Political Forums
Forum Notice

Go Back   Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Forum > Politicians

Politicians For topics and discussions about politicians, political leaders, or political figures


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old March 3rd, 2012, 11:19 AM   #1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 8,333
An insightful column by Charles Blow:



Quote:
http://www.nytimes.c...?pagewanted=all



Rick Santorum wants to bring sexy back ... to the 1950s, when he was born.



That is because Santorum seems to have an unhealthy fixation with, and passionate disdain for, the 1960s and the sexual freedoms that followed.



To fully understand Santorum’s strident rejection of the 1960s, it’s instructive to recall a speech and question-and-answer session he gave in 2008 to a course on religion and politics at the Oxford Center for Religion and Public Life in Washington.



The speech was interesting, but the answers he gave to the questions that followed were truly illuminating.



In response to a question about the kinds of words he had heard “attached to religion and politics” during his years in the Senate, Santorum ventured off onto sex:



“It comes down to sex. That’s what it’s all about. It comes down to freedom, and it comes down to sex. If you have anything to do with any of the sexual issues, and if you are on the wrong side of being able to do all of the sexual freedoms you want, you are a bad guy. And you’re dangerous because you are going to limit my freedom in an area that’s the most central to me. And that’s the way it’s looked at.”



Next a commenter falsely claimed that my colleague Maureen Dowd “said that the Republican Party is trying to repeal Woodstock.” It was a misrepresentation of a 1998 column she had written about the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal. What she actually wrote was:



“Since Watergate, there has been a pendulum of partisan revenge. And, right now, Republicans want their payback for Watergate, for Bork, for Iran-contra, even for Woodstock. Like Kenneth Starr, the Republicans are attempting to repeal the 1960s.”



But let’s not let facts slow us down. Santorum, predictably, deflected back to sex:



“Woodstock is the great American orgy. This is who the Democratic Party has become. They have become the party of Woodstock. They prey upon our most basic primal lusts, and that’s sex. And the whole abortion culture, it’s not about life. It’s about sexual freedom. That’s what it’s about. Homosexuality. It’s about sexual freedom. All of the things are about sexual freedom, and they hate to be called on them. They try to somehow or other tie this to the founding fathers’ vision of liberty, which is bizarre. It’s ridiculous. That’s at the core of why you are attacked.”



The next question was: “Do you see any possibility for a party of Christian reform, or an influx of Christian ideas into this [Democratic] party?”



Santorum’s answer included what? That’s right: Sex!



While explaining what he saw as a shift in the Democratic Party away from “blue-collar working-class folks with traditional values” Santorum said:



“What changed was the ’60s. What changed was sex. What changed was the social and cultural issues that have huge amounts of money because if you look — I haven’t seen numbers on this, but I’m sure it’s true — if you go socioeconomic scale, the higher the income, the more socially liberal you are. The more you know you can buy your way out of the problems that sexual libertinism causes you. You have an abortion, well, I have the money to take care of it. If I want to live an extravagant life and get diseases, I can. ... You can always take care of everything. If you have money, you can get away with things that if you’re poor you can’t.”



The questions finally got around to asking about sex directly, much to Santorum’s delight, I’m sure. To one of those questions Santorum answered in part:



“Sex is a means. Evolution is a means. And the aim is a secular world. It’s a, in my opinion, a hedonistic, self-focused world that is, in my opinion, anti-American.”



Santorum may now cloak his current views in Catholic fundamentalism and Constitutional literalism, but, at their root, they are his reaction to, and revulsion for, the social-sexual liberation that began in the 1960s.



In fact, Santorum’s distaste for the sexual revolution of the 1960s leaks over into a deep dislike of everything that the 1960s represents
. Santorum continued in the question-and-answer session:



“You’re a liberal or a conservative in America if you think the ’60s were a good thing or not. If the ’60s was a good thing, you’re left. If you think it was a bad thing, you’re right. And the confusing thing for a lot of people that gets a lot of Americans is, when they think of the ’60s, they don’t think of just the sexual revolution. But somehow or other — and they’ve been very, very, clever at doing this — they’ve been able to link, I think absolutely incorrectly, the sexual revolution with civil rights.”



Maybe that’s why he has such a dyspeptic reaction to the 1960 speech by John F. Kennedy, in which he said that “I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute.”



Santorum said that the speech made him want to throw up because it was an “an absolutist doctrine that was abhorrent at the time of 1960.”



Nothing could be more absurd. James Madison, “Father of the Constitution” and fourth president of the United States, wrote in 1822 that:



“Every new and successful example, therefore, of a perfect separation between the ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance; and I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in showing that religion and government will both exist in greater purity the less they are mixed together.”



Santorum’s stances are not about our Constitution, but his. He views personal freedoms as a personal affront. His thinking exists in a pre-1960s era of aspirin-between-the-knees contraception and read-between-the-lines sexuality.



The kind of conservatism that Santorum represents has been described as a war on women, but I would rephrase that. It’s a war on sex beyond the confines of traditional marriage and strict heterosexuality in which women, particularly poor ones, and gays, particularly open ones, are likely to suffer the greatest casualties.


I'd add that apart from the Catholic / Opus Dei obsession with all things sexual - especially icky lady parts - Santorum seems particularly fixated on hot gay sex.

The SNL church lady had a similar obsession with sex.



I suspect the supreme court will object to Santorum's plan to introduce sexual morality police to America's bedrooms.
skrekk is offline  
Remove Ads
Old March 3rd, 2012, 04:38 PM   #2
Not Believing My Eyes....
 
imaginethat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Western Slope, Colorado
Posts: 29,678
I understand it's hard for you to agree with someone "on the other side."



But I was there in the 60s. I saw peace and love become sex and drugs.



More than half of all children born to women under 30 are born to unmarried women. More than 25 percent of employees visit Internet porn sites during working hours.



If you want to claim this is a good thing, you are standing on quicksand.
imaginethat is online now  
Old March 3rd, 2012, 04:57 PM   #3
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 8,333
Ironic that a guy who advocates the legalization of pot complains about "sex & drugs."





Most women wouldn't want to return to the pre-60s era, when they neither had control over their own reproduction or their careers.



By 1960, the baby boom was taking its toll.



Quote:
Mothers who had four children by the time they were 25 still faced another 15 to 20 fertile years ahead of them. Growing families were hemmed into small houses, cramped by rising costs. "By the end of the fifties, the United States birthrate was overtaking India's," Betty Friedan would write...Both men and women were beginning to ask, "Is this all there is?"


These are the realities that self-appointed arbiter of morality, Rick Santorum and his supporters, want to force onto Americans today. Their version of the idyllic times of the pre-pill days has little in common with reality:

Quote:
Though popular culture had glorified the image of the happy homemaker, in reality, vast numbers of American women worked outside the home.... Most women worked at low paying jobs as teachers, nurses, waitresses, secretaries or factory workers...


The Pill and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 "which prohibited employment and educational discrimination"

Quote:
"...helped make it possible for women to go into professional fields ...With almost 100% fertility control, women were able to postpone having children or space births to pursue a career or a degree that had never been possible prior to the Pill...


These are the advances that Santorum wants to reverse, and the reversal would adversely impact both women and men.



I also doubt mixed-race couples or gays would like to return to the pre-1960s era.



I do agree though that one's view of the 60s is a good indicator of whether you're a liberal or a conservative. I'm on the side that thinks people's sex and reproductive lives are their own concern, and not the concern of government. Conservatives prefer an invasive government.
skrekk is offline  
Old March 3rd, 2012, 05:02 PM   #4
Not Believing My Eyes....
 
imaginethat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Western Slope, Colorado
Posts: 29,678
Quote:
Originally Posted by skrekk View Post
Ironic that a guy who advocates the legalization of pot complains about "sex & drugs."





Most women wouldn't want to return to the pre-60s era, when they neither had control over their own reproduction or their careers.



By 1960, the baby boom was taking its toll.



Quote:
Mothers who had four children by the time they were 25 still faced another 15 to 20 fertile years ahead of them. Growing families were hemmed into small houses, cramped by rising costs. "By the end of the fifties, the United States birthrate was overtaking India's," Betty Friedan would write...Both men and women were beginning to ask, "Is this all there is?"


These are the realities that self-appointed arbiter of morality, Rick Santorum and his supporters, want to force onto Americans today. Their version of the idyllic times of the pre-pill days has little in common with reality:

Quote:
Though popular culture had glorified the image of the happy homemaker, in reality, vast numbers of American women worked outside the home.... Most women worked at low paying jobs as teachers, nurses, waitresses, secretaries or factory workers...


The Pill and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 "which prohibited employment and educational discrimination"

Quote:
"...helped make it possible for women to go into professional fields ...With almost 100% fertility control, women were able to postpone having children or space births to pursue a career or a degree that had never been possible prior to the Pill...


These are the advances that Santorum wants to reverse, and the reversal would adversely impact both women and men.



I doubt mixed-race couples would like to return to the pre-1960s era.


You are one of the best dodgers I've ever seen.



Are you happy that half of all children born to women under 30 are born to unmarried women? Do you think, overall, this is a good trend?



I hope for direct answers, rather than obfuscation.
imaginethat is online now  
Old March 3rd, 2012, 05:05 PM   #5
Banned
 
garysher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 34,678
When did Santorum say he wanted to make contraception illegal?



He has simply expressed his views on the link between contraception, promiscuity and single parenthood.



Social developments since the sixties have not all been positive.



Santorum has also expressed his views on religious freedom which most people support. If a religious organisation opposes contraception and abortion medication on doctrinal grounds they should not be forced to fund them.



Yet another thread based on a hysterical and inaccurate premise
garysher is offline  
Old March 3rd, 2012, 05:10 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 8,333
Quote:
Originally Posted by imaginethat View Post
Are you happy that half of all children born to women under 30 are born to unmarried women? Do you think, overall, this is a good trend?


I don't know if it's a good or bad trend, per se. The more important question is whether those children are wanted and whether their families can afford to raise them. Certainly government has an interest in encouraging stable relationships, but the marriage rate is just one factor of many.



Whether couples choose to marry isn't my concern, but I do think that no fault divorce and other changes in marital law since the 1950s have been a very good thing indeed.
skrekk is offline  
Old March 3rd, 2012, 05:10 PM   #7
Not Believing My Eyes....
 
imaginethat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Western Slope, Colorado
Posts: 29,678
Quote:
Originally Posted by gary View Post
When did Santorum say he wanted to make contraception illegal?



He has simply expressed his views on the link between contraception, promiscuity and single parenthood.



Social developments since the sixties have not all been positive.



Santorum has also expressed his views on religious freedom which most people support. If a religious organisation opposes contraception and abortion medication on doctrinal grounds they should not be forced to fund them.



Yet another thread based on a hysterical and inaccurate premise


Agreed.
imaginethat is online now  
Old March 3rd, 2012, 05:10 PM   #8
Not Believing My Eyes....
 
imaginethat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Western Slope, Colorado
Posts: 29,678
Quote:
Originally Posted by skrekk View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by imaginethat' timestamp='1330826520' post='387290

Are you happy that half of all children born to women under 30 are born to unmarried women? Do you think, overall, this is a good trend?


I don't know if it's a good or bad trend, per se. The more important question is whether those children are wanted and whether their families can afford to raise them. Certainly government has an interest in encouraging stable relationships, but the marriage rate is just one factor of many.



Whether couples choose to marry isn't my concern, but I do think that no fault divorce and other changes in marital law since the 1950s have been a very good thing indeed.


Obfuscation, and evasion.
imaginethat is online now  
Old March 3rd, 2012, 05:54 PM   #9
Banned
 
garysher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 34,678
Quote:
Originally Posted by skrekk View Post
Whether couples choose to marry isn't my concern, but I do think that no fault divorce and other changes in marital law since the 1950s have been a very good thing indeed.


Yeah it's been just great:





Since 1974, about 1 million children per year have seen their parents divorce — and children who are exposed to divorce are two to three times more likely than their peers in intact marriages to suffer from serious social or psychological pathologies.



In their book Growing Up with a Single Parent: What Hurts, What Helps, sociologists Sara McLanahan and Gary Sandefur found that 31% of adolescents with divorced parents dropped out of high school, compared to 13% of children from intact families.



They also concluded that 33% of adolescent girls whose parents divorced became teen mothers, compared to 11% of girls from continuously married families.



And McLanahan and her colleagues have found that 11% of boys who come from divorced families end up spending time in prison before the age of 32, compared to 5% of boys who come from intact homes.



http://nationalaffairs.com/publicati...ion-of-divorce
garysher is offline  
Old March 3rd, 2012, 06:27 PM   #10
Not Believing My Eyes....
 
imaginethat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Western Slope, Colorado
Posts: 29,678
Quote:
Originally Posted by gary View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by skrekk' timestamp='1330827005' post='387292

Whether couples choose to marry isn't my concern, but I do think that no fault divorce and other changes in marital law since the 1950s have been a very good thing indeed.


Yeah it's been just great:





Since 1974, about 1 million children per year have seen their parents divorce — and children who are exposed to divorce are two to three times more likely than their peers in intact marriages to suffer from serious social or psychological pathologies.



In their book Growing Up with a Single Parent: What Hurts, What Helps, sociologists Sara McLanahan and Gary Sandefur found that 31% of adolescents with divorced parents dropped out of high school, compared to 13% of children from intact families.



They also concluded that 33% of adolescent girls whose parents divorced became teen mothers, compared to 11% of girls from continuously married families.



And McLanahan and her colleagues have found that 11% of boys who come from divorced families end up spending time in prison before the age of 32, compared to 5% of boys who come from intact homes.



http://nationalaffai...tion-of-divorce


The facts reveal skrekk's primary concern: advancing a far-left agenda.



How much do you get paid to post, skrekk? lol
imaginethat is online now  
Old March 3rd, 2012, 07:26 PM   #11
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 8,333
Sounds like both IT and Gary think that aspirin is a form of contraception.
skrekk is offline  
Old March 3rd, 2012, 09:05 PM   #12
Not Believing My Eyes....
 
imaginethat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Western Slope, Colorado
Posts: 29,678
"Sounds like" skrekk won't answer direct questions.



So you don't have to go back, here they are:



Are you happy that half of all children born to women under 30 are born to unmarried women? Do you think, overall, this is a good trend?
imaginethat is online now  
Old March 3rd, 2012, 09:18 PM   #13
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 8,333
Quote:
Originally Posted by imaginethat View Post
"Sounds like" skrekk won't answer direct questions.



So you don't have to go back, here they are:



Are you happy that half of all children born to women under 30 are born to unmarried women? Do you think, overall, this is a good trend?


I thought I already did answer that question. In general I think intact families are a very good thing, but that doesn't require marriage at all. There are trends both away from marriage (for complex social reasons) and to marry a little later (which is definitely a good thing). Better sex ed and more freely available birth control would however reduce the out-of-wedlock birth rate. And a better economy for young folks will both increase the marriage rate and help couples stay together.



Equally, divorce is a far better option than an abusive relationship. In Santorum's idyllic fantasy of the 1950s, divorce was so difficult to get in many states and so verboten that many people simply suffered through unhappy marriages.
skrekk is offline  
Old March 4th, 2012, 01:25 AM   #14
Banned
 
garysher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 34,678
Quote:
Originally Posted by skrekk View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by imaginethat' timestamp='1330841114' post='387343

"Sounds like" skrekk won't answer direct questions.



So you don't have to go back, here they are:



Are you happy that half of all children born to women under 30 are born to unmarried women? Do you think, overall, this is a good trend?


I thought I already did answer that question. In general I think intact families are a very good thing, but that doesn't require marriage at all. There are trends both away from marriage (for complex social reasons) and to marry a little later (which is definitely a good thing). Better sex ed and more freely available birth control would however reduce the out-of-wedlock birth rate. And a better economy for young folks will both increase the marriage rate and help couples stay together.



Equally, divorce is a far better option than an abusive relationship. In Santorum's idyllic fantasy of the 1950s, divorce was so difficult to get in many states and so verboten that many people simply suffered through unhappy marriages.




How many "no fault divorces" are due to abusive relationships and how many are just because a couple gets bored or are incapable of sustaining a long term relationship?
garysher is offline  
Old March 4th, 2012, 06:25 AM   #15
Not Believing My Eyes....
 
imaginethat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Western Slope, Colorado
Posts: 29,678
Quote:
Originally Posted by skrekk View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by imaginethat' timestamp='1330841114' post='387343

"Sounds like" skrekk won't answer direct questions.



So you don't have to go back, here they are:



Are you happy that half of all children born to women under 30 are born to unmarried women? Do you think, overall, this is a good trend?


I thought I already did answer that question. In general I think intact families are a very good thing, but that doesn't require marriage at all. There are trends both away from marriage (for complex social reasons) and to marry a little later (which is definitely a good thing). Better sex ed and more freely available birth control would however reduce the out-of-wedlock birth rate. And a better economy for young folks will both increase the marriage rate and help couples stay together.



Equally, divorce is a far better option than an abusive relationship. In Santorum's idyllic fantasy of the 1950s, divorce was so difficult to get in many states and so verboten that many people simply suffered through unhappy marriages.


That's true, but, the pendulum has swung all the way to the other side. It's effortless to obtain a divorce now. All a person has to do is file for divorce. Abusive relationships are indefensible. But divorce over unhappiness isn't. I've watched couples go through an unhappy period in their marriage, and emerge from it stronger as individuals and as a couple.



The now-archaic traditional marriage vow was striking in its honesty:



Quote:
I, (name), take you (name), to be my (wife/husband), to have and to hold from this day forward, for better or for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish; from this day forward until death do us part.


In other words, marriage isn't a bowl of cherries, and there will be rough patches, "unhappy" times. And this is wrong:



Quote:
Better sex ed and more freely available birth control would however reduce the out-of-wedlock birth rate.


I know you believe most problems can be solved through government actions. Government is your imaginary friend. Using contraceptive means effectively does require a bit of personal responsibility. Thanks to the internet, 12-year olds can know anything they want to know about sex, so sex ed isn't the solution.



Quote:

As of 2009, more than half of all children born to women under 30 were born to unmarried women.



Unmarried mothers, in some areas, have become the norm, no longer stigmatized by society. Regular readers of this blog will know that while births among teenagers are down in recent years, the majority of commenters here, at least, would support, not shun, a teenager of their acquaintance with a baby. That tolerance clearly extends to all unmarried mothers. Many of us pride ourselves on the modernity of this relatively new way of thinking — who would insist that only a family mirroring some 50’s-sitcom image of “nuclear” can raise a happy, healthy child?



But is our pride misplaced? Fifty-three percent of all children born to women under 30 is an awful lot of children born outside of what’s been considered, for more than a handful of years, the most stable family structure.



The Times reporters Jason DeParle and Sabrina Tavernise spoke to dozens of people in Lorain, Ohio, a blue-collar town west of Cleveland where the decline of the married two-parent family has been especially steep, with 63 percent of births to women under 30 occurring outside of marriage. The young parents of Lorain said their reliance on the government safety net encouraged them to stay single and that they didn’t trust their youthful peers to be reliable partners. Many said they would like to be married — just not right now, and not to each other.

What’s most troubling about these figures is that marriage is good for children.



“Researchers have consistently found that children born outside marriage face elevated risks of falling into poverty, failing in school or suffering emotional and behavioral problems,” write Mr. DeParle and Ms. Tavernise. Most births outside of a marriage are to couples who are living together, but marriages last longer than alternative arrangements. Tax-saving economists Betsey Stevenson and Justin Wolfers may be the exception, but statistically, co-habitation arrangements in the United States are more than twice as likely to dissolve than marriages.
http://parenting.blo...the-new-normal/



The Brave New World isn't working out as well as projected.
imaginethat is online now  
Old March 4th, 2012, 06:57 AM   #16
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 8,333
Quote:
Originally Posted by imaginethat View Post
That's true, but, the pendulum has swung all the way to the other side. It's effortless to obtain a divorce now. All a person has to do is file for divorce. Abusive relationships are indefensible. But divorce over unhappiness isn't. I've watched couples go through an unhappy period in their marriage, and emerge from it stronger as individuals and as a couple.



The now-archaic traditional marriage vow was striking in its honesty:



Quote:
I, (name), take you (name), to be my (wife/husband), to have and to hold from this day forward, for better or for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish; from this day forward until death do us part.


In other words, marriage isn't a bowl of cherries, and there will be rough patches, "unhappy" times. And this is wrong:


Seriously? Divorce because you're in an unhappy marriage "isn't defensible"? That might be true for you but you don't get to dictate other people's lives.



I agree that people should work hard to get through rough spots, but that's not your business or the government's business to decide for them. Some states now have "covenant marriages" which make divorce more difficult to get. People are free to choose to enter those, but note that very few do. As I said upthread, no one wants to go back to the 1950s.......except of course for insecure men like Santorum who long for the days of patriarchy.









Quote:
Originally Posted by imaginethat View Post
Quote:
Better sex ed and more freely available birth control would however reduce the out-of-wedlock birth rate.


I know you believe most problems can be solved through government actions. Government is your imaginary friend. Using contraceptive means effectively does require a bit of personal responsibility. Thanks to the internet, 12-year olds can know anything they want to know about sex, so sex ed isn't the solution.


The out-of-wedlock birth rate, teen pregnancy rate and divorce rate are highest in the bible belt states, where they tend to teach abstinence-only as opposed to real sex ed.
skrekk is offline  
Old March 4th, 2012, 07:22 AM   #17
Not Believing My Eyes....
 
imaginethat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Western Slope, Colorado
Posts: 29,678
Quote:
Originally Posted by skrekk View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by imaginethat' timestamp='1330874733' post='387360

That's true, but, the pendulum has swung all the way to the other side. It's effortless to obtain a divorce now. All a person has to do is file for divorce. Abusive relationships are indefensible. But divorce over unhappiness isn't. I've watched couples go through an unhappy period in their marriage, and emerge from it stronger as individuals and as a couple.



The now-archaic traditional marriage vow was striking in its honesty:



Quote:
I, (name), take you (name), to be my (wife/husband), to have and to hold from this day forward, for better or for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish; from this day forward until death do us part.


In other words, marriage isn't a bowl of cherries, and there will be rough patches, "unhappy" times. And this is wrong:


Seriously? Divorce because you're in an unhappy marriage "isn't defensible"? That might be true for you but you don't get to dictate other people's lives.



I agree that people should work hard to get through rough spots, but that's not your business or the government's business to decide for them. Some states now have "covenant marriages" which make divorce more difficult to get. People are free to choose to enter those, but note that very few do. As I said upthread, no one wants to go back to the 1950s.......except of course for insecure men like Santorum who long for the days of patriarchy.









Quote:
Originally Posted by imaginethat View Post
Quote:
Better sex ed and more freely available birth control would however reduce the out-of-wedlock birth rate.


I know you believe most problems can be solved through government actions. Government is your imaginary friend. Using contraceptive means effectively does require a bit of personal responsibility. Thanks to the internet, 12-year olds can know anything they want to know about sex, so sex ed isn't the solution.


The out-of-wedlock birth rate, teen pregnancy rate and divorce rate are highest in the bible belt states, where they tend to teach abstinence-only as opposed to real sex ed.


Noted that you didn't address the points of the article I posted. Perhaps it was too nuanced for you.
imaginethat is online now  
Old March 4th, 2012, 08:26 AM   #18
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 8,333
Quote:
Originally Posted by imaginethat View Post
Noted that you didn't address the points of the article I posted. Perhaps it was too nuanced for you.


Because it's more important to stigmatize unwed mothers and make their lives more difficult than it is to address the underlying social conditions which make unwed parenting more likely, right?



Only in the mind of a wingnut is a government safety net for teenage moms seen as a "threat to marriage".
skrekk is offline  
Old March 4th, 2012, 11:38 AM   #19
Banned
 
garysher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 34,678
Quote:
Originally Posted by skrekk View Post
Seriously? Divorce because you're in an unhappy marriage "isn't defensible"? That might be true for you but you don't get to dictate other people's lives.


It's not about dictating people's lives it's about encouraging personal responsibility and taking marriage seriously.



When couples get divorced simply because they feel "unhappy" the rest of us end up paying a heavy price for all the reasons outlined in the article I quoted.
garysher is offline  
Old March 4th, 2012, 11:51 AM   #20
Not Believing My Eyes....
 
imaginethat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Western Slope, Colorado
Posts: 29,678
Quote:
Originally Posted by skrekk View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by imaginethat' timestamp='1330878130' post='387389

Noted that you didn't address the points of the article I posted. Perhaps it was too nuanced for you.


Because it's more important to stigmatize unwed mothers and make their lives more difficult than it is to address the underlying social conditions which make unwed parenting more likely, right?



Only in the mind of a wingnut is a government safety net for teenage moms seen as a "threat to marriage".


Ignoring your constant use of epithets without which you seem unable to state your views, that point was addressed in the article.



Quote:
Can we find a way to support marriage at all levels of society without recreating the stigma for unmarried mothers and their children, and should we? Statistically, married parents are better for children in many ways. But is it the marriage, or the greater stability that often correlates with marriage, that makes the difference, and which should we be trying to affect? How concerned should we be about this 53 percent?
imaginethat is online now  
Reply

  Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Forum > Politicians

Tags
santorum, sex


Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Santorum tadpole256 Politicians 158 April 12th, 2012 07:04 PM
Santorum Vs Andrew Sullivan skrekk Politicians 0 February 28th, 2012 09:50 AM
Santorum The Bigot... tadpole256 Politicians 92 February 23rd, 2012 10:25 PM
Santorum Can't Help It - He Was An Altar Boy tristanrobin Gay and Lesbian Rights 3 February 23rd, 2012 07:07 AM
Santorum Is A Dangerous Man... tadpole256 Politicians 2 February 22nd, 2012 06:17 PM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



Copyright © 2005-2013 Defending The Truth. All rights reserved.