What to do about the gays?

[bobblehead]

As far as what I meant by that comment, welfare recipients for the most part are single mothers. They don't allow a married woman to get said benefits very easily or often. They basically make sure that if you want to feed your baby you have to kick any man outta the house....especially if he has a job. By doing this you pretty much assure the mother has no chance at any kind of work or career other than being a momma. This creates an "underclass" citizen who's basic employment prospects for the next 18 years are walmart while jonny is in school (but if you take that job you lose welfare benefits). Then certain political parties promise them a little more public money to stay home, take care of jonny, keep from building an actual family and future, and most importantly vote for me. Hope that clears it up.

When you say single parenthood is more common I'm curious how you are attributing that to welfare mothers rather than divorced couples.

I'm not sure where you are getting your information on public assistance. I do believe public assistance goes by household income, so a man living in the home earning a low wage does not mean the woman, or they, that you refer to must kick the man out so the woman and child is able to survive. Who is this THEY you refer to?

Then certain political parties promise them a little more public money to stay home,

I've seen far more evidence that points to certain political parties working to provide assistance to single mothers to help them get off welfare rather than to keep them on welfare.....assistance with tuition, childcare and even in desperate cases housing. Now I don't mean housing as in welfare. I mean housing as in structured programs that allow single women to get on their feet, whether it be through learning a trade or working, give them financial guidance and help them save for their own residence...all while receiving free childcare while working to NOT be on welfare and better themselves.

keep from building an actual family

What's your definition of an actual family?
A single mother does not have an actual family because there is no man in the house??? omg...that's almost hilarious.

Here's a thought....maybe those that are so outraged by the women on welfare should take a moment to think about all the men that fathered those babies and are paying NO child support. There would be less spending on welfare if they were helping to support their children.

I would certainly never encourage anyone to be satisfied with being on welfare, however I would also never look down my nose at someone that needed it to get on their feet. I don't see how a certain political party encourages it either.

Just a short response, I'm not outraged by mothers on welfare, I feel very sorry for them because for the most part social programs are NOT designed to help them get off of it. I am not in any way looking down my nose at them, you are reading into what I think and thats not fair.

As far as the men who fathered those babies, I couldn't agree more. I often said one of the ONLY things I liked that Clinton did was his deadbeat dads act. Again, you assumed to know what I think and weren't even close in what you implied I think. Democrats have done such a good job of defining conservatives as "mean spirited" that its hard to even debate without being accused of such....some things go the same the other way too, such as my characterizing liberals of debating their feelings instead of logic.

And finally, no, a single PARENT does not have a family in the traditional sense and welfare programs tend to discourage them from developing one. If the family recieving welfare is indeed a two parent family then whenever one gets a job, the public assistance tends to get cut dramatically, and furthermore if there is a male in the house who isn't working social workers expect them to, they don't expect single parents to, thus usually what happens is deadbeat dad leaves the house and mom is left to raise a kid on her own with little chance to improve her situation.

Don't read into this in any way as me judging whether or not a traditional family is better or worse, I'm a libertarian as I have said many times, I don't care what people do. HOWEVER I think most women (and men) would rather have a traditional family with steady income and independence, which most public assistance programs in their current form make difficult.

edit: PS....some might argue that when I end up paying for said single mother I have the right to judge the behavior...others would say its still not my right, please send more money.

PSS...I had to go back to my original post...its not fair to quote me and cut off part of my sentence. I said build an actual family AND CAREER, and what I meant was a normal life that most of them desire and DESERVE. Now the way I originally wrote that you should have been VERY aware of what I meant and not thinking I was looking down my nose at them.

[GrnBay007]

Just a short response, I'm not outraged by mothers on welfare, I feel very sorry for them because for the most part social programs are NOT designed to help them get off of it.

There are programs out there to get single women off welfare. Bottom line will always be whether the individual wants to get off welfare. Insinuating a certain political party wants them to be on welfare is not fair imo.

I am not in any way looking down my nose at them, you are reading into what I think and thats not fair.

As far as the men who fathered those babies, I couldn't agree more. I often said one of the ONLY things I liked that Clinton did was his deadbeat dads act. Again, you assumed to know what I think and weren't even close in what you implied I think. Democrats have done such a good job of defining conservatives as "mean spirited" that its hard to even debate without being accused of such....some things go the same the other way too, such as my characterizing liberals of debating their feelings instead of logic.

I never once pointed any fingers at you....I used general terms.

[bobblehead]

And i didn't insinuate it, I flat out said it. In 200x (can't remember exactly) the california DNC accidently left microphones on in a private meeting, they were discussing how to extend the recession until the elections so they could blame republicans. Now I'm not saying the republicans never do their own slimey things (valerie plume) but we are discussing this issue in the now.

[GrnBay007]

I didn't get to finish what I was going to write. Kids came in the house and told me how a dad up the street (a traditional family man):P was yelling at them...threw the F-bomb a few times over his kid's plastic lawn ornament squirrel that got broke when she was playing in our yard. Had my son pay him $10 for the ornament since he did play a part in it getting broke....and then told traditional family man if he has a problem with my son in the future I would appreciate him letting me know rather than swearing at my kid. Handed him a bag of wrappers his kids left in my yard and told him respect for property works both ways.

Anyway, I understand you were talking welfare in particular...just irked me a bit how you lumped certain things together.

Don't read into this in any way as me judging whether or not a traditional family is better or worse, I'm a libertarian as I have said many times, I don't care what people do. HOWEVER I think most women (and men) would rather have a traditional family with steady income and independence, which most public assistance programs in their current form make difficult.

I may not have a traditional family...as you call it but you made reference to having an actual family as well. I'm a single mom, have steady income and major independence and am quite proud of my family.

[3irty1]

How about we let any consenting adult that wants to get married do so and stay the fuck out of other peoples business?

Can I marry my dog? What about a cactus?

WHat part of "consenting adult" don't you understand. If your dog or cactus can consent...well, skip marriage and get on the carny circuit and make some dough.

How about we let any consenting adult that wants to get married do so and stay the fuck out of other peoples business?

Can I marry my dog? What about a cactus?

Can you read?

I knew you people wouldn't understand our love. But can I at least marry three or four consenting adults at once?

[Harlan Huckleby]

Can I marry my dog? What about a cactus?
I knew you people wouldn't understand our love. But can I at least marry three or four consenting adults at once?

This is a valid question. You're right, a similar argument for allowing gays to marry could be applied to cactophiles.

And my position of "let the churches decide", strictly applied, supports your point. There could be a religion that honored the sacred bond between a man and his cactus.

So you are correct that it is reasonable and necessary for society to impose some limits on what a marriage can be. It can't be totally arbitrary. And if you think that marriage between two adults of the same sex would cause problems, then you are on firm ground to oppose it.

BTW, remind me again what those problems are. And no need to just be theoretical, there are countries all over the world with gay marriage now. What problems are cropping up that would justify preventing people from the pursuit of happiness?

I favor treating adults equally as much as possible. And I'm strongly for freedom. I see NO rationale for preventing any two consenting, unrelated adults from getting married. Except for bigotry, and that is far from a good reason.

I am for civil unions, not marriage, at this stage. But that is a practical judgement, I have no problem with marriage for gays in principle.

[3irty1]

Can I marry my dog? What about a cactus?
I knew you people wouldn't understand our love. But can I at least marry three or four consenting adults at once?

This is a valid question. You're right, a similar argument for allowing gays to marry could be applied to cactophiles.

And my position of "let the churches decide", strictly applied, supports your point. There could be a religion that honored the sacred bond between a man and his cactus.

So you are correct that it is reasonable and necessary for society to impose some limits on what a marriage can be. It can't be totally arbitrary. And if you think that marriage between two adults of the same sex would cause problems, then you are on firm ground to oppose it.

BTW, remind me again what those problems are. And no need to just be theoretical, there are countries all over the world with gay marriage now. What problems are cropping up that would justify preventing people from the pursuit of happiness?

I favor treating adults equally as much as possible. And I'm strongly for freedom. I see NO rationale for preventing any two consenting, unrelated adults from getting married. Except for bigotry, and that is far from a good reason.

I am for civil unions, not marriage, at this stage. But that is a practical judgement, I have no problem with marriage for gays in principle.

From what I gather I am mostly with you on this issue. If being in a civil union is inconvenient then I'm all for improving the laws involved with that. As I already stated I think its ridiculous that being gay automatically makes you unfit to be a parent to an adopted child.

I do however like distinguishing between a civil union and a marriage even if only by name. As I said before this strikes me as a gay pride issue rather than a gay rights issue. I understand the desire to have their gay-love viewed as equal and just as legitimate as everyone elses but I don't think its a great idea to publicly endorse that lifestyle. Society is gay enough as it is, being more like Europe is the last thing I want.

[bobblehead]

Just a short response, I'm not outraged by mothers on welfare, I feel very sorry for them because for the most part social programs are NOT designed to help them get off of it.

There are programs out there to get single women off welfare. Bottom line will always be whether the individual wants to get off welfare. Insinuating a certain political party wants them to be on welfare is not fair imo.

I am not in any way looking down my nose at them, you are reading into what I think and thats not fair.

As far as the men who fathered those babies, I couldn't agree more. I often said one of the ONLY things I liked that Clinton did was his deadbeat dads act. Again, you assumed to know what I think and weren't even close in what you implied I think. Democrats have done such a good job of defining conservatives as "mean spirited" that its hard to even debate without being accused of such....some things go the same the other way too, such as my characterizing liberals of debating their feelings instead of logic.

I never once pointed any fingers at you....I used general terms.

while quoting me.

[bobblehead]

I didn't get to finish what I was going to write. Kids came in the house and told me how a dad up the street (a traditional family man):P was yelling at them...threw the F-bomb a few times over his kid's plastic lawn ornament squirrel that got broke when she was playing in our yard. Had my son pay him $10 for the ornament since he did play a part in it getting broke....and then told traditional family man if he has a problem with my son in the future I would appreciate him letting me know rather than swearing at my kid. Handed him a bag of wrappers his kids left in my yard and told him respect for property works both ways.

Anyway, I understand you were talking welfare in particular...just irked me a bit how you lumped certain things together.

Don't read into this in any way as me judging whether or not a traditional family is better or worse, I'm a libertarian as I have said many times, I don't care what people do. HOWEVER I think most women (and men) would rather have a traditional family with steady income and independence, which most public assistance programs in their current form make difficult.

I may not have a traditional family...as you call it but you made reference to having an actual family as well. I'm a single mom, have steady income and major independence and am quite proud of my family.

Incidentally I probably would have great respect for you raising kids and having independence on your own (if I knew you)....I come from an identical family and my father was a deadbeat who never paid child support. My mother was a workaholic who still had time to help me with my homework...I'm very blessed.

[bobblehead]

I would now like to change the direction or our debate, if I may, and ask why you think social programs are moral? Why is it ok for someone in a tough situation to get MY tax dollars to help them along?? Please don't start down the mean spirited road, this is a legitimate question and I want to debate it, remember, I don't always believe my own arguements, sometimes I'm merely playing devils advocate.

So, to anyone who cares to respond.

Why are social programs moral when they amount to taking from people who have it (earned or not) and giving it to those who don't.

[MJZiggy]

Because the intent of social programs is not to leave people on them. Because when you have a great deal, you are still in a fragile position because at any time, you could lose everything as people found out on Black Monday. They are intended to be a safety net for you as well as the people who are currently on them. Because you haven't yet needed to collect an unemployment check doesn't mean you never will.

Besides if you want to put a morality spin on it, helping others in need is a morally good thing to do.

And you're just changing the subject because you really don't know what to do about the gays.

[bobblehead]

I think I have stated my position on what to do about gays pretty clearly and openly. If you think not, you probably didn't read my posts (not that you are required to)

Don't assume I haven't collected an unemployment check, I have.

And finally why not cover people in tough situations in zimbabwe, or thailand, or in other third world countries? Why not send those people who can't get employment or food a monthly check?

And I think most gays would resent the idea that we need to "do" anything about them.

[texaspackerbacker]

5 pages and you people still haven't figured out what to do with the gays.

6 pages now.

Truth is, there are gays, and there are gays. Some, the large majority, I suspect, are just like normal people in that they just want to keep a low profile and practice their ......... chosen behavior. THOSE gays should be left alone. They aren't hurting anybody; They aren't trying to change the country to acceptance of their way. They are what they are and do what they do. And they don't require a pretense of normality. I've met people like that; Probably we all have. What do you do with them? Nothing! Just live and let live.

Then there are the "flaming fags"--the kind you see out in the streets putting their gayness on display and protesting to mainstream their chosen lifestyle. What do you do with those? They should be treated equally--equally with all the other God damned rabble rousers out their in the streets trying to screw up the American way of life. Freedom to Assemble, etc. precludes locking them up, however, Freedom of Speech and Assembly, etc. also allows the good normal people to assemble and bait and instigate and berate them any way we damn well please--short of physical violence, of course.

[MJZiggy]

And finally why not cover people in tough situations in zimbabwe, or thailand, or in other third world countries? Why not send those people who can't get employment or food a monthly check?

And I think most gays would resent the idea that we need to "do" anything about them.

USAID.


(and I was just teasing about the gays.)

[bobblehead]

what is USAID?? I can't respond to anything I don't follow.