Comments on: Stopping the Breakdown of the Family http://www.frumforum.com/stopping-the-breakdown-of-the-family Building a conservatism that can win again Sat, 11 Feb 2012 17:50:44 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: corndog96 http://www.frumforum.com/stopping-the-breakdown-of-the-family/comment-page-2#comment-81392 corndog96 Mon, 01 Feb 2010 11:02:58 +0000 http://www.frumforum.com/?p=19535#comment-81392 Crystal, it would be interesting to hear your response on this board. A number of people have said you broke up a family by sleeping with a married man who is the father of three. And yet you write of your concern for the American family. Please explain (if you can) why you're not a pathetic hypocrite. Crystal, it would be interesting to hear your response on this board. A number of people have said you broke up a family by sleeping with a married man who is the father of three. And yet you write of your concern for the American family. Please explain (if you can) why you’re not a pathetic hypocrite.

]]> By: quailhunter http://www.frumforum.com/stopping-the-breakdown-of-the-family/comment-page-2#comment-81183 quailhunter Fri, 29 Jan 2010 04:49:47 +0000 http://www.frumforum.com/?p=19535#comment-81183 Oh Crystal. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that the responsibility for the breakdown of the American family rests squarely on the shoulders of rock music. Rock music, and desperate "Conservative" women (who also happen to suck at writing, but I digress...) who bone married men with children (I mean bone married men who have children [three to be exact], not that you engage in group sex with married men and children, though moral lapses are moral lapses so I wouldn't rule that out either, come to think of it). Anyway, I enjoyed whatever it was you were trying and failing to write about--gay "people" giving AIDS cancer to black babies or whatever. It's an outrage, etc.! Oh Crystal. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that the responsibility for the breakdown of the American family rests squarely on the shoulders of rock music. Rock music, and desperate “Conservative” women (who also happen to suck at writing, but I digress…) who bone married men with children (I mean bone married men who have children [three to be exact], not that you engage in group sex with married men and children, though moral lapses are moral lapses so I wouldn’t rule that out either, come to think of it). Anyway, I enjoyed whatever it was you were trying and failing to write about–gay “people” giving AIDS cancer to black babies or whatever. It’s an outrage, etc.!

]]> By: PamK http://www.frumforum.com/stopping-the-breakdown-of-the-family/comment-page-1#comment-81181 PamK Fri, 29 Jan 2010 04:47:11 +0000 http://www.frumforum.com/?p=19535#comment-81181 First, your arguments make no sense and do not support the point you are trying to make. You are all over the place-- nonsensical and, at times, incoherent. Second, divorce creates more single mothers than any of the other issues you mention. And women who have affairs with married men contribute to divorce and the breakdown of the family far more directly than gay marriage or anything else. First, your arguments make no sense and do not support the point you are trying to make. You are all over the place– nonsensical and, at times, incoherent. Second, divorce creates more single mothers than any of the other issues you mention. And women who have affairs with married men contribute to divorce and the breakdown of the family far more directly than gay marriage or anything else.

]]> By: mic http://www.frumforum.com/stopping-the-breakdown-of-the-family/comment-page-1#comment-81178 mic Fri, 29 Jan 2010 04:28:34 +0000 http://www.frumforum.com/?p=19535#comment-81178 While I can appreciate your ambitious goal of "saving" the American family, I think you should start a more grass roots effort (i.e. your own behavior) to save the American family by showing some restraint and not having an extra-marital affair with a married father of three children. Had you shown some restraint, rather than writing fallacious arguments to push your own agenda, those children may still have a family intact and, in your own words "a more equal chance". While I can appreciate your ambitious goal of “saving” the American family, I think you should start a more grass roots effort (i.e. your own behavior) to save the American family by showing some restraint and not having an extra-marital affair with a married father of three children.
Had you shown some restraint, rather than writing fallacious arguments to push your own agenda, those children may still have a family intact and, in your own words “a more equal chance”.

]]> By: PWallgren http://www.frumforum.com/stopping-the-breakdown-of-the-family/comment-page-1#comment-81152 PWallgren Thu, 28 Jan 2010 22:34:43 +0000 http://www.frumforum.com/?p=19535#comment-81152 I agree with CatherineF. I can't stand your Republican hypocrisy, Ms. Wright! And how cheap to try to make a name for yourself as a political commentator by bashing gays (and immigrants...and single mothers...what's next?? baby kittens??). I agree with CatherineF. I can’t stand your Republican hypocrisy, Ms. Wright! And how cheap to try to make a name for yourself as a political commentator by bashing gays (and immigrants…and single mothers…what’s next?? baby kittens??).

]]> By: CatherineF http://www.frumforum.com/stopping-the-breakdown-of-the-family/comment-page-1#comment-81139 CatherineF Thu, 28 Jan 2010 21:16:20 +0000 http://www.frumforum.com/?p=19535#comment-81139 Actually Crystal, as you know, the best way to Save the American Family is not to date a married man with children. Actually Crystal, as you know, the best way to Save the American Family is not to date a married man with children.

]]> By: anniemargret http://www.frumforum.com/stopping-the-breakdown-of-the-family/comment-page-1#comment-79604 anniemargret Wed, 13 Jan 2010 16:01:53 +0000 http://www.frumforum.com/?p=19535#comment-79604 noufa: Illegitimate children are a terrible scourge on the country. They end up for the most part being neglected and/or abused, as most women having them are not capable either emotionally or financially to take care of them, being themselves at times, children. Divorce is also the problem but now always. The simplest answer to help secure families and keep them intact is education. Birth control is available. No one who is having sex should not be using it, but Republicans by and large are against anything other than 'abstinence only' education in the schools. They would much prefer to hope and wish that everyone comes from the same background as they do, with entrenched family values and an intact home, or have the financial resources should an unplanned pregnancy arise. They lament about abortion but their only response to this terrible problem is that it should be outlawed. Which means more babies will be brought into the world unwanted, neglected and abused. If you ask them if they want some of their tax dollars to go to help these children, they scream, "not my taxes!" Their morality stops at pregnancy and birth. What happens after that, is someone else's problem. Republicans love living in ideology, not reality. Then you have your 'what the heck adultery' rampant among so=called adults. Men and women cheating on their spouses. Politicans cheating on their spouse but to call them out on it is being 'judgmental.' And if he./she can do their job while cheating on their family, so what? This too I hear from Republicans. So which is it? To we deal with the reality of the situation or do we pretend? Do we pretend it is still 1902 and the sexual revolution hasn't happened, or do we become more pragmatic about how to keep the family solvent? I see no real answers from Republicans, except for their preachiness. As far as gay marriage is concerned, they like to lump this together with the 'breakdown' of the family, which almost always is related to adultery and sex without birth control. It is a canard for those that cannot stand the thought that there are gay people in the world. And those gay people have the unalienable right to marry, or we simply do not have a real democracy in which every citizen is offered the same rights as others. noufa: Illegitimate children are a terrible scourge on the country. They end up for the most part being neglected and/or abused, as most women having them are not capable either emotionally or financially to take care of them, being themselves at times, children.

Divorce is also the problem but now always. The simplest answer to help secure families and keep them intact is education. Birth control is available. No one who is having sex should not be using it, but Republicans by and large are against anything other than ‘abstinence only’ education in the schools. They would much prefer to hope and wish that everyone comes from the same background as they do, with entrenched family values and an intact home, or have the financial resources should an unplanned pregnancy arise.

They lament about abortion but their only response to this terrible problem is that it should be outlawed. Which means more babies will be brought into the world unwanted, neglected and abused. If you ask them if they want some of their tax dollars to go to help these children, they scream, “not my taxes!” Their morality stops at pregnancy and birth. What happens after that, is someone else’s problem. Republicans love living in ideology, not reality.

Then you have your ‘what the heck adultery’ rampant among so=called adults. Men and women cheating on their spouses. Politicans cheating on their spouse but to call them out on it is being ‘judgmental.’ And if he./she can do their job while cheating on their family, so what? This too I hear from Republicans.

So which is it? To we deal with the reality of the situation or do we pretend? Do we pretend it is still 1902 and the sexual revolution hasn’t happened, or do we become more pragmatic about how to keep the family solvent?

I see no real answers from Republicans, except for their preachiness.

As far as gay marriage is concerned, they like to lump this together with the ‘breakdown’ of the family, which almost always is related to adultery and sex without birth control. It is a canard for those that cannot stand the thought that there are gay people in the world.

And those gay people have the unalienable right to marry, or we simply do not have a real democracy in which every citizen is offered the same rights as others.

]]> By: noufa http://www.frumforum.com/stopping-the-breakdown-of-the-family/comment-page-1#comment-79583 noufa Wed, 13 Jan 2010 02:03:19 +0000 http://www.frumforum.com/?p=19535#comment-79583 Seriously, guys? You can't connect the dots? Supporters of gay marriage argue that marriage is essentially a business contract between 2 consenting adults. A piece of paper, if you will. This same logic makes illegitimacy seem legitimate. And Nate Silver's article is irrelevant. Note that the OP never mentioned divorce. The concern is illegitimacy, which IS skyrocketing: http://www.cnn.com/2009/LIVING/wayoflife/04/08/out.of.wedlock.births/index.html Seriously, guys? You can’t connect the dots?

Supporters of gay marriage argue that marriage is essentially a business contract between 2 consenting adults. A piece of paper, if you will. This same logic makes illegitimacy seem legitimate.

And Nate Silver’s article is irrelevant. Note that the OP never mentioned divorce. The concern is illegitimacy, which IS skyrocketing:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/LIVING/wayoflife/04/08/out.of.wedlock.births/index.html

]]> By: seeker656 http://www.frumforum.com/stopping-the-breakdown-of-the-family/comment-page-1#comment-79579 seeker656 Tue, 12 Jan 2010 23:12:29 +0000 http://www.frumforum.com/?p=19535#comment-79579 Nate Silver has a piece today showing that divorce rates are higher in states with gay marriage bans and lower in states where gay marriage is legal. http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/01/divorce-rates-appear-higher-in-states.html Massachusetts has seen a 20.7% decline in divorce between 2003 and 2008. I have seen no credible evidence to support the fears of those who argue that legalizing gay marriage will be detrimental to families. Nate Silver has a piece today showing that divorce rates are higher in states with gay marriage bans and lower in states where gay marriage is legal.

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/01/divorce-rates-appear-higher-in-states.html

Massachusetts has seen a 20.7% decline in divorce between 2003 and 2008. I have seen no credible evidence to support the fears of those who argue that legalizing gay marriage will be detrimental to families.

]]> By: sinz54 http://www.frumforum.com/stopping-the-breakdown-of-the-family/comment-page-1#comment-79531 sinz54 Tue, 12 Jan 2010 14:45:22 +0000 http://www.frumforum.com/?p=19535#comment-79531 COProgressive: <blockquote> It’s all Rosie the Riveter’s fault, you know, the downturn of the family. </blockquote> That's clearly not the case, because the 1950s were a time of much more conformity than the 1920s. Rosie the Riveter was more independent because her husband was away at WAR. But when Rosie's husband got back home, he and she made lots of babies (the baby boom). Women could NEVER become more independent as long as control of pregnancy was the responsibility of men (condoms). (Women's methods like the rhythm method were unreliable.) The marketing of the contraceptive pill in 1960 finally made it possible to have lots of sex without procreation. (The Catholic Church was opposed to it and many conservative Catholics still are.) Then in 1978, in-vitro fertilization (IVF) made it possible to have procreation without sex. And it has led to some bizarre arrangements, like an unmarried couple giving their sperm and eggs to IVF to be implanted into a surrogate mother to carry the child to term, after which she hands it back to the couple to be raised. That's it. Thanks to medical technology, the link between sex and procreation has been cut permanently. And that has revolutionized society, both good and bad. The modern Manhattan women's rights movement really took off in the late 1960s. COProgressive: It’s all Rosie the Riveter’s fault, you know, the downturn of the family.
That’s clearly not the case,

because the 1950s were a time of much more conformity than the 1920s.

Rosie the Riveter was more independent because her husband was away at WAR.

But when Rosie’s husband got back home, he and she made lots of babies (the baby boom).

Women could NEVER become more independent as long as control of pregnancy was the responsibility of men (condoms). (Women’s methods like the rhythm method were unreliable.)

The marketing of the contraceptive pill in 1960 finally made it possible to have lots of sex without procreation. (The Catholic Church was opposed to it and many conservative Catholics still are.)

Then in 1978, in-vitro fertilization (IVF) made it possible to have procreation without sex. And it has led to some bizarre arrangements, like an unmarried couple giving their sperm and eggs to IVF to be implanted into a surrogate mother to carry the child to term, after which she hands it back to the couple to be raised.

That’s it. Thanks to medical technology, the link between sex and procreation has been cut permanently. And that has revolutionized society, both good and bad. The modern Manhattan women’s rights movement really took off in the late 1960s.

]]>