[Orayn]

This. There have been numerous studies that children who are raised in homes with married parents do better in school, get in less trouble, have fewer teen prevnencies than in single parent homes. On phone sorry my spelling is shit bc of that.

While I don't disagree, one must be careful to consider other socio-economic factors that may be at play with single parents compared to married couples. Correlation vs. causation and all that good stuff, you know?

[hey_it's_that_dog]

This. There have been numerous studies that children who are raised in homes with married parents do better in school, get in less trouble, have fewer teen prevnencies than in single parent homes. On phone sorry my spelling is shit bc of that.

No doubt married couples are better for kids than a single parent who lacks the time and resources to pay enough attention. However, a couple that wants to separate but is pressured to stay together by hurdles put in place by divorce laws is probably worse for a kid than a happy couple. Maybe even worse than two separate happy parents. I don't know the research in this area.

[quadriplegicjon]

This. There have been numerous studies that children who are raised in homes with married parents do better in school, get in less trouble, have fewer teen prevnencies than in single parent homes. On phone sorry my spelling is shit bc of that.

It's absurd to me that you want to control how people live their lives. Furthermore, not all married couples that get divorced have kids. Do you also think that alcohol, cigarettes, unhealthy foods, etc should be illegal?

[quadriplegicjon]

While I don't disagree, one must be careful to consider other socio-economic factors that may be at play with single parents compared to married couples. Correlation vs. causation and all that good stuff, you know?

No doubt married couples are better for kids than a single parent who lacks the time and resources to pay enough attention. However, a couple that wants to separate but is pressured to stay together by hurdles put in place by divorce laws is probably worse for a kid than a happy couple. Maybe even worse than two separate happy parents. I don't know the research in this area.

Yeah, there are so many factors involved, its not even funny. Zmoney seems to have a very immature view on the world. He wants cheaters to be publicly ridiculed? Wow.

[Veezy]

Oh my god, guyz, you're not understanding a word he's saying.

Look, only married people should birth kids. Okay. So, like, technically, a kid does need a mother and father to, ya know, to be born.

Okay, so, the gays, see, they can't get married, because that would mean they want to have kids, 'cause that's the only reason people get married. So, if we let them get married, they'll try to have kids. Which is gay sex. And that's a gross. Well, actually kinda hot. I mean, not to me, I'm straight. But, if Brad Pitt and Will Smith had sex, I'd watch.

So, anyways, they can't get married, because of the intent of marriage, to have kids. But, if a kid gets born out of wedlock, well it's going to hell anyways. So, rather than have the state take care of the kid, cause that shit's expensive, the gays can take care of it and pretend to be married.

Everybody wins!

Mitt, 2012, motherfuckers.

[Pollux]

While I don't disagree, one must be careful to consider other socio-economic factors that may be at play with single parents compared to married couples. Correlation vs. causation and all that good stuff, you know?

Oh I agree. My only point is that as a society one of our primary goals should be to provide the best possible environment for our children and future generations. I think that trumps the individual happiness of someone who decided to get married on a whim and regrets that decision. So overall have more incentives for parents to stay together, and make it something of a value to be committed to the family instead of what we seem to have today which almost glorifies single parents. And while single parents are amazing, I believe that shouldn't be the ideal that's held up, but something that's pointed to when someone finds themselves in that situation as a ray of hope, showin that it cann be done and done well.

[Pollux]

It's absurd to me that you want to control how people live their lives. Furthermore, not all married couples that get divorced have kids. Do you also think that alcohol, cigarettes, unhealthy foods, etc should be illegal?

We have laws regulating morality all over the place. bans on polygamy, for example. And we already regulate alcohol and tobacco.

Yeah, there are so many factors involved, its not even funny. Zmoney seems to have a very immature view on the world. He wants cheaters to be publicly ridiculed? Wow.

Because I believe marriage is an institution that is more than just a contract for to people's happiness I have an immature view. Seems as though you refuse to even contemplate a view that doesn't fit into your worldview.

Oh my god, guyz, you're not understanding a word he's saying. Look, only married people should birth kids. Okay. So, like, technically, a kid does need a mother and father to, ya know, to be born. Okay, so, the gays, see, they can't get married, because that would mean they want to have kids, 'cause that's the only reason people get married. So, if we let them get married, they'll try to have kids. Which is gay sex. And that's a gross. Well, actually kinda hot. I mean, not to me, I'm straight. But, if Brad Pitt and Will Smith had sex, I'd watch. So, anyways, they can't get married, because of the intent of marriage, to have kids. But, if a kid gets born out of wedlock, well it's going to hell anyways. So, rather than have the state take care of the kid, cause that shit's expensive, the gays can take care of it and pretend to be married. Everybody wins! Mitt, 2012, motherfuckers.

And you missed the point.

[Suairyu]

If you don't want to be married don't get married. And if you want a divorce have a reason. Not just I woke up today and didn't want to be married anymore.

"We don't love each other anymore"

That's likely the reason for most no-fault divorces. Do you think such people should be unable to separate?

[thatbox]

Oh my god, guyz, you're not understanding a word he's saying. Look, only married people should birth kids. Okay. So, like, technically, a kid does need a mother and father to, ya know, to be born. Okay, so, the gays, see, they can't get married, because that would mean they want to have kids, 'cause that's the only reason people get married. So, if we let them get married, they'll try to have kids. Which is gay sex. And that's a gross. Well, actually kinda hot. I mean, not to me, I'm straight. But, if Brad Pitt and Will Smith had sex, I'd watch. So, anyways, they can't get married, because of the intent of marriage, to have kids. But, if a kid gets born out of wedlock, well it's going to hell anyways. So, rather than have the state take care of the kid, cause that shit's expensive, the gays can take care of it and pretend to be married. Everybody wins! Mitt, 2012, motherfuckers.

Bravo, sir!

[Marius_]

Mitt Romney: Bullying Gays Since High School

someone make this a bumper sticker

[commedieu]

This. There have been numerous studies that children who are raised in homes with married parents do better in school, get in less trouble, have fewer teen prevnencies than in single parent homes. On phone sorry my spelling is shit bc of that.

Oh this is such a crock of, well let me be mature, shit.

The divorce rate is well over 900%. The reality of the world is that married couples, don't stay married for long. So yes, sure. I agree. Its common sense that a married couple, that doesn't have the survive child swapping on X-days of the week, is a better environment. But thats not the world that we live in. And that %, combined with our sad, sad state of education in the USA, hardly makes it a solid arguing point for the sanctity of marriage & child raising. I posted this before but;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MLnn96n3Lpg There are more broken families, and non-traditional couples that still manage to do a bang up job, raising children. It is no the governments job to mind the business of child rearing. You have the right to be a moron and raise your kid however you want. And you also have the right to raise your child to be an alcoholic president. (not saying any names).

These excuses, and studies are all just veiled insults to restrict other tax payers civil rights.

America's stance on family is complete and utter bullshit. Just as its stance on protecting children's rights and values and morals. America lets the Vatican shuffle molesters around like the Kansas City shuffle, and says nothing. America spends nothing on education. America doesn't even put seatbelts on childrens buses for school.

These are all talking points for politicians. People side with what sounds good, when the actions couldn't be further from the reality. All this child protection is, well, not laughable. But disgusting, as the reality illustrates a picture of the talking points, and only those, being what is of importance. People want to THINK they are doing whats right, rather than following through..

going to mobile gaf. Taxi's here... See you soon. (darkroom in mid-city, los angeles for anyone thats privy)

[johnsmith]

At this point, at that, this, level. Do you think that he knows he is full of shit? And that he is just orchestrating design-by-committee statements and commentary? Or do you think that he honestly, and actually, believes this? I understanding saying planned and precise comments to win an election. But this level of what the fuckettry must hit home with some sort of logic or morals within him.

I think he decided long ago that he was just going to say whatever people wanted to hear so he could win. This may be different than what he personally believes, and that's why he keeps making these gaffes. I don't think any politician has ever had so many complete 180 flip flops as Romney in such a short period of time on so many issues. They were obviously for political expediency instead of a result of human growth and experiences.

The guy probably realizes how far right the GOP has gone even compared to the Bush era, but he just doesn't care. Does this make him any better than those that believe the cray like Bachmann? Probably not, as he's not likely to veto anything coming from a Republican congress.

[Veezy]

And you missed the point.

Don't be so defensive mang! I was talkin' about my main man, Mitts to tha Romney! All up in this bitch with that air tizight logic.

[darkwing]

I'm not into US politics but how much chance does Romney has in winning the election? any polls?

[Dreams-Visions]

Oh my god, guyz, you're not understanding a word he's saying. Look, only married people should birth kids. Okay. So, like, technically, a kid does need a mother and father to, ya know, to be born. Okay, so, the gays, see, they can't get married, because that would mean they want to have kids, 'cause that's the only reason people get married. So, if we let them get married, they'll try to have kids. Which is gay sex. And that's a gross. Well, actually kinda hot. I mean, not to me, I'm straight. But, if Brad Pitt and Will Smith had sex, I'd watch. So, anyways, they can't get married, because of the intent of marriage, to have kids. But, if a kid gets born out of wedlock, well it's going to hell anyways. So, rather than have the state take care of the kid, cause that shit's expensive, the gays can take care of it and pretend to be married. Everybody wins! Mitt, 2012, motherfuckers.

I like the cut of your jib, sir.

I'm not into US politics but how much chance does Romney has in winning the election? any polls?

in the US, the nominee of either party basically starts with an automatic 40% of the vote which represents the share of voters that party has in its pocket. They really only work to motivate voters and push for the flexible 15% or so of voters who don't know where the fuck they stand on issues and are blown by the wind. (aka, "Independents")

[RDreamer]

I'm not into US politics but how much chance does Romney has in winning the election? any polls?

In national polls it's pretty close.

But national polls don't matter, electoral votes do. Swing state polls matter. Romney really only has very few paths to victory through very few states that he's less to secure. That's not to say he can't win, he just does have a much lower chance to do so than the media will ever say (they want a closer race... makes for better ratings).

[hey_it's_that_dog]

Because I believe marriage is an institution that is more than just a contract for to people's happiness I have an immature view. Seems as though you refuse to even contemplate a view that doesn't fit into your worldview.

It sounds like you have a somewhat conservative view of the institution of marriage and it's precisely the sort of view liberals have a hard time understanding.

The accusations of immaturity may have been more about your desire to punish cheaters, though anger is a completely natural response to cheating behavior.

Anyway, my point is that I understand you even though I don't agree with you.

[RobotChant]

I'm not into US politics but how much chance does Romney has in winning the election? any polls?

Any chance is too much. Be scared world, pray for yourselves and us.

[quadriplegicjon]

We have laws regulating morality all over the place. bans on polygamy, for example. And we already regulate alcohol and tobacco. Because I believe marriage is an institution that is more than just a contract for to people's happiness I have an immature view. Seems as though you refuse to even contemplate a view that doesn't fit into your worldview. And you missed the point.

I love it when people default to the insult of 'you just can't/refuse to contemplate a view other than your own.' Clearly, I've given your view thought, otherwise I wouldn't be responding to your posts. It's a very immature view to want peoples personal lives to be made a subject of public scrutiny, yes. 'you cheated on me so I want you publicly shamed,' sounds like something a high school kid would propose. I also don't agree with the ban on polygamy, but that is a whole other discussion. Alcohol and smoking are regulated amung those too young to use, or in instances where there is a possibility where someone may be physically harmed. Other than that, they are both perfectly legal even though they can cause serious risk to personal well being and the well being of a family (addiction and whatnot). Unhealthy foods, which you completely ignored, falls into that category as well.

[SapientWolf]

Oh I agree. My only point is that as a society one of our primary goals should be to provide the best possible environment for our children and future generations. I think that trumps the individual happiness of someone who decided to get married on a whim and regrets that decision. So overall have more incentives for parents to stay together, and make it something of a value to be committed to the family instead of what we seem to have today which almost glorifies single parents. And while single parents are amazing, I believe that shouldn't be the ideal that's held up, but something that's pointed to when someone finds themselves in that situation as a ray of hope, showin that it cann be done and done well.

A loveless marriage is a horrible environment for a child to grow up in.

[Balphon]

What the hell does abuse have to do with it? Nothing. Abuse of any kind would be a valid reason for a divorce. Still no need for a no fault divorce. If you don't want to be married don't get married. And if you want a divorce have a reason. Not just I woke up today and didn't want to be married anymore.

One of the primary reasons behind the abandonment of fault-based divorce was the rampant fraud pervading divorce proceedings under it. Mutual consent was not a grounds for divorce, so the parting spouses would often cooperate in order manufacture a grounds, such as by staging a fake affair. If found out, the divorce would be deemed "collusive" and the petition would be denied. Regardless, the court presiding over the divorce would end up looking like a farce.

Still, I understand your argument that a marriage should represent a higher level of commitment than a civil contract. What I don't understand, however, is why you think such commitment needs to be imposed by judicial fiat, especially when history shows us the absurdity that results.

[Dead Man]

Hope he or she is the opposite sex and marry. Then they can raise the other partner?

LOL

[quadriplegicjon]

One of the primary reasons behind the abandonment of fault-based divorce was the rampant fraud pervading divorce proceedings under it. Mutual consent was not a grounds for divorce, so the parting spouses would often cooperate in order manufacture a grounds, such as by staging a fake affair. If found out, the divorce would be deemed "collusive" and the petition would be denied. Regardless, the court presiding over the divorce would end up looking like a farce. Still, I understand your argument that a marriage should represent a higher level of commitment than a civil contract. What I don't understand, however, is why you think such commitment needs to be imposed by judicial fiat, especially when history shows us the absurdity that results.

That is exactly my point. I think it's absurd to have the government regulate marriage in this fashion.

[speculawyer]

I'm not into US politics but how much chance does Romney has in winning the election? any polls?

He certainly has a chance. If the election were today, I'm fairly certain he would lose. But the election is not until November and zillion things could happen between now & then which change things.

[NullPointer]

I wonder how long his supporters and/or the press will allow him to maintain this quantum state.

I mean, he can't just stay comfy in this bubble can he? Something has to give.

[Al-ibn Kermit]

Delicious. Romney: Same sex marriage? No. Children need multiple mothers and a father. I don't think Romney can abuse the sanctity of marriage argument or else he'll come under attack for Mormons' acceptance of polygamy (though I'm not exactly sure what the modern Mormon stance on polygamy is).

There's like 15 million Mormons that follow the LDS (Latter Day Saints) church which gave up the practice of polygamy in the early 20th century. There's a small offshoot (~10,000 members) called the FLDS church, where the F stands for fundamentalist. And the FLDS church does practice polygamy.

While a few Mormons do accept polygamy, the mainstream Mormons definitely do not. Even though their prophet did. It's very complicated but I'll leave you with a link to wikipedia to figure it all out.

wikipedia.com

[DeathbyVolcano]

I wonder how long his supporters and/or the press will allow him to maintain this quantum state. I mean, he can't just stay comfy in this bubble can he? Something has to give.

lol at thinking the press will do anything

[alphaNoid]

Going to be a victory this Novemeber for Obama.

Probably the furthest thing from the truth.

[NullPointer]

Probably the furthest thing from the truth.

I wouldn't bet on it, if only because I believe his party's own social conservatism will act against him.

[Kusagari]

Oh I agree. My only point is that as a society one of our primary goals should be to provide the best possible environment for our children and future generations. I think that trumps the individual happiness of someone who decided to get married on a whim and regrets that decision. So overall have more incentives for parents to stay together, and make it something of a value to be committed to the family instead of what we seem to have today which almost glorifies single parents. And while single parents are amazing, I believe that shouldn't be the ideal that's held up, but something that's pointed to when someone finds themselves in that situation as a ray of hope, showin that it cann be done and done well.

Yeah, forcing people who no longer love each other to be together will work out great for the kids.

[Devolution]

Yeah, forcing people who no longer love each other to be together will work out great for the kids.

And those they fuck over.

One of my volleyball team mates did some mean shit and she came from a household in which her parents despised each other, slept in different rooms but didn't divorce out of shame.

[Something Wicked]

Damn it, Mitt, stop being against gay marriage because it's politically convenient for you. It's not like Obama alters public positions on social issues when politically convenient... ...oh wait...

[speculawyer]

Damn it, Mitt, stop being against gay marriage because it's politically convenient for you. It's not like Obama alters public positions on social issues when politically convenient... ...oh wait...

You really think it is politically convenient? Really?

"Swing state" North Carolina just passed a gay marriage ban by a margin of 61% to 39%.


That 61% . . . that is on the OPPOSITE side of Obama. Seriously . . . do get it?

[Imm0rt4l]

What is this I don't even....

[Clevinger]

Damn it, Mitt, stop being against gay marriage because it's politically convenient for you. It's not like Obama alters public positions on social issues when politically convenient... ...oh wait...

Well, first of all, implying Romney has been consistent on this is funny. He went from saying he'd be better than Ted Kennedy for gay rights and now he doesn't even support civil unions. Second, it's a pretty nice boon for Romney that Obama came out in favor of gay marriage, not the other way around. I'm guessing those red leaning swing states are completely out of play for Obama now.

[Big-E]

You really think it is politically convenient? Really? "Swing state" North Carolina just passed a gay marriage ban by a margin of 61% to 39%. That 61% . . . that is on the OPPOSITE side of Obama. Seriously . . . do get it?

Ya I don't understand how it is convenient for Obama to do it. Like you said with North Carolina but I also think that Obama coming out openly about his support will just energize the other side more than it would energize potential voters for Obama.

[Something Wicked]

You really think it is politically convenient? Really? "Swing state" North Carolina just passed a gay marriage ban by a margin of 61% to 39%. That 61% . . . that is on the OPPOSITE side of what Obama. Seriously . . . do get it?

African Americans won't go against Obama no matter what and most independents will support gay rights/marriage. Along with firing up his base, there is more up-side than down-side for a black Democrat US President to be publicly supporting gay marriage today (which anyone aware of his past would know he did before privately anyway- just like Romney). It's akin to how Obama wants to start pushing for a DREAM act in 2012 and not in 2009, 2010, or 2011- it's pure political pandering for reelection.

Also, do you guys really think rich Wall Street Republicans like Romney give a shit about who can be registered as married by a government body or not?... They don't. They don't give a shit about God or abortion or marriage. You don't become extremely rich by defining yourself by such issues.

[darkwing]

In national polls it's pretty close. But national polls don't matter, electoral votes do. Swing state polls matter. Romney really only has very few paths to victory through very few states that he's less to secure. That's not to say he can't win, he just does have a much lower chance to do so than the media will ever say (they want a closer race... makes for better ratings).

wait,so you can lose the national votes but win the electoral votes and the presidency? what sorcery is this ?

[abusori]

My reaction to that statement and the result of all my attempts to decipher it can be conveyed in just one word.

Bwuh?

[Trent Strong]

Delicious. Romney: Same sex marriage? No. Children need multiple mothers and a father. I don't think Romney can abuse the sanctity of marriage argument or else he'll come under attack for Mormons' acceptance of polygamy (though I'm not exactly sure what the modern Mormon stance on polygamy is).

Mormons don't accept polygamy. They haven't for over a hundred years.

[Cheebo]

wait,so you can lose the national votes but win the electoral votes and the presidency? what sorcery is this ?

Did no one ever tell you of a little election in 2000 before? You must be young. A certain person won the national vote by over 500k votes. And his name wasn't George W. Bush

[Dead Man]

wait,so you can lose the national votes but win the electoral votes and the presidency? what sorcery is this ?

Founding fathers didn't trust the little landowners to vote sensibly.

[Binabik15]

Kids need moms, huh? You know who else needs moms? Mars.

[Timedog]

I wonder how long his supporters and/or the press will allow him to maintain this quantum state. I mean, he can't just stay comfy in this bubble can he? Something has to give.

NullPointer is best poster.

[johnsmith]

African Americans won't go against Obama no matter what and most independents will support gay rights/marriage. Along with firing up his base, there is more up-side than down-side for a black Democrat US President to be publicly supporting gay marriage today (which anyone aware of his past would know he did before privately anyway- just like Romney). It's akin to how Obama wants to start pushing for a DREAM act in 2012 and not in 2009, 2010, or 2011- it's pure political pandering for reelection.

What are you talking about? He's been pushing the dream act for years. It passed the House in 2010 but the asshole republicans blocked it in the senate. If it hasn't been pushed it lately it's because it has no chance of passing as long as the Republican party remains the party of hateful assholes.

[Omegasquash]

What are you talking about? He's been pushing the dream act for years. It passed the House in 2010 but the asshole republicans blocked it in the senate. If it hasn't been pushed it lately it's because it has no chance of passing as long as the Republican party remains the party of hateful assholes.

Truth: Politicians have to pick their battles. If something WILL NOT go through, it's best to not waste time and taxpayer dollars on it. An ironic lesson that the Republican party could stand to learn.

[sixteen-bit]

Really?

[ssolitare]

I don't get how you can be such an individual and champion freedom, especially in the market place, but yet you still wanna go back and tell people how to live socially and culturally, create second-class citizens and deny equality.

It doesn't make sense!

[marrec]

same-sex couples should be allowed to adopt children, but they should not be married because children should be raised by a mother and a father.

I...

what...

Who?

[george_us]

Damn it, Mitt, stop being against gay marriage because it's politically convenient for you. It's not like Obama alters public positions on social issues when politically convenient... ...oh wait...

You really think it was convenient for Obama to openly support gay marriage in an election year? You serious?