Marriage & the growing class divide in America

posted at 2:01 pm on July 17, 2012 by Dustin Siggins

On Saturday, The New York Times published a lengthy essay on the differences between the lives of those who get married before having children and those who don’t. It also focused on a marital trend that is steadily becoming reality in the U.S.: the emergence of a divided society, separated along the lines of marriage and education. While college-educated Americans continue the traditional path of first comes marriage followed by the baby, among low-income communities and spreading into “middle America” communities is the norm of unwed births with its myriad of ills.

One angle the article didn’t touch much on was how personal decisions impact the chances of being a single parent. One Times blogger did, however:

Many of us (myself included) don’t miss the days of moral judgments that coincided with a time when fewer children were being raised in single-parent households, but if children raised in unintentional out-of-wedlock households continue to struggle in comparison with children in two-parent homes, we need to find a way to replace the force of those social norms without going backward in social acceptance. Can we distinguish between promoting some kind of “parent preparedness” and condemning its lack?

One of the most striking moments of “Two Classes, Separated by ‘I Do’” comes as Ms. Schairer refuses to complain. “I’m in this position because of decisions I made,” she says. Her willingness to accept where those choices have led is admirable, but it’s the impact of those choices on her three children that we must address. No one benefits from their struggles, and if they fail to succeed at becoming self-supporting adults, we will all pay for that failure, although none so much as the children themselves.

The author’s point is pretty good – constructive criticism and encouragement for the future are often more beneficial than outright condemnation. Of course, I am guessing this particular Times contributor is overstating the “moral judgments” made fifty and more years ago, and I have to ask if she really believes moral judgments are worse than the disaster out-of-wedlock marriage has been on America’s culture.

Abstinence is a major part of the solution here. Despite contraception use by the vast majority of Americans, as well as 1.2 million abortions annually, 41% of births are outside of marriage, and 53% of births to women under 30 are out of wedlock. While both contraception and abortion are immoral, they are usually symptoms of the overall problem of a lack of abstinence until marriage. Which is why Mount St. Mary’s University graduate student Erica Szalkowski and I co-authored a piece this morning offering one possible solution: increased chastity by women in order to help men, who are often weaker when it comes to resisting sexual temptation, rise to the proverbial occasion to “help men reform themselves and become the moral authorities they need to be.”

Erica also published a piece at Daily Caller yesterday in which she laid out the case against pornography, and pointed out the harm it has on relationships, on norms related to thinking about sex and relationships, etc. With prevalence via magazines, the Internet, hotels, and DVD and video rental stores, could a cultural (not legal) stand against pornography help prevent such a high rate of single parenting and corresponding poverty and struggling childhood?

The societal consequences of single parenting are well-known. Even liberals admit their feminist and “free sex, no consequence” viewpoints have failed parents and children alike in areas like education, drugs, employment and poverty. Rather than return to practices that greatly improve marital success, however – such as Catholic teachings related to abstinence and Natural Family Planning, as well as other traditions that encourage personal and familial responsibility – they’d rather foist the financial consequences of out-of-wedlock births and “free” sex on the rest of us via certain welfare programs and the HHS contraception/abortifacient/sterilization mandate. Given what the Times discussed, however, perhaps a focus on improving our education system and lowering the cost of college attendance would be a better use of public dollars than using tax dollars to violate the First Amendment and ineffectively subsidize college loans?

 


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

O. Wow.

Axe on July 17, 2012 at 2:05 PM

Yeah, SoCons are the Cassandras of society: always right and always ignored.

So what’s worse? The collapse of the family and consequent poverty and dissolution or some people feeling bad about their sexual habits? Hmmm…I’m thinking here.

xuyee on July 17, 2012 at 2:06 PM

Even liberals admit their feminist and “free sex, no consequence” viewpoints have failed parents and children alike in areas like education, drugs, employment and poverty.

And as such they have succeeded with the true feminist aim, which was to create an increasing number of people with less concern for family structure, little understanding of traditional Christian principles, and a greater dependence on the state.

Gingotts on July 17, 2012 at 2:06 PM

…GREAT! More class warfare!

KOOLAID2 on July 17, 2012 at 2:06 PM

As soon as I saw this NYT article, I thought, now the left will demonize marriage and two-parent homes. It wasn’t enough to promote out-of-wedlock births, knowing it would lead to poverty and despair for millions of children. But now the children raised in healthy, happy, loving two-parent homes are to be the new targets of the hideous, evil left. Up is down. Wrong is right. And this country will be torn to shreds before our very eyes. How anyone can vote democrat is beyond me. Way beyond. It is simply inexplicable.

Rational Thought on July 17, 2012 at 2:07 PM

While both contraception and abortion are immoral, they are usually symptoms of the overall problem of a lack of abstinence until marriage.

Fixed if for you.

You are welcome.

Gunlock Bill on July 17, 2012 at 2:09 PM

With prevalence via magazines, the Internet, hotels, and DVD and video rental stores, could a cultural (not legal) stand against pornography help prevent such a high rate of single parenting and corresponding poverty and struggling childhood?

when you’re raised in a household with a mother and father teaching you good morals and values, all the porn, etc. thrown at you doesn’t do much damage.

GhoulAid on July 17, 2012 at 2:09 PM

Feminism’s greatest triumph was the destruction of the father figure. We need to restore that before we go any further. Start with laws that make it illegal to have an abortion unless the FATHER has written consent to kill THEIR uborn CHILD.

nobar on July 17, 2012 at 2:10 PM

Many of us (myself included) don’t miss the days of moral judgments that coincided with a time when fewer children were being raised in single-parent households, but if children raised in unintentional out-of-wedlock households continue to struggle in comparison with children in two-parent homes, we need to find a way to replace the force of those social norms without going backward in social acceptance. Can we distinguish between promoting some kind of “parent preparedness” and condemning its lack?

How exactly do we publicly encourage people to make the right choices without shame? It isn’t possible.

One of the most striking moments of “Two Classes, Separated by ‘I Do’” comes as Ms. Schairer refuses to complain. “I’m in this position because of decisions I made,” she says. Her willingness to accept where those choices have led is admirable…

What the Fluke is admirable about this? Living in denial is admirable? Incapable of facing the mistakes one has made is admirable? Never learning is admirable?

NotCoach on July 17, 2012 at 2:11 PM

we need to find a way to replace the force of those social norms without going backward in social acceptance…

Can’t be done. You can’t do the one and accomplish the other.

iamsaved on July 17, 2012 at 2:11 PM

as such they have succeeded with the true feminist aim, which was to create an increasing number of people with less concern for family structure, little understanding of traditional Christian principles, and a greater dependence on the state.

Because the State replaces the family structure…it leadership becomes both patriarch and matriarch caring for its children, who are to forever be dependent upon the state for its needs.

The tenets of and adherence to Christian principles is an impediment to the goals of the State. Which also replaces Christianity as the approved and required religion.

hawkeye54 on July 17, 2012 at 2:12 PM

The solution is not abstinence or any other type of sex education. People know where babies come from.

A little education in basic economics may help so young people understand the costs associated with a child but the real solution would be labeled as cruel by the Leftists.

The real solution is to cut off the gravy train of benefits available to poor mothers/fathers.

A poor mother/father to be is eligible for free prenatal care and free childbirth.

After little Johnnie, or LaJohnnie, is born he can get free immunizations, free medical care, free school meals, et al. The parents qualify for a host of freebies themselves if they have to choose between staying home with Johnnie/LaJohnnie and working. If they do work then in many cities they can get free child care.

The point is that it is relatively easy to afford a child even for a poor person. The benefits need to be cut off so that the young actually think about the financial consequences. That is much more impactful than abstinence or other moral training.

Charlemagne on July 17, 2012 at 2:13 PM

Rational Thought on July 17, 2012 at 2:07 PM

Everyone must be brought down to the lowest level in order to make life “fair”.

NotCoach on July 17, 2012 at 2:13 PM

Dustin – your “article” is so full of logical weaknesses and naivity I don’t even know where to begin.

Really – have you graduated high school yet? Seriously – your arguments are as “pie in the sky” as socialism is.

HondaV65 on July 17, 2012 at 2:14 PM

when you’re raised in a household with a mother and father teaching you good morals and values

That is sooo judgmental and prejudiced! Why, a single parent, two mothers, two fathers, or any other combination of adults are quite fine and more than capable in teaching good morals and values….get with the 21st Century already!!!!

hawkeye54 on July 17, 2012 at 2:15 PM

It’s obvious your success isn’t your own…these children growing up in Single Parent homes need help…SO, I propose we spread the parents around…so everyone has a chance to succeed. To that end I am proposing:
1) A Parenting Czar;
2) A Tax on Two –Parent Families, for families making over $250,000, the proceeds to benefit Single parent children;
3) A Mandate that children have two parents.
I believe that between taxation, regulation, and government policy we can correct this Parent Deficit Problem and ensure that every child ahs two parents.

JFKY on July 17, 2012 at 2:19 PM

File another one under DUH!

Bevan on July 17, 2012 at 2:19 PM

You can’t make people do the right thing.
All you can do is make it hard for people to do the wrong things.
This is not for the Federal Govt to do anything about (other than getting rid of all of the agencies & programs that are UnConstitutional & help foster this bad behavior).
People in their local communities need to speak out against bad behavior.
Like for instance, a former student of mine who got pregnant by a ‘relative’ (she was adopted) at the age of 14 was not to blame.
But NOW her foster parents who adopted her babysit the young child so momma can go out whoring around town.
They do it bcs they reason at least the kid is being watched properly.
But momma wouldn’t be able to go out whoring bcs they make it easier for her to do so.

Just like with horses: make the right things easy & the wrong things hard.
We don’t need government intervention all the time to make this happen.
START AT HOME FIRST

Badger40 on July 17, 2012 at 2:20 PM

Pope Paul VI told us all this 40+ years ago in the prophetic Humanae Vitae, but few, even or especially within the Church (who should have known better), wanted to believe it.

Clearly, even with all the evidence staring them in the face, many still refuse to admit it. The Church was right, as it naturally would be. And Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying: All power is given to me in heaven and in earth. Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.

pannw on July 17, 2012 at 2:21 PM

A NYT article in 2/2012 noted 53% of children born to women under 30 were to unmarried women. 73% of those unwed mothers were black , 50% were Latino and 29% were whites.

A lot of Julias and Barry voters to mine there.

bayview on July 17, 2012 at 2:21 PM

perhaps a focus on improving our education system and lowering the cost of college attendance would be a better use of public dollars than using tax dollars to violate the First Amendment and ineffectively subsidize college loans?

I have little faith that a new government program will cure the ills of current government programs.

STL_Vet on July 17, 2012 at 2:21 PM

“Education” as part of the fix? ~pfffft!~

When it some to that, liberals fight tooth and nail to keep the idea of abstinence as even part of any program, an option. Liberals don’t want it anywhere near the school system.

Sex education in schools first started in the 70s when I was in high school, it being a part of the Health program to teach teens the biology of it all. Now, the schools are showing kids how to condoms on banas, and there is a cadre on the Left that wants to teach first-graders (6-yr-olds, that is) about masturbation.

Sex education today also tends to promote certain lifestyles and practices (such as f*sting). I don’t consider that ‘education’. I call it promotion.

I get the point that parents had a hard time, when I was young, telling their kids about the birds and the bees. My parents got me a set of books instead, which not only taught me the biology of it all but taught the etiquette, too–like how a boy should handle calling a girl and how a couple might prefer to act during a date.

I have no idea what might be a ‘fix’ to today’s mess after all these decades of liberal promoting, because all I see is them pushing rutting like elk do and not like humans who have a superior brain and a sense of morality.

If ‘education’ might have a partial shot, getting liberals out of the system is the first step toward success.

Liam on July 17, 2012 at 2:22 PM

The real solution is to cut off the gravy train of benefits available to poor mothers/fathers.

Charlemagne on July 17, 2012 at 2:13 PM

Exactly – which is a point that Dustin completely misses.

Abstinence is NOT 100 percent effective. There are plenty of girls who practiced “abstinence” but got pregnant anyway during an “oops” moment. Why SoCons don’t apply the same rules to abstinence is beyond me. They always say it’s 100% effective … no, it’s not – because it’s not always practiced correctly. Just as a condom is NOT as effective when it’s not used correctly – and just as the pill isn’t as effective when it’s not used correctly.

And … Dustin points out that men have high sex drives! WOW – THAT’S A NEWSFLASH! And he expects for women to rise up all as one (all 200 MILLION women in America!) to get control of this damn situation! Is this idealism or naivety that makes him say this? Whatever – it’s not gonna happen.

You want to bring the birth rate down …

- Get rid of the social safety net that rewards out of wedlock child birth.

- “All of the above” on birth control. Abstinence, Condoms, Birth Control Pills – the works.

- Decriminalize prostitution and us “ebil men” will have a sexual outlet elsewhere – with professionals who KNOW how to prevent pregnancies.

HondaV65 on July 17, 2012 at 2:23 PM

I don’t quite agree with this

Dustin – your “article” is so full of logical weaknesses and naivity I don’t even know where to begin.

Really – have you graduated high school yet? Seriously – your arguments are as “pie in the sky” as socialism is.

HondaV65 on July 17, 2012 at 2:14 PM

but, I don’t agree with Dustin either. First, not everyone believes that either or both contraception and abortion are immoral. It’s not a fact and should not be stated as such.

Second,this how nothing to do with social conservatism. That term is unnecessary and doesn’t mean anything. I’m not even remotely “socially conservative,” but I understand and embrace the benefits of the 2-parent family dynamic.

It’s stable, it’s fairly natural, and it’s worked out pretty well. It’s certainly not the only way to do things, nor should it be.

And what exactly is wrong with social shaming? Why do we have to accept everyone for who they are? What happened to the First Amendment? We live in a society where we shouldn’t force anyone to do things against their will via law, but we sure as hell are free to judge and shame.

I think that many libertarians would suggest that at least some cultural norms and shaming are keys to regulating culture outside of government. I’m not suggesting we ostracize and segregate single mothers. But we shouldn’t put them on pedestals via TV shows like 16 and pregnant or Sex in the City.

Perhaps it would do our society some good to have TV shows that showed single parent family life in terms of the brutal or less than ideal reality that it often is. We don’t have to view every single mother negatively or judgingly. Some made one mistake or were abandoned by a worthless man. But there are plenty of single parents that could use some serious social condemnation and most of us could use some social grooming on the subject while growing up.

dgarone on July 17, 2012 at 2:24 PM

pannw on July 17, 2012 at 2:21 PM

Have no idea how that ended up in quotes. It’s mine and I stand by it.

pannw on July 17, 2012 at 2:24 PM

That is sooo judgmental and prejudiced! Why, a single parent, two mothers, two fathers, or any other combination of adults are quite fine and more than capable in teaching good morals and values….get with the 21st Century already!!!!

hawkeye54 on July 17, 2012 at 2:15 PM

the 21st century can kiss my @$$!

GhoulAid on July 17, 2012 at 2:24 PM

One of the most striking moments of “Two Classes, Separated by ‘I Do’” comes as Ms. Schairer refuses to complain. “I’m in this position because of decisions I made,” she says. Her willingness to accept where those choices have led is admirable…

What the Fluke is admirable about this? Living in denial is admirable? Incapable of facing the mistakes one has made is admirable? Never learning is admirable?

NotCoach on July 17, 2012 at 2:11 PM

My interpretation was the admirable thing (as it is) was that she wasn’t trying to blame the state or her mother or the TV or anybody but, God forbid, herself.

kim roy on July 17, 2012 at 2:24 PM

Dustin – your “article” is so full of logical weaknesses and naivity I don’t even know where to begin.
Really – have you graduated high school yet? Seriously – your arguments are as “pie in the sky” as socialism is.

HondaV65 on July 17, 2012 at 2:14 PM

Heh. Admit it, you’re just saying that because of the Palin post earlier. Let it go, dude.

changer1701 on July 17, 2012 at 2:27 PM

While both contraception and abortion are immoral, they are usually symptoms of the overall problem of a lack of abstinence until marriage. Which is why Mount St. Mary’s University graduate student Erica Szalkowski and I co-authored a piece this morning offering one possible solution: increased chastity by women in order to help men, who are often weaker when it comes to resisting sexual temptation, rise to the proverbial occasion to “help men reform themselves and become the moral authorities they need to be.”

You know, when you’re making a nice reasoned argument it doesn’t really help to pepper it with idiocy.

peski on July 17, 2012 at 2:28 PM

Heh. Admit it, you’re just saying that because of the Palin post earlier. Let it go, dude.

changer1701 on July 17, 2012 at 2:27 PM

I didn’t even read that article – I just commented in the thread. Get a life dude and please kick me out of your head – I know the rent’s free – but the interior decorating leaves much to be desired.

HondaV65 on July 17, 2012 at 2:29 PM

dgarone on July 17, 2012 at 2:24 PM

Well said.

peski on July 17, 2012 at 2:29 PM

we need to find a way to replace the force of those social norms without going backward in social acceptance. Can we distinguish between promoting some kind of “parent preparedness” and condemning its lack?

What an excellent example of the idiocy of “Liberal” thinking.

The author would be more than happy to have the government play the roll of disapproving family, friends and neighbors (essentially all the people who have to actually PAY for the poor decision making), to avoid the “condemnation” because once again we see how “Liberals” don’t want to actually be held responsible for their actions.

Classic.

KMC1 on July 17, 2012 at 2:30 PM

You know, when you’re making a nice reasoned argument it doesn’t really help to pepper it with idiocy.

peski on July 17, 2012 at 2:28 PM

Dead on. It ruined the article for me.

dgarone on July 17, 2012 at 2:31 PM

Contraception is “immoral” ?

Who hired this lunatic?

cool breeze on July 17, 2012 at 2:33 PM

It’s really weird the way things have changed so quickly, in about two decades. About 10 years ago I was shocked when a college degreed unmarried co-worker of mine said her

grandmother

was nagging her to get pregnant because all her female cousins were ahead of her at having babies. Not husbands–babies. WTF?

juliesa on July 17, 2012 at 2:33 PM

Format fail. “grandmother” was upposed to be in italics.

juliesa on July 17, 2012 at 2:34 PM

Contraception is “immoral” ?

Who hired this lunatic?

cool breeze on July 17, 2012 at 2:33 PM

It is for Catholics who actually follow the Catholic Church’s rules.

NotCoach on July 17, 2012 at 2:34 PM

Her willingness to accept where those choices have led is admirable, but it’s the impact of those choices on her three children that we must address.

Three kids out of wedlock? She didn’t learn after the first?

This stuff is unbelievable. A few weeks ago, here in Cincinnati, a 35-year-old guy died after he was tased by police who were breaking up a fight at a pick-up basketball game. The guy left behind NINE kids by four different women.

BuckeyeSam on July 17, 2012 at 2:35 PM

Contraception is “immoral” ?

Who hired this lunatic?

cool breeze on July 17, 2012 at 2:33 PM

Well his article comes from a Catholic rag so …

HondaV65 on July 17, 2012 at 2:35 PM

What’s wrong with porn? It’s occasionally fun to watch, but I doubt it has any effect on my family life since my wife’s visuals compare favorably to most “stars”. Really, I’ll rather pay more taxes to feed Oclown’s welfare hordes than let so-cons regulate my personal life, whatever legal form I prefer it to take.

Archivarix on July 17, 2012 at 2:36 PM

It is for Catholics who actually follow the Catholic Church’s rules.

NotCoach on July 17, 2012 at 2:34 PM

Which isn’t most of them.

HondaV65 on July 17, 2012 at 2:36 PM

Charlemagne on July 17, 2012 at 2:13 PM

How about a combination of both.

chemman on July 17, 2012 at 2:37 PM

You know, when you’re making a nice reasoned argument it doesn’t really help to pepper it with idiocy.

peski on July 17, 2012 at 2:28 PM

It’s not idiocy at all. And the fact that so many here think it is, is a testimony to how effective the left’s campaign of changing societal morals has been over the past 50-100 years.

What Dustin says should be, and has always been, the norm. It has always been accepted that women tame the men, who are often less able to control their more carnal natures. And, newsflash, every single Christian denomination — every single one — agreed with the Catholic Church that contraception was immoral up until the point where they caved in to societal pressure over the fear of losing members.

Contraception gives the appearance of separating sex from its logical consequences and, as such, it makes people much more free about engaging in it. It is one of the greatest curses every to befall mankind.

Shump on July 17, 2012 at 2:38 PM

Individual freedom and personal responsibility.

You are free to screw up, but when you do you have to own it just as you would want to if you succeed in life. You do NOT get to make your screw ups every one else’s problem.

That’s one of the huge differences between slobberals and conservatives, and even moderate-left independents and conservatives. Hell, I’ve even heard libertarians whining like liberals when they screw up. Instead of pulling up the bootstraps and working to right things they (the few vs the many) want someone else to bail them out of their sinking ship.

If you give away your personal responsibility, freedom will go away right with it. If not immediately, very soon after. Learn this and you won’t be a liberal anymore. Imagine that! A cure for the disease of liberalism…but only if you’re smart enough to take the medicine.

Wolfmoon on July 17, 2012 at 2:38 PM

It is for Catholics who actually follow the Catholic Church’s rules.

NotCoach on July 17, 2012 at 2:34 PM

But it isn’t for many other religions and even the the vast majority of American Catholics do not follow the Church’s rules on contraception.

cool breeze on July 17, 2012 at 2:40 PM

Contraception gives the appearance of separating sex from its logical consequences and, as such, it makes people much more free about engaging in it. It is one of the greatest curses every to befall mankind.

Shump on July 17, 2012 at 2:38 PM

So you’re putting rubbers and birth control pills on par with the Bubonic Plague and Small Pox?

Pretty level-headed, good job!

/

HondaV65 on July 17, 2012 at 2:41 PM

Can we distinguish between promoting some kind of “parent preparedness” and condemning its lack?

No, we can’t. Either it is ill thought out / poor behavior to have children before / without marriage, or it isn’t. If it is, then if you do it, you should be criticized. If it isn’t, then there’s no reason to reward / praise people who wait.

One of the most fundamental behavioral motivations is the avoidance of pain. It would be nice to think that teenagers and twenty somethings would be intelligent and mature enough to see the problems that single parenthood brings, and shape their behavior to avoid the situation and problems. It would also be nice if George Soros gave me a pony for Christmas.

You want people to have fewer kids out of wedlock? The support societal pressure towards that end.

It all boils down to what matters more to you: making sure you still have guilty-free access to lots of non-marital sex, or making sure the next generation is not screwed over, from birth, by their parents.

My guess is that the left cares more about guilt free sex than it does about helping the future.

Greg Q on July 17, 2012 at 2:41 PM

The most destructive force in American society: the never married “single mom.”

Akzed on July 17, 2012 at 2:43 PM

While both contraception and abortion are immoral, they are usually symptoms of the overall problem of a lack of abstinence until marriage.

Sorry, you lost me at contraception being immoral. I used it after marriage as a tool to ensure that I got pregnant if/when I was ready for it, both financially and emotionally.

Violina23 on July 17, 2012 at 2:43 PM

There are plenty of girls who practiced “abstinence” but got pregnant anyway during an “oops” moment.

HondaV65 on July 17, 2012 at 2:23 PM

“Not having sex” is 100% “effective.”

Axe on July 17, 2012 at 2:44 PM

Well his article comes from a Catholic rag so …

HondaV65 on July 17, 2012 at 2:35 PM

But the ‘contraception is “immoral”‘ quote is not from somewhere else, it comes from Dustin Siggins at Hot Air.

Rick Santorum, is that you?

cool breeze on July 17, 2012 at 2:45 PM

Contraception is immoral, written here, stated as a fact?

GaltBlvnAtty on July 17, 2012 at 2:46 PM

It all boils down to what matters more to you: making sure you still have guilty-free access to lots of non-marital sex, or making sure the next generation is not screwed over, from birth, by their parents.

Greg Q on July 17, 2012 at 2:41 PM

What a frickin strawman. Like there are only EXTREME choices – NOT!!

Look – I’ve had LOTS of extra-marital sex with LOTS of women. None of them got pregnant unless I wanted them to (and that was only my wife – three times). I raised my kids and put ‘em through college and they came out with usable degrees and ZERO college debt. I’ve been a good Dad.

And yeah – I like to be with women – and what the hell do you have to say about that? NOTHING! Because your words go in one ear and out the other.

You can snub me all you want – I don’t care. You can think yourself superior – I think you’re hilariously a prude.

HondaV65 on July 17, 2012 at 2:48 PM

Abstinence is NOT 100 percent effective. There are plenty of girls who practiced “abstinence” but got pregnant anyway during an “oops” moment.

Ummm, if they had an “oops” moment, then they weren’t abstinent.

Nutstuyu on July 17, 2012 at 2:49 PM

But the ‘contraception is “immoral”‘ quote is not from somewhere else, it comes from Dustin Siggins at Hot Air.

Rick Santorum, is that you?

cool breeze on July 17, 2012 at 2:45 PM

I guess if someone doesn’t want to get married until they are 30, they need to remain virgins until then??

V-rod on July 17, 2012 at 2:50 PM

whatever legal form I prefer it to take.
Archivarix on July 17, 2012 at 2:36 PM

from the post: could a cultural (not legal) stand

Nice reflexive reaction against an argument not made.

chemman on July 17, 2012 at 2:50 PM

But it isn’t for many other religions and even the the vast majority of American Catholics do not follow the Church’s rules on contraception.

cool breeze on July 17, 2012 at 2:40 PM

So a single persons moral judgement is decided by popular opinion? Quite frankly I think you should either argue why you don’t think contraception is immoral, or shut up. You don’t sound intelligent by feigning silly outrage at the idea of contraception being immoral when the largest Christian denomination on the planet says that it is immoral.

NotCoach on July 17, 2012 at 2:52 PM

And yeah – I like to be with women – and what the hell do you have to say about that? NOTHING! Because your words go in one ear and out the other.

And more power to ya. Too bad our bigoted society legislates morality by arbitrarily defining what an “adult” woman is. You’d have thousands more potential partners.

Nutstuyu on July 17, 2012 at 2:52 PM

Ummm, if they had an “oops” moment, then they weren’t abstinent.

Nutstuyu on July 17, 2012 at 2:49 PM

Sorry – but you don’t get to do that and get away with it.

On the one hand you SoCons blame condoms and birth control for the unwanted babies. Even though, most of the time the bith occured because the condom or pill wasn’t used or wasn’t used correctly.

And then on the other hand – you refuse to apply the same rules of failure to “abstinence”. My neice was using abstinence because she’s Catholic and was told birth control and the pill were immoral. She got pregnant during a weak moment in her life.

This is the problem with abstinence – it completely forgets about hormones and sexual response.

HondaV65 on July 17, 2012 at 2:54 PM

I think you’re hilariously a prude.

HondaV65 on July 17, 2012 at 2:48 PM

If it didn’t matter what he thought why the comment?

chemman on July 17, 2012 at 2:54 PM

And more power to ya. Too bad our bigoted society legislates morality by arbitrarily defining what an “adult” woman is. You’d have thousands more potential partners.

Nutstuyu on July 17, 2012 at 2:52 PM

I’m not quite sure what you mean by that.

HondaV65 on July 17, 2012 at 2:55 PM

Just what is the target audience for this whole article? Is it for younger people, those in HS and college, to rethink what they have been taught by liberals still hung up on the ‘free love’ meme and the ‘sex revolution’?

Look what that brought us. And all the sexual Left can do is try plying a Band Aid to the results of it all like a snake oil salesman. Yet, they cling to those antiquated ideals of fifty years ago as if a condom is going to change everything.

I say to teach all options, while liberals are allowed to teach it. It’s a BS notion to claim that abstinence is not 100% effective. *LOL* Idiots! Abstinence works all the time. Refusing to remain abstinent is the failure. And the pressure to ‘give in’, from the liberal left, is intense.

Then, for example, get rid of the libs who bring bananas and Trojans into a classroom, to ‘teach’.

I don’t believe liberals want a true fix. I’m persuaded they want the problem to continue so they can keep getting money.

If any liberal issue is truly resolved, that segment gets no more government largess and the ‘scientists’ will have to go find work elsewhere.

Liam on July 17, 2012 at 2:55 PM

Many of us (myself included) don’t miss the days of moral judgments that coincided with a time when fewer children were being raised in single-parent households, but if children raised in unintentional out-of-wedlock households continue to struggle in comparison with children in two-parent homes, we need to find a way to replace the force of those social norms without going backward in social acceptance.

When the author says “moral judgements,” the author means “negative moral judgements” — because the judgements are being made, positive or negative, at every encounter of the problem. The author is OK with positive moral judgements, society saying “this is fine,” — but is unhappy with the results of the accepted behavior. One might imagine the answer is simple, looking at the results of the behavior and then making the statement “this behavior is not good” — but you can’t do that when you are a sexual libertine and really really really like doing stuff while fiercely ignoring the consequences of the stuff you are doing.

Axe on July 17, 2012 at 2:55 PM

I guess if someone doesn’t want to get married until they are 30, they need to remain virgins until then??

V-rod on July 17, 2012 at 2:50 PM

Why not? Is sex like breathing or eating? Will a person die without it?

Of course these are personal choices each individual must make for themselves, but we are currently subsidizing and rewarding bad choices. We don’t need laws to force good choices (the one exception being abortion because there is no excuse ever for killing an innocent child for conveniences sake), but we need to stop subsidizing bad choices so that people naturally suffer the consequences of their bad choices.

NotCoach on July 17, 2012 at 2:56 PM

If it didn’t matter what he thought why the comment?

chemman on July 17, 2012 at 2:54 PM

Cuz it was FUN for me to make it?

HondaV65 on July 17, 2012 at 2:56 PM

This is the problem with abstinence – it completely forgets about hormones and sexual response.

HondaV65 on July 17, 2012 at 2:54 PM

So your saying free will has no power over instinct? Uh huh. Calling BS on that.

nobar on July 17, 2012 at 2:56 PM

Greg Q

And in regards to your last sentence about the left caring more about guilt free sex, they’re like animals. Difference is, animals don’t know better.

As for ‘conservatives’ who claim to be fiscally and defensively so, they miss the fact that animal-like behavior in human society causes problems that must be fixed by government. As Ben Franklin put it, ‘Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.’

avgjo on July 17, 2012 at 2:57 PM

And then on the other hand – you refuse to apply the same rules of failure to “abstinence”.

Do you seriously not know what “abstinent” means? It means not having sex. Once you have sex: You. Are. No. Longer. Abstinent.

Abstinence hasn’t failed. Your self-control has.

Nutstuyu on July 17, 2012 at 2:58 PM

Really, I’ll rather pay more taxes to feed Oclown’s welfare hordes than let so-cons regulate my personal life, whatever legal form I prefer it to take.

Archivarix on July 17, 2012 at 2:36 PM

Yep, this explains exactly why we are in the mess we are in. People are far more worried about being allowed to stay slaves to their sinful habits than becoming slaves to the state. Even though no one is trying to make their sins illegal. They fall for the threat that Santorum is trying to take away their porn!!!! When he isn’t, even if he does use his opportunity to point out that it is immoral and damaging. Social Conservatives aren’t out to make homosexuality illegal, but do refuse to accept it, but the leftists scream we are trying to make sodomy illegal again (as it was up until a few short years ago.) We don’t want porn on commercials between football games, but aren’t out to criminalize playboy. But you don’t even want it pointed out that it has been damaging to women, and men, particularly in their relationships with one another, as any reasonable study has shown. Hear no evil, see no evil! Don’t even speak of evil!!! Ohmygosh…we can’t have these bible-thumpers telling us we’re being immoral! Let’s elect the leftists! We might become slaves to the state of a third world country, but daggonit, we’ll still have all the sex and porn we can get without having someone tell us it’s bad!!! And the broken families, feral fatherless kids, disease, etc…/ Actually, sounds about right for a third world country.

Romans 1 are us.

We are a doomed people.

pannw on July 17, 2012 at 2:58 PM

Why not? Is sex like breathing or eating? Will a person die without it?

NotCoach on July 17, 2012 at 2:56 PM

I would say that taking a vacation, though a great stress relief, is not like eating or breathing either so lets OUTLAW that too!

HondaV65 on July 17, 2012 at 2:58 PM

The real solution is to cut off the gravy train of benefits available to poor mothers/fathers.

Charlemagne on July 17, 2012 at 2:13 PM

You want to bring the birth rate down …

- Get rid of the social safety net that rewards out of wedlock child birth.

HondaV65 on July 17, 2012 at 2:23 PM

To play devil’s advocate, what about the children of these parents? I’m all about personal responsibility, facing the consequences of our actions, etc — but the child(ren) didn’t ask to be born either.

I think that many libertarians would suggest that at least some cultural norms and shaming are keys to regulating culture outside of government. I’m not suggesting we ostracize and segregate single mothers. But we shouldn’t put them on pedestals via TV shows like 16 and pregnant or Sex in the City.

dgarone on July 17, 2012 at 2:24 PM

This. Exactly. There is a difference between accepting what can’t be changed, and glorifying it. But what is often missing is the acknowledgement that having a child before you’re ready is a mistake. The existence of a life may not be the mistake, but the conditions upon which he/she was brought into the world was.

Violina23 on July 17, 2012 at 2:59 PM

Romans 1 are us.

We are a doomed people.

pannw on July 17, 2012 at 2:58 PM

Well … let’s all go buy some hookers tonight! Who’s with me!!!

HondaV65 on July 17, 2012 at 2:59 PM

perhaps a focus on improving our education system

Yes. Privatize it. Strangle the NEA/AFT/UFT as they have been strangling education for the last 150 years and more.

and lowering the cost of college attendance

Better, IMHO, would be to broaden the range of alternatives to college: More technical schools, more vocational schools, more certificate programs.

The GI Bill and similar programs had a noble goal: To make higher education more affordable. I would never knock the GI Bill; that’s how my mother was able to afford a university degree, back in the day. However, no good deed goes unpunished, and one of the consequences of democratizing (for lack of a better word — help me out here?) college degrees is to water them down. [heresy alert] Not everyone thrives in a university. When a bachelor’s degree has become the minimum credential to get even a clerical job, something has gone very wrong. [/heresy]

Mary in LA on July 17, 2012 at 3:00 PM

I would say that taking a vacation, though a great stress relief, is not like eating or breathing either so lets OUTLAW that too!

HondaV65 on July 17, 2012 at 2:58 PM

I can’t see over your strawman and it is blocking the sun. Could you please take it elsewhere?

NotCoach on July 17, 2012 at 3:00 PM

… worse than the disaster out-of-wedlock marriage has been on America’s culture.

Out of wedlock marriage? Is that possible? :-)

I thought progressives were here to give us progress. That certainly hasn’t happened with our finances, our moral codes, and our children’s prospects. I’m afraid we’ll have to label them regressives, since they are pushing society back to our more primitive roots..

nerdbert on July 17, 2012 at 3:00 PM

HondaV65 on July 17, 2012 at 2:56 PM

:)

chemman on July 17, 2012 at 3:01 PM

Well … let’s all go buy some h[00]kers* tonight! Who’s with me!!!

HondaV65 on July 17, 2012 at 2:59 PM

Thanks, I’ll pass. ;-)

But I understand that under Obamacare, if you like your h[00]ker, you can keep your h[00]ker.

*shh… be vewy vewy quiet… I’m avoiding firewall…

Mary in LA on July 17, 2012 at 3:01 PM

Violina23 on July 17, 2012 at 2:59 PM

Sorry man, but you aren’t going to get 400 million Americans to go along with you in some kind of strange episode of a national “Scarlet Letter” campaign.

Good luck with that. Good thing is – it’ll keep guys like you busy enough to stay out of the things that would cause the rest of us big problems! :D

HondaV65 on July 17, 2012 at 3:02 PM

…whatever legal form I prefer it to take.

Archivarix on July 17, 2012 at 2:36 PM

Nice reflexive reaction against an argument not made.

chemman on July 17, 2012 at 2:50 PM

Well, shagging underage kids, unwilling participants, cattle, blood relatives, corpses, is illegal in some areas. But as long as I do none of the above, I want Bible-thumping prudes to stay away from my bedroom’s keyhole just as much as (and probably even more than) I want Oclown’s grabby paws to stay away from my wallet.

Archivarix on July 17, 2012 at 3:02 PM

I can’t see over your strawman and it is blocking the sun. Could you please take it elsewhere?

NotCoach on July 17, 2012 at 3:00 PM

His strawmen are particularly big to compensate for size elsewhere.

Nutstuyu on July 17, 2012 at 3:02 PM

Well, shagging underage kids, unwilling participants, cattle, blood relatives, corpses, is illegal in some areas

That’s just someone legislating their own morality. Why can’t we just love who we want to love?

Nutstuyu on July 17, 2012 at 3:03 PM

Mary in LA on July 17, 2012 at 3:01 PM

I like you – and I’ll bet you’re hot – at least, that’s the way I picture you! ;)

HondaV65 on July 17, 2012 at 3:04 PM

I don’t believe liberals want a true fix. I’m persuaded they want the problem to continue so they can keep getting money.
[...]
Liam on July 17, 2012 at 2:55 PM

This.

Mary in LA on July 17, 2012 at 3:05 PM

Sorry man, but you aren’t going to get 400 million Americans to go along with you in some kind of strange episode of a national “Scarlet Letter” campaign.

No one can get 400 million Americans. That’s because there’s only 313,931,000.

Nutstuyu on July 17, 2012 at 3:05 PM

I can’t see over your strawman and it is blocking the sun. Could you please take it elsewhere?

NotCoach on July 17, 2012 at 3:00 PM

That’s not me blocking the sun from your eyes – it’s the wool the SoCons have pulled over them!

HondaV65 on July 17, 2012 at 3:06 PM

I’ll rather pay more taxes to feed Oclown’s welfare hordes than let so-cons regulate my personal life, whatever legal form I prefer it to take.

Archivarix on July 17, 2012 at 2:36 PM

YES YES YES! This is what drove me nuts about the contraception mandate. I happen to be very much pro-contraception, but I was vehemently against this mandate. None of my liberal friends could understand that this isn’t about the morality of birth control but it’s about an un-elected secretary of HHS deciding what a private company must provide, whether they want to or not (for religious reasons or any other, for that matter). What if the next administration doesn’t agree with them, and mandates that contraception could NOT Be covered? Or passed a tax for abortions? Etc… they’d not be so cool with it.

But no, they are clouded by the seemingly benevolent president giving women free birth control.

[AdmiralAckbar]It’s a trap![/AdmiralAckbar]

Violina23 on July 17, 2012 at 3:07 PM

No one can get 400 million Americans. That’s because there’s only 313,931,000.

Nutstuyu on July 17, 2012 at 3:05 PM

Well, I was counting the illegals too – and 400 Million sounded like a nice round number.

But I see your point – 319 MILLION people – yeah, I’m sure the SoCons can get that many people to go along with their Scarlett Letter campaigns!

Totally doable – my bad!

HondaV65 on July 17, 2012 at 3:07 PM

I would say that taking a vacation, though a great stress relief, is not like eating or breathing either so lets OUTLAW that too! HondaV65 on July 17, 2012 at 2:58 PM

Did I miss something or did someone say we should outlaw contraceptives?

Anyone?

Akzed on July 17, 2012 at 3:07 PM

nothing guarantees a life of poverty and struggle as much as having children before learning a trade and getting married

burserker on July 17, 2012 at 3:08 PM

Romans 1 are us.

We are a doomed people.

pannw on July 17, 2012 at 2:58 PM

While I agree that Romans 1 is applicable to what we see happening culturally. I’ll have to disagree with that last statement. We are only doomed if we bury our heads and rail about the changes. Maybe, just maybe this is a call to intercession for our country.

chemman on July 17, 2012 at 3:08 PM

“The societal consequences of single parenting are well-known. “

True. But these consequences are not emphasized (because that’s ‘judgmental’) or even allowed to run their full course (because that’s ‘mean’).

Hot Air’s Boss Emeritus was fond of saying “If you want less of something, tax it. If you want more of something, subsidize it.”

Too often, single women think more of the government than of real men (too many boys, not enough men, etc). Hence, the nanny state is de facto ‘daddy.’ As such, women vote ‘democrat’ in greater numbers than men.

But staying out of poverty isn’t rocket surgery: graduate high school; don’t do drugs; and don’t pop out a bunch of hungry basterds.

“Personal decisions impact the chances of being a single parent.”

And living in poverty.

~nuff said.

locomotivebreath1901 on July 17, 2012 at 3:09 PM

HondaV65 on July 17, 2012 at 3:04 PM

I bet you say that to all the commenters. ;-)

Mary in LA on July 17, 2012 at 3:09 PM

Well, shagging underage kids, unwilling participants, cattle, blood relatives, corpses, etc. is illegal in some areas

That’s just someone legislating their own morality. Why can’t we just love who we want to love?

Nutstuyu on July 17, 2012 at 3:03 PM

Not in case of unwilling participants. Other than that, lobby for the legislature to change its approach to sexual freedom, just don’t be surprised when your favorite politician polls an asterisk come next election. That’s how a republic is supposed to work.

Archivarix on July 17, 2012 at 3:10 PM

Well … let’s all go buy some h[00]kers* tonight! Who’s with me!!!

HondaV65 on July 17, 2012 at 2:59 PM

buy? just charge them to the EBT card!

burserker on July 17, 2012 at 3:10 PM

Romans 1 are us.

We are a doomed people.

pannw on July 17, 2012 at 2:58 PM

You might like this.

Axe on July 17, 2012 at 3:10 PM

That’s not me blocking the sun from your eyes – it’s the wool the SoCons have pulled over them!

HondaV65 on July 17, 2012 at 3:06 PM

Must be fwapping time for you. You seemed a little to polite and lucid (for you) early in the thread. Your antidepressant drug wearing off?

NotCoach on July 17, 2012 at 3:10 PM

nothing guarantees a life of poverty and struggle as much as having children before learning a trade and getting married

burserker on July 17, 2012 at 3:08 PM

It guarantees a struggle, for sure.

Axe on July 17, 2012 at 3:12 PM

naivity ?… Did you mean to spell naivtE ?

DevilsPrinciple on July 17, 2012 at 3:14 PM

Well … let’s all go buy some h[00]kers* tonight! Who’s with me!!!

HondaV65 on July 17, 2012 at 2:59 PM

Treasury Dept.

Archivarix on July 17, 2012 at 3:15 PM

I thought progressives were here to give us progress. [...] I’m afraid we’ll have to label them regressives, since they are pushing society back to our more primitive roots..

nerdbert on July 17, 2012 at 3:00 PM

This, too!

There’s really nothing “progressive” about the so-called progressive agenda. What the progs really want is regression, just as you say — regression to a neo-Neolithic tribal culture, where we’re all subsistence farmers, and we settle our disputes not with law, but with gang warfare*.

*Progs are doing this by making our law codes so byzantine and internally contradictory that no one can comply with them, and by dividing us into “tribes” (e.g. gay vs. straight, men vs. women, all races against each other, etc.) and fomenting hostility between them.

Mary in LA on July 17, 2012 at 3:16 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3