Bush pushing for couples to get married??

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

etech

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
10,597
0
0
If the person can provide a stable home and not come crying to the government for assistance then I don't care that much what they do either. I believe I have seen a study where children are happier and more succesful when they come from a two parent family but I really don't feel like trying to find it right now. It makes sense to me and if a person wants to take away those benefits from their children then so be it.

The problem is that is not the case with the people that I am talking about. A program to inform them of the realities of single parent hood vs. the perceptions that receive from society could help. Isn't that all that this program does?
 

NFS4

No Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
72,640
8
81
The problem is that is not the case with the people that I am talking about. A program to inform them of the realities of single parent hood vs. the perceptions that receive from society could help. Isn't that all that this program does?
In step with President George W. Bush's faith-based initiative, the government Thursday sent money from its child-support programs to organizations so they can promote marriage.
PROMOTE MARRIAGE! Let's promote heterosexual behavior, let's promote marrying inside your own race, let's promote marrying some one of the same religion as you.

Sure, all of these things would make life easier, but life isn't easy.
 

Willoughbyva

Diamond Member
Sep 26, 2001
3,267
0
0
I'm not sure that marriage is the answer, perhaps it is, but I don't know. I think there are a lot of areas that need to be improved. Education would be at the top of the list. For the parents and the children. To be honest if I really think about some of the situations out there I get depressed.
 

etech

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
10,597
0
0
Originally posted by: NFS4
The problem is that is not the case with the people that I am talking about. A program to inform them of the realities of single parent hood vs. the perceptions that receive from society could help. Isn't that all that this program does?
In step with President George W. Bush's faith-based initiative, the government Thursday sent money from its child-support programs to organizations so they can promote marriage.
PROMOTE MARRIAGE! Let's promote heterosexual behavior, let's promote marrying inside your own race, let's promote marrying some one of the same religion as you.

Sure, all of these things would make life easier, but life isn't easy.
Weird ideas you have their NSF4, of course none of them were any part of the program you linked to in your first post.

 

NFS4

No Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
72,640
8
81
Originally posted by: etech
Originally posted by: NFS4
The problem is that is not the case with the people that I am talking about. A program to inform them of the realities of single parent hood vs. the perceptions that receive from society could help. Isn't that all that this program does?
In step with President George W. Bush's faith-based initiative, the government Thursday sent money from its child-support programs to organizations so they can promote marriage.
PROMOTE MARRIAGE! Let's promote heterosexual behavior, let's promote marrying inside your own race, let's promote marrying some one of the same religion as you.

Sure, all of these things would make life easier, but life isn't easy.
Weird ideas you have their NSF4, of course none of them were any part of the program you linked to in your first post.
The point was, each of those ideas is as LUDICROUS as promoting marriage by the administration. I thought that was pretty obvious from the way I worded it; guess not ;)
 

Tripleshot

Elite Member
Jan 29, 2000
7,218
1
0
Originally posted by: etech
Shoulda, coulda, didn'ta. This is the real world, not Bob Jones University.
Exactly, this is the real world and there should be real consequences for making mistakes.

One of those I support is going after the deadbeat fathers and making them pay child support until the kid is 18. You wanta play, then you gonna pay.

Word up Etech. Right on!!!
 

etech

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
10,597
0
0
I don't agree that promoting marriage, when the government is having to pay for the consequnces of people not getting married, is anything at all like the other examples you cited.

Wink all you want, they are not the same.

Living arrangements of single-mother families: Variations, transitions,

Children in single-mother families are increasingly in the public policy spotlight due, among other things, to their high rates of poverty and welfare use. In 1998, for example, almost half (46%) of all children living in female-headed families were poor. In contrast, only 9% of children who lived in married-couple families were poor in that year (Child Trends 1999).
 

NFS4

No Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
72,640
8
81
Originally posted by: etech
I don't agree that promoting marriage, when the government is having to pay for the consequnces of people not getting married, is anything at all like the other examples you cited.

Wink all you want, they are not the same.
The article says nothing about the government promoting this b/c of having to pay for consequences of people not getting married. It says:

Among them are two organizations and a state agency that emphasize the importance of a healthy marriage to a child's well-being.
Healthy marriage and a child's well-being. In that case:

1) Promote marriage. Kids will be happy, mom and dad will supposedly be happy
2) Promote heterosexual relationship. Since a lot of states don't recognize same sex marriage for legal or tax reasons, heterosexual marriages would technically be superior. Kids would be happy and not be ridiculed, etc.
3) Promote same race marriages. Kids wouldn't have to worry about being called "mixed nuts" or "Oreo."
4) Promote same religion marriages. Kids wouldn't be so confused in their religious activities, etc.
 

BDawg

Lifer
Oct 31, 2000
11,631
2
0
Originally posted by: NFS4
Originally posted by: etech
I don't agree that promoting marriage, when the government is having to pay for the consequnces of people not getting married, is anything at all like the other examples you cited.

Wink all you want, they are not the same.
The article says nothing about the government promoting this b/c of having to pay for consequences of people not getting married. It says:

Among them are two organizations and a state agency that emphasize the importance of a healthy marriage to a child's well-being.
Healthy marriage and a child's well-being. In that case:

1) Promote marriage. Kids will be happy, mom and dad will supposedly be happy
2) Promote heterosexual relationship. Since a lot of states don't recognize same sex marriage for legal or tax reasons, heterosexual marriages would technically be superior. Kids would be happy and not be ridiculed, etc.
3) Promote same race marriages. Kids wouldn't have to worry about being called "mixed nuts" or "Oreo."
4) Promote same religion marriages. Kids wouldn't be so confused in their religious activities, etc.
Mixed Nuts...I hadn't heard that one before. Ingredients: Salt, Artificial Honey-Roasting Agent, Pressed Peanut Sweepings. Mmmm
 

Tripleshot

Elite Member
Jan 29, 2000
7,218
1
0
Originally posted by: NFS4
Originally posted by: etech
I don't agree that promoting marriage, when the government is having to pay for the consequnces of people not getting married, is anything at all like the other examples you cited.

Wink all you want, they are not the same.
The article says nothing about the government promoting this b/c of having to pay for consequences of people not getting married. It says:

Among them are two organizations and a state agency that emphasize the importance of a healthy marriage to a child's well-being.
Healthy marriage and a child's well-being. In that case:

1) Promote marriage. Kids will be happy, mom and dad will supposedly be happy
2) Promote heterosexual relationship. Since a lot of states don't recognize same sex marriage for legal or tax reasons, heterosexual marriages would technically be superior. Kids would be happy and not be ridiculed, etc.
3) Promote same race marriages. Kids wouldn't have to worry about being called "mixed nuts" or "Oreo."
4) Promote same religion marriages. Kids wouldn't be so confused in their religious activities, etc.

When you put it that way, sounds like communism, doesn't it?

I still want dead beat Dads hung by their nuts if they don't pay up. Hell with jail, thats just another burdon on society.

 

etech

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
10,597
0
0
I suppose the much greater likelihood of living in poverty doesn't matter at all in your equation.
 

NFS4

No Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
72,640
8
81
Originally posted by: etech
I suppose the much greater likelihood of living in poverty doesn't matter at all in your equation.
Senator John Edwards lived in relative poverty, and he grew up to become the first person in his family to go to college, a lawyer, a sentator, and is now running for the Presidency. Living in poverty doesn't = a death warrant.
 

etech

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
10,597
0
0
If living in poverty is so great let's just cut out all welfare and aid programs, then all the little kids can all grow up to be Senators too.

You can do better than that, can't you?
 

Willoughbyva

Diamond Member
Sep 26, 2001
3,267
0
0
The article mentions a child's well being, but i wonder if a study has ever been done about a child's happiness and the state of his/her parents relationship. I can see where being married to the wrong person would mean more harm to the child than being a single parent. So is it a truth that money equals happiness? I do want to state that i think every person should have the neccissities of life, but you can have those while living in poverty some of the times.
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: NFS4
Originally posted by: etech
2) If the "baby's daddy" is deadbeat low life scum, I wouldn't want his ass anywhere near a kid
If the baby's daddy is deadbeat low life scum then momma should have kept her legs closed.
And it's the government's duty to tell momma to keep her legs closed? I think not.
Is it the goverments responsability to take care of the child for the unwed mother? I think not.
 

Willoughbyva

Diamond Member
Sep 26, 2001
3,267
0
0
Is it the goverments responsability to take care of the child for the unwed mother? I think not.[/quote]

If the mother is unable to take care of the child then yes it is the governments responsibility. The child can't take care of him/herself.

 

NFS4

No Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
72,640
8
81
Originally posted by: etech
If living in poverty is so great let's just cut out all welfare and aid programs, then all the little kids can all grow up to be Senators too.

You can do better than that, can't you?
The point is, promoting marriage has nothing to do with getting someone out of poverty. There are STILL married couples who live in poverty in a van down by the river. Marriage is not the MAGIC antidote to solve all of the countries problems.

As for living in poverty. My dad was the second-born of 12 kids. They all lived in relative poverty in a town house in Baltimore. They made do with what they had and provided for each other. All of them went on to make something of themselves. My dad served in the Army in Vietnam where he was an MP, came back home, went to work for Western Electric AS A JANITOR. Worked his way up into security at Western Electric in Baltimore. Plant closed in '84 and he was transferred here to Burlington, NC at AT&T. He worked still as a security guard. All the while, he was working to get his degree while putting food on the table for my mom and me. The plant in Burlington closed and he was promoted to the AT&T Guilford Center in Greensboro where he was placed in charge of security of the entire building. Lucent took over in the mid 90's and he was promoted once again into Property management for Lucent Real Estate. His base of operation got transferred to Cary, NC where he now runs the Cary location and the Greensboro location for Lucent. He also runs buildings in Alabama, SC, and Tennesee. Last year, Lucent laid off people due to downsizing. My dad chose to take early retirement from Lucent and collect his full benefits after 30 years of loyal service. He was contracted out by another company to do the same job that he was doing for Lucent at a higher salary. So he got his full benefits from Lucent + retirement pay + his normal salary from his new company. And he is still going and going and going...


My point is, poverty doesn't have to be a limiting factory. My dad has sisters who has two kids with no dad at home and they are doing well for themselves. One of his sisters was divorced with twins, she makes good for herself and her family.
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: Willoughbyva
Is it the goverments responsability to take care of the child for the unwed mother? I think not.
If the mother is unable to take care of the child then yes it is the governments responsibility. The child can't take care of him/herself.[/quote]

Why the goverment? why not charity? why not family? why not force the dead beat father to?

It is not the goverments responsability. ANd if it is, the goverment should be able to force the deadbeat parent into providing some sort of care.
 

NFS4

No Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
72,640
8
81
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: NFS4
Originally posted by: etech
2) If the "baby's daddy" is deadbeat low life scum, I wouldn't want his ass anywhere near a kid
If the baby's daddy is deadbeat low life scum then momma should have kept her legs closed.
And it's the government's duty to tell momma to keep her legs closed? I think not.
Is it the goverments responsability to take care of the child for the unwed mother? I think not.
You're assuming that the mother is beggin' the government for money. Whose to say that the mother isn't supporting the child on her own sans the government?
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: NFS4
Originally posted by: etech
If living in poverty is so great let's just cut out all welfare and aid programs, then all the little kids can all grow up to be Senators too.

You can do better than that, can't you?
The point is, promoting marriage has nothing to do with getting someone out of poverty. There are STILL married couples who live in poverty in a van down by the river. Marriage is not the MAGIC antidote to solve all of the countries problems.
I agree marriage is not the complete answer, but it does double the resources to take care of an unexpected child.
 

etech

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
10,597
0
0
My point is, poverty doesn't have to be a limiting factory. My dad has sisters who has two kids with no dad at home and they are doing well for themselves. One of his sisters was divorced with twins, she makes good for herself and her family.
You can quote the exceptions to the norm all night. The fact is that children in a stable two parent family on the average do better than those from a single parent family. The number of single parent families in poverty is much higher than two parent families. An exception can always be found but it does not disprove those facts.
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: NFS4
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: NFS4
Originally posted by: etech
2) If the "baby's daddy" is deadbeat low life scum, I wouldn't want his ass anywhere near a kid
If the baby's daddy is deadbeat low life scum then momma should have kept her legs closed.
And it's the government's duty to tell momma to keep her legs closed? I think not.
Is it the goverments responsability to take care of the child for the unwed mother? I think not.
You're assuming that the mother is beggin' the government for money. Whose to say that the mother isn't supporting the child on her own sans the government?
Well if that is the case, they wont be getting the marriage propiganda at the welfare office.
 

Willoughbyva

Diamond Member
Sep 26, 2001
3,267
0
0
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Willoughbyva
Is it the goverments responsability to take care of the child for the unwed mother? I think not.
If the mother is unable to take care of the child then yes it is the governments responsibility. The child can't take care of him/herself.
Why the goverment? why not charity? why not family? why not force the dead beat father to?

It is not the goverments responsability. ANd if it is, the goverment should be able to force the deadbeat parent into providing some sort of care.[/quote]

I agree that the parents should have the responsibility, but if they provide an unfit environment then the government should do something to make the childs life better.

I come from a rural poor area and I have seen stuff where the child had no business in the care of the parents. On the other hand I have seen where extended families and one or both of the parents work together to make a good place for the child. i kind of think that in the worst case scenerio the child should have some stability, food, clothes and a roof over it's head. A little love would be great too.

Will

 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: Willoughbyva
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Willoughbyva
Is it the goverments responsability to take care of the child for the unwed mother? I think not.
If the mother is unable to take care of the child then yes it is the governments responsibility. The child can't take care of him/herself.
Why the goverment? why not charity? why not family? why not force the dead beat father to?

It is not the goverments responsability. ANd if it is, the goverment should be able to force the deadbeat parent into providing some sort of care.
I agree that the parents should have the responsibility, but if they provide an unfit environment then the government should do something to make the childs life better.

I come from a rural poor area and I have seen stuff where the child had no business in the care of the parents. On the other hand I have seen where extended families and one or both of the parents work together to make a good place for the child. i kind of think that in the worst case scenerio the child should have some stability, food, clothes and a roof over it's head. A little love would be great too.

[/quote]

I agree with that, but I think the goverment should be the last resort, not the first choice. I also have no problem with stipulations being placed on goverment handouts.
 

ThunderGirl

Senior member
Aug 17, 2001
606
0
0
Originally posted by: etech
2) If the "baby's daddy" is deadbeat low life scum, I wouldn't want his ass anywhere near a kid
If the baby's daddy is deadbeat low life scum then momma should have kept her legs closed.
You don't always know they are going to become a dead beat after a kid or two.. and married not married a dad can still be a dead beat. Or for that matter a Mom.. it is not always just dads that up and leave their kids.


 

ASK THE COMMUNITY