually concentrate on meeting their children's needs.

What our young people really need is good sexual education. That is more than saying: "These are contraceptives, now, don't get pregnant." Good sexual education should imply teaching young people responsibility and good judgement in their choices. Good sexual education should also aim to give young people some of the important skills in parenting and raising children. Stigmatizing single parents or criticizing them is destructive and hypocritical because it fails to point out ot the fact that while marriage is an asset, it is not necessarily the key to parenting well.

Artful Dodger:  Stats are biased.. yes.. single parents are usually in poverty levels due to it taking two incomes anyway to live the American dream.. hard to have those two incomes with a single parent.. Facts are.. Boys usually don't stick around.. they aren't usually mature enough to handle the responsibilities of children. Another fact.. kids are having sex around 10 years of age now.. any parent out there not wanting to take that in is in denial. At that age they simply just don't understand what can happen.. I am not saying having babies as a single girl is good.. I am just saying.. it is crazy for these girls to believe the boy is going to be there.. that is what we need to teach the girls..

Artful Dodger: Sorry.. but until boys start actually growing up.. why give out the false impression that a couple raises babies and they all grow up happily ever after.. Most people I would hope over the past 20 some years have observed that children are mostly being brought up by single moms.. okay.. sometimes the dads are raising them singly.. but, mostly the girls are ending up prego and the boys not really sticking around..

Bwild:  As usual it went over your head.. you took what I said as a direct hit when in fact it was an observation. I didn't directly say.. Bwild..

It might have been off a post of yours to which I got the observation.. however, I am not sure.. I have only a few mins to scan this board and didn't catch the actual post I was commenting to.. I find it funny how alot of people use the expression "God will punish those who deserve it" or similar.. so I openly asked..

has anyone ever died and witnessed personally God punishing a
"______________" (fill in with what ever appropriate label for which you
choose; exam. rapist, unibomber, wife beater).

Then off of that.. I commented on a persons own prison they will sometimes put themselves into.. especially if they blame themselves for a personal event in their life.. Some even live online 24/7 arguing about other peoples opinions trying to push their own opinion into someone else. I wonder.. do they do this in the real world? And why live in an world wide web prison.. so if that is odd humor to you.. then so be it. Interpret it how you wish. But, please.. don't take my comments as personal attacks. It's not always all about you..

Bernice: so true

"Wall street bailouts were a mistake. But there's far more to a story than that which Jon tried to present. Government regulations are more at fault than is bad management. Some banks failed because they were greedy. But they took advantage of the loose regulations given to them by the democrats. Fanny and Freddie failed because of direct government involvement in financial decision making. "

Big Brother speaks???

"The Wall Street Journal celebrated the agreement to end such restrictions with an editorial declaring that the banks had been unfairly scapegoated for the Great Depression. The headline of one Journal article detailing the impact of the proposed law declared, "Finally, 1929 Begins to Fade."

This comment underscores the greatest irony in the banking deregulation bill. Legislation first adopted to save American capitalism from the consequences of the 1929 Wall Street Crash is being abolished just at the point where the conditions are emerging for an even greater speculative financial collapse. The enormous volatility in the stock exchange in recent months has been accompanied by repeated warnings that stocks are grossly overvalued, with some computer and Internet stocks selling at prices 100 times earnings or even greater.

And there is a much more recent experience than 1929 to serve as a cautionary tale. A financial deregulation bill was passed in the early 1980s under the Reagan administration, lifting many restrictions on the activities of savings and loan associations, which had previously been limited primarily to the home-loan market. The result was an orgy of speculation, profiteering and outright plundering of assets, culminating in collapse and the biggest financial bailout in US history, costing the federal government more than $500 billion. The repetition of such events in the much larger banking and securities markets would be beyond the scope of any federal bailout."

History speaks???

.At first I thought this was funny ..... Then I realised the awful truth of it.



Tax his land, Tax his bed, Tax the table At which he's fed.



Tax his work, Tax his pay, He works for peanuts Anyway!



Tax his cow, Tax his goat, Tax his pants, Tax his coat.



Tax his tobacco, Tax his drink, Tax him if he Tries to think..



Tax his car, Tax his gas, Find other ways To tax his ass.



Tax all he has Then let him know That you won't be done Till he has no dough.



When he screams and hollers; Then tax him some more, Tax him till He's good and sore.



Then tax his coffin, Tax his grave, Tax the sod in Which he's laid.



When he's gone, Do not relax, It's time to apply The inheritance tax.



Accounts Receivable Tax

Airline surcharge tax

Airline Fuel Tax

Airport Maintenance Tax

Building Permit Tax

Cigarette Tax

Corporate Income Tax

Goods and Services Tax (GST)

Death Tax

Dog License Tax

Driving Permit Tax

Environmental Tax (Fee)

Excise Taxes

Federal Income Tax

Fishing License Tax

Petrol Tax (too much per litre)

Health Tax

Hunting License Tax

Interest Tax

Liquor Tax

Luxury Taxes

Marriage License Tax

Medicare Tax

Mortgage Tax

Personal Income Tax

Property Tax

Poverty Tax

Prescription Drug Tax

Real Estate Tax

Vehicle Tax

Retail Sales Tax

Service Charge Tax

School Tax

Vehicle License Registration Tax

Vehicle Sales Tax

Water Tax

Watercraft Registration Tax

Well Permit Tax

Workers Compensation Tax

ScarletRose: as usual...it doesnt relate to anything being said...so whats your point? is that directed at anyone in particular? or just your odd humor again?

Bwild:  I do believe I was expecting you to react on this post of mine.. since the subject line you are linking to refers to it..

ScarletRose: "has anyone ever died and witnessed personally God punishing a "______________" (fill in with what ever appropriate label for which you choose; exam. rapist, unibomber, wife beater)."


you might check with that Sodom and Gamorrah bunch.

Bwild:  reread it.. what did I actually say..

ScarletRose: whats your point?

ScarletRose:  It will be interesting to see if anyone answers yes. lol

has anyone ever died and witnessed personally God punishing a "______________" (fill in with what ever appropriate label for which you choose; exam. rapist, unibomber, wife beater).

Tuesday: … in your head

Übergeek 바둑이: Your last 2 posts are very well stated.  I agree with you.

DNA selection....

Welcome to a "Brave New World" and the Bokanovsky process.

Übergeek 바둑이: I agree with the "political correctness" issues being absurd in most cases.
its like these suicide bombers. easy to stop this activity. when someone attaches a bomb to their person...get their dna..trace their family tree...assassinate the entire family. I believe it would slow down that kind of activity immensely. but the liberals,tree huggers,dont step on bugs cause they have feelings too....would never allow it. mean time people keep dying.

Bwild:

> if I dont agree with homosexuals....dont call me a "homophobe"

I think the problem is that North American society is caught up in a search for political correctness. Everything we say has to be "politically correct".

There are people who disagree with homosexuality and will do so in a non-pathological manner. That is, they will express their opinion and avoid homosexuals without being destructive.

Then there are those who express almost a morbid fear of homosexuality. "If a gay man comes near my son, I will kill him." "God punishes homosexuals, just like he punishes murderers and rapists." There is a fear there, and homosexuality is equated with sin and crime. In some cases some of these men will go out and openly attack and even kill homosexuals.

In extreme cases, those who prosecute homosexuals are homosexuals themselves. Their "homophobia" is a veiled attempt at hiding their own ambiguous sexuality. The most famous case is J. Edgar Hoover, the founder of the FBI. For decades he kept secret files on the rich and powerful and documented their homosexuals relationships, while at the same time having a "brotherly" relationship with Clyde Tolson.

Culture is a big factor too. While North American society is more open, it is also deeply religious. Religious morality plays a role on how people see homosexuality. In some countries homosexuality is a crime under the law. Then is some societies homosexuality was acceptable and even encouraged (for example, ancient Greece, 15th century Florence).

One thing is certain. Our society lives in denial. It tries to hide homosexuality and refuses to accept homosexuality as a part of every society in the world going back for thousands of years. I do agree that political correctness can be taken too far. People should just lighten up on the whole issue. Let people live their lives as they see fit, without the state imposing its views of morality on human sexuality.

Übergeek 바둑이: imo...both are wrong. if two people of the same gender want to be together..oh well...just dont expect me to accept it. if a man or woman cheats on their spouse...dont expect me to agree with that either,and because I live in a free country...I can express my opinion on the matter.
I just saw a commercial on tv saying "dont say "thats gay". they need one that says"if I dont agree with homosexuals....dont call me a "homophobe".
why? 1...I'm not afraid of homosexuals
2...I'm not homosexual
3...I have a right to voice my opinion in an adult matter

Ferris Bueller: "Sexual orientation has no moral connection or equivelency to pedophilia or incest, which are non-consentual violations of children. "
non-consensual is rape. big difference.

Two homosexual men are married and live happily and faithfully for their entire lives. They never cheat on each other or harm one another or anyone outside their relationship.

A heterosexual man is married. He beats up on his wife. Then he goes on to have mistresses several times during his life. Is he better or worse than the two homosexuals in the example above?

A church pastor preaches against homosexuality. Every week he collects money from his congregation. After a while he becomes wealthy and starts using his money to have affairs with several women. Is he better or worse than the two homosexuals above?

Note that the examples I gave are not unknown or rare. The question is: does morality have anything to do with sexual orientation? What is worse? A faithful homosexual or a dishonest heterosexual?