Is income inequality solved by traditional family values?

[canceled.2021.1]

That is a nice idea, but please tell me what (other than the ability to bear children without outside assistance) a straight couple does, or brings to the table, that a gay couple does not.

It seems that the facts in your article would also support the positives influences of gay couples on both families and the economy.

This is not a thread about gay marriage. I have not commented on gay marriage. If you would like to discuss gay marriage, then by all means start your own thread.

Thank you and have a great day

 

[Canceled.2014.1]

I knew there were reasons I chose not to participate here often. The first 3 posts illustrate why. So mean, yet so without meaning.

The level of debate has sunk to new depths, that is for sure.

 

[Cancel 2016.11]

Is that why your parents divorced?

You are such slime.

 

[canceled.2021.1]

I knew there were reasons I chose not to participate here often. The first 3 posts illustrate why. So mean, yet so without meaning.

Funny isn't it? I post a thought inducing op ed and get an unprovoked attack from a liberal.

 

[Canceled.2014.1]

This is not a thread about gay marriage. I have not commented on gay marriage. If you would like to discuss gay marriage, then by all means start your own thread.

Thank you and have a great day

Your OP made the claim that traditional family values solved issues of income inequality and thereby opened the debate up for non-traditional family values. Your claim that liberal idealism has damaged both families and the economy opened the debate up to show that conservative idealism has done the same by not allowing alternative family values to secure quality family groups and to encourage economic stability.

My post also challenges your claim of "There is a reason society oriented itself in such a way that a man married a woman".

Let me know when you can answer my question from post #20.

 

[canceled.2021.1]

You are such slime.

Please stay away from my threads. You are not welcome here. Thank you in advance for your cooperation.

 

[Canceled.2014.1]

Please stay away from my threads. You are not welcome here. Thank you in advance for your cooperation.

LMAO! I guess it does make it easier if no one presents actual challenges to your ideas.

No, I won't stay away from your threads. If you post on a public forum, you are fair game for any of us.


I guess this means you cannot answer the question I asked? I thought so.

 

[canceled.2021.1]

LMAO! I guess it does make it easier if no one presents actual challenges to your ideas.

No, I won't stay away from your threads. If you post on a public forum, you are fair game for any of us.


I guess this means you cannot answer the question I asked? I thought so.

Are you Darla? I don't think I asked you to stay away now did I? Are you Darla in disguise? If you aren't why would you respond as if you were? I made a specific request to a specific RP. It was not directed to you. Are you that narcissistic that you think all posts are directed AT YOU?

As for your question. I answered you. This is not a thread about gay marriage. This is a thread about the epidemic of single motherhood. If you would like to discuss gay marriage, then by all means start your own thread about it. Thank you and have a great day

 

[Canceled.2014.1]

Are you Darla? I don't think I asked you to stay away now did I? Are you Darla in disguise? If you aren't why would you respond as if you were? I made a specific request to a specific RP. It was not directed to you. Are you that narcissistic that you think all posts are directed AT YOU?

As for your question. I answered you. This is not a thread about gay marriage. This is a thread about the epidemic of single motherhood. If you would like to discuss gay marriage, then by all means start your own thread about it. Thank you and have a great day

This is a thread about traditional family values being the solution to income inequality. You made the claim, not me. Now, unless you want to concede that families, not traditional family values, are the solution, we have a debate. When you make a claim about traditional family values, an acceptable opposing view would be one concerning non-traditional family values.

So you either address those points I raised by answering my question, or you show yourself to be too cowardly to engage in actual debate. You have talked about slapping people down and the like, now is your chance. Lets see what you have in an actual discussion instead of name-calling and insults.

 

[Canceled.2014.1]

Since you are running from my question, let me put it another way.

You claim that traditional family values are the solution to income inequality. I am claiming that non-traditional families can provide the same solutions.

What makes the "traditional" part of the solution?

 

[canceled.2021.1]

This is a thread about traditional family values being the solution to income inequality. You made the claim, not me. Now, unless you want to concede that families, not traditional family values, are the solution, we have a debate. When you make a claim about traditional family values, an acceptable opposing view would be one concerning non-traditional family values.

So you either address those points I raised by answering my question, or you show yourself to be too cowardly to engage in actual debate. You have talked about slapping people down and the like, now is your chance. Lets see what you have in an actual discussion instead of name-calling and insults.

the facts are the facts, children in households with a mother and a father are less likely to be in poverty, less likely to commit crimes. I presented my case. Now you present yours. Facts and figures would be most helpful, not your anecdotal data.

BTW, you still haven't explained why you jumped on a post not even meant for you? Did you misread it? That narcissistic? What?

 

[canceled.2021.1]

Since you are running from my question, let me put it another way.

You claim that traditional family values are the solution to income inequality. I am claiming that non-traditional families can provide the same solutions.

What makes the "traditional" part of the solution?

I presented the facts. Children that grow up in households with a mother and a father are less likely to grow up in poverty and less likely to commit crimes. Now present yours. Facts R Stubborn things

Can't be more clear.

 

[Canceled.2014.1]

the facts are the facts, children in households with a mother and a father are less likely to be in poverty, less likely to commit crimes. I presented my case. Now you present yours. Facts and figures would be most helpful, not your anecdotal data.

BTW, you still haven't explained why you jumped on a post not even meant for you? Did you misread it? That narcissistic? What?

I simply misread it. And given your propensity for not answering questions, I thought it was fine to ignore questions on this thread.

I asked a valid question concerning your claim that traditional family values are the answer to income inequality.

From: http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/parenting-full.pdf

“Not a single study has found children of lesbian or gay parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents.”


So if there is no disadvantage to children being raised by gay parents, and the dual income situations are the same, why would you limit the family values to "traditional" ones?

The issue seems to be one of single parent homes rather than any traditional family values.

 

[canceled.2021.1]

I simply misread it. And given your propensity for not answering questions, I thought it was fine to ignore questions on this thread.

I asked a valid question concerning your claim that traditional family values are the answer to income inequality.

From: http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/parenting-full.pdf

“Not a single study has found children of lesbian or gay parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents.”


So if there is no disadvantage to children being raised by gay parents, and the dual income situations are the same, why would you limit the family values to "traditional" ones?

The issue seems to be one of single parent homes rather than any traditional family values.

But, there is no advantage is there? There is an advantage to a home with a man and a woman. That is why society ordered itself that way. The facts are undeniable. That you think "non traditional" are normal shows that you admit that other forms that we call "family" are not normal.

Them are the facts. I am sorry if they are inconvenient for you. If gays want to raise children, they should have their own that they make through procreation the way a man and woman does. Why don't gays just have their own children?

 

[Cancel 2016.11]

I slipped up and answered a question for darla with my winterborn persona. Curses!

 

[Canceled.2014.1]

I presented the facts. Children that grow up in households with a mother and a father are less likely to grow up in poverty and less likely to commit crimes. Now present yours. Facts R Stubborn things

Can't be more clear.

You presented facts that children of single parent homes are at an economic disadvantage. I don't think I have seen anyone argue that point.

But then you made a leap away from the facts to claim that traditional family values are the answer. My question was very simple and gives you ample opportunity to show why traditional family values are better than non-traditional family situations.

I posted a link to an APA study that shows no difference in children raised by gay parents as opposed to children raised by straight parents. I offered facts that show it is not the "traditional" part that matters, but the two parents in the home.

 

[Canceled.2014.1]

But, there is no advantage is there? There is an advantage to a home with a man and a woman. That is why society ordered itself that way. The facts are undeniable. That you think "non traditional" are normal shows that you admit that other forms that we call "family" are not normal.

Them are the facts. I am sorry if they are inconvenient for you. If gays want to raise children, they should have their own that they make through procreation the way a man and woman does. Why don't gays just have their own children?

What advantages are there to a home with a man and a woman? That is EXACTLY the question I asked. Now you have made a claim. What advantages are there?

 

[Canceled.2014.1]

I slipped up and answered a question for darla with my winterborn persona. Curses!

Damn, I should have paid attention. Now they will know I am Darla.

 

[canceled.2021.1]

You presented facts that children of single parent homes are at an economic disadvantage. I don't think I have seen anyone argue that point.

But then you made a leap away from the facts to claim that traditional family values are the answer. My question was very simple and gives you ample opportunity to show why traditional family values are better than non-traditional family situations.

I posted a link to an APA study that shows no difference in children raised by gay parents as opposed to children raised by straight parents. I offered facts that show it is not the "traditional" part that matters, but the two parents in the home.

First there are flaws in the methodology of the study. The sample sizes aren't large, and there just isn't a large enough history of said "non traditional" households to really tell the story now is there? The fact remains that a household with a mother and a father offers the best situation for children. Those are facts. They are backed up by all of human history and the original article I posted. But, you seem to want more. OK

For one reason, domestic violence is greater in homosexual relationships than heterosexual relationships
Domestic violence is a public health concern. Among heterosexuals, not only is it an obvious marker of a troubled marriage, but media attention and tax dollars to aid ‘battered women’ have both grown tremendously in recent years. What is not reported is the empirical evidence suggesting that homosexual couples have higher rates of domestic violence than do heterosexual couples.[21]
In 1996,[22] Susan Holt, coordinator of the domestic violence unit of the Los Angeles Gay and Lesbian Center, said that “domestic violence is the third largest health problem facing the gay and lesbian community today and trails only behind AIDS and substance abuse… in terms of sheer numbers and lethality.”
The average rate of domestic violence in traditional marriage, established by a nationwide federal government survey[23] of 6,779 married couples in 1988, is apparently less than 5% per year. During their most recent year of marriage, 2.0% of husbands and 3.2% of wives said that they were hit, shoved or had things thrown at them. Unmarried, cohabiting heterosexuals report[24] higher rates of violence — a rate of about 20% to 25% per year.
When the same standard is applied to gay and lesbian relationships, the following evidence emerges:
In 1987 in Georgia,[25] 48% of 43 lesbian couples, and 39% of 39 gay couples reported domestic violence.
In 1988, 70 lesbian and gay students participated in a study[26] of conflict resolution in gay and lesbian relationships. Adjusted upward because only one partner in the couple was reporting (i.e., the researchers got “only one side of the story”), an estimated 29% of gay and 56% of lesbian couples experienced violence in the past year.
In 1989, 284 lesbians were interviewed[27] who were involved “in a committed, cohabitating lesbian relationship” during the last 6 months. Adjusted for reports by just one partner, an estimated 43% of the relationships were violent in the past year.
In 1990, nearly half of 90 lesbian couples in Los Angeles reported[28] domestic violence yearly. 21% of these women said that they were mothers. Interestingly, of those mothers who had children living with them, 11 lived in “violent” and 11 in “nonviolent” relationships. Thus, unlike traditional marriage where parents will often forego fighting to shield the children from hostility, there was no evidence from this investigation that the presence of youngsters reduced the rate of domestic violence.
Overall, the evidence is fairly compelling that homosexual domestic violence exceeds heterosexual domestic violence. The limited scientific literature suggests that physical domestic violence occurs every year among less than 5% of traditionally married couples, 20% to 25% of cohabiting heterosexuals, and approximately half of lesbian couples. The evidence is less certain for gays, but their rate appears to fall somewhere between that for unmarried, cohabiting heterosexuals and lesbians.

 

[canceled.2021.1]

I slipped up and answered a question for darla with my winterborn persona. Curses!

Why are you even responding to a thread of mine? By your own standards you should be putting yourself and Winterborn on IA. Guess you really don't ignore me after all do ya puddin pop?



You live to be offended. I serve a purpose for you. You love it. Now come gets ya some more