• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Detroit police arrest four for threats... 'Kill all white cops'...

That does not really solve anything.

I didn't say it was a solve. I said the solve was long, and that was a start. We will probably be two generations untangling the damage done by the damage done to our marraige culture at best. Ending the destructive policy decisions that helped kick-start and maintain that wrecking is (as I said) merely the start.

The younger generation does not get married until very late sometimes even after they have had children. Why would marriage solve these problems?

Marraige is strongly beneficial for children and for those who participate in it. Many young people face stiff financial punishments for engaging in it. That is what I am taking about ending.



Sent from my XT1526 using Tapatalk
 
Too bad for you.

I had a Catholic education from K-12. My parents made little money but made sure I had a good sound, fundamentally moral, education. And my Dad wasn't even Catholic and he had only had a superficial Baptist upbringing, but he recognized the fact that a good moral upbringing was essential. I had to tow the mark in school and he told the nuns to do whatever was necessary if I got out of line. He also backed the priests that I had in high school. Always knowing that, meant that I was an exemplary student, as far as behavior.
Yes, it did work for me and for thousands of others... millions even.
I agree, nowadays, learning safe sex is a must, because there are sooo many temptations and brainwashing, from TV ads, TV shows, movies, peers and commercial product ads.

If what you say is true then why is the teen pregnancy rate at an all-time low? Why did my Catholic school have more teen pregnancies than the secular schools around it? We also no longer treat unwed mothers they have the plague. Catholics used to enslave unwed mothers in laundries.
 
I didn't say it was a solve. I said the solve was long, and that was a start. We will probably be two generations untangling the damage done by the damage done to our marraige culture at best. Ending the destructive policy decisions that helped kick-start and maintain that wrecking is (as I said) merely the start.



Marraige is strongly beneficial for children and for those who participate in it. Many young people face stiff financial punishments for engaging in it. That is what I am taking about ending.



Sent from my XT1526 using Tapatalk

Why does having a marriage affect anything? Children need to two loving parents not necessarily two loving married parents. Common law marriages are increasingly popular but actual traditional marriages are not anymore. Most of the reason my generation doe snot get married until very late is simply because we do not want to, we don't a see a purpose. What is the point in getting married when all you do is share an apartment?
 
Why does having a marriage affect anything?

Well there are probably several different factors, and some of it is probably selection (those who get married are more likely to be the kind of people who make other constructive social decisions, etc). But the social science is pretty clear.

Children need to two loving parents not necessarily two loving married parents.

:shrug: the stats disagree with any claim of equivalency. Furthermore, parents who are unmarried are unlikely to remain "two", and are more likely to split up.

Common law marriages are increasingly popular but actual traditional marriages are not anymore. Most of the reason my generation doe snot get married until very late is simply because we do not want to, we don't a see a purpose

Indeed. That's part of the broken marriage culture that needs fixing - we have failed to pass on the value of marriage, to emphasize the importance of it, and in many cases we either deride it or punish it. As a result, we've done immense damage to our younger generations' likely chances of familial success.

What is the point in getting married when all you do is share an apartment?

Demonstrated and entangled life-long comittment to your spouse and to your children. The kind of security in stability that civilizations are built upon.
 
Well there are probably several different factors, and some of it is probably selection (those who get married are more likely to be the kind of people who make other constructive social decisions, etc). But the social science is pretty clear.



:shrug: the stats disagree with any claim of equivalency. Furthermore, parents who are unmarried are unlikely to remain "two", and are more likely to split up.



Indeed. That's part of the broken marriage culture that needs fixing - we have failed to pass on the value of marriage, to emphasize the importance of it, and in many cases we either deride it or punish it. As a result, we've done immense damage to our younger generations' likely chances of familial success.



Demonstrated and entangled life-long comittment to your spouse and to your children. The kind of security in stability that civilizations are built upon.

Just why? What is the purpose of getting married before the age of 30 especially if you do not have children? People in their 20s are usually focused on their careers not having family. That is just not how society works anymore, young men don't marry at 18 and work at the factory and woman are no longer housewives. We prefer to wait till there is a lot more stability in our lives.

Marriage means nothing on whether or not two parents are good parents, as the gay parents studies have proven. A gay couple raises children just as well as a married straight couple so logically the same would apply to unmarried straight couples. It is the loving parents that make the difference not a piece of paper.
 
Just why? What is the purpose of getting married before the age of 30 especially if you do not have children?

Generally, the desire to have some. :) It also allows you to make permanent a romantic relationship, and (frankly), it helps to make you a better person and prepare you to be a better parent - learning how to honestly put someone else first is a difficult lesson for those of us raised to believe that we were all stars of the show, special snowflakes, and worthy of a trophy because we showed up. Successful marriage doesn't create the foundation for solid society, it creates the foundation for a solid family and a more solid you.

People in their 20s are usually focused on their careers not having family. That is just not how society works anymore, young men don't marry at 18 and work at the factory and woman are no longer housewives. We prefer to wait till there is a lot more stability in our lives.

:shrug: then you will never marry. Marriage isn't something that you do because now you're stable, one of the few constants in your first decades is generally change. Marriage helps give us stability. Waiting for stability to marry is like waiting to have children until you can afford to pay for college, or waiting until you already know everything to go to school.

Marriage means nothing on whether or not two parents are good parents, as the gay parents studies have proven.

:shrug: that is incorrect, and, ironically, your attempted use of the studies of gay parents works in precisely the opposite direction of that which you think.

1. Most studies that show that children of gay parents perform equally to norm use "convenience samples" - samples of self-selected gay couples. The problem is that your non-representative sample is pre-selected to give you a false positive. Tests that focus on the kids, and take measurements across the populace, demonstrate that children raised by gay parents actually suffer in relation to those raised by a mother and a father.

2. Ironically, one of the leftist critiques of that point is that gays have historically been denied marriage, which has been consistently shown to provide healthy and necessary stability for children. :) It was - I admitted at the time and still will point out - one of their best arguments.

3. Virtually ALL studies show that children of married parents do better than their otherwise-raised peers in virtually every measurable category of success possible. The reason for that is because they do.

In a report last year entitled “Saving Horatio Alger,” which focused on social mobility and class in America, Richard Reeves of the Brookings Institution discovered that the likelihood of a child raised by parents born into the lowest income quintile moving to the top quintile by the age 40 was a disastrous 3 percent. Worse, 50 percent of those children stay stuck in the bottom quintile. And the outlook for the children of those marriage-less children is equally stark. That’s bad news for the country, and the American dream, such numbers.

But Reeves discovered a silver lining while crunching the data: Those children born in the lowest quintile to parents who were married and stayed married had only a 19 percent chance of remaining in the bottom income group. Reeve’s study revealed that this social-mobility advantage applied not just to the lower class: The middle class was impacted, too. The study revealed that children born into the middle class have a mere 11 percent chance of ending up in the bottom economic quintile with married parents, but that number rises to 38 percent if their parents are never married....​


Given the topic of this thread, it's worth pointing out:

Finally, mobility is significantly lower in areas with weaker family structures, as measured e.g. by the fraction of single parents. As with race, parents’ marital status does not matter purely through its effects at the individual level. Children of married parents also have higher rates of upward mobility in communities with fewer single parents. Interestingly, we find no correlation between racial shares and upward mobility once we control for the fraction of single parents in an area...
 
If what you say is true then why is the teen pregnancy rate at an all-time low? Why did my Catholic school have more teen pregnancies than the secular schools around it? We also no longer treat unwed mothers they have the plague. Catholics used to enslave unwed mothers in laundries.

Yes, those were a long time ago.......

All time low? Are they keeping their legs crossed out of awareness for AIDS and other diseases? Or do girls have more morals now?
 
Generally, the desire to have some. :) It also allows you to make permanent a romantic relationship, and (frankly), it helps to make you a better person and prepare you to be a better parent - learning how to honestly put someone else first is a difficult lesson for those of us raised to believe that we were all stars of the show, special snowflakes, and worthy of a trophy because we showed up. Successful marriage doesn't create the foundation for solid society, it creates the foundation for a solid family and a more solid you.



:shrug: then you will never marry. Marriage isn't something that you do because now you're stable, one of the few constants in your first decades is generally change. Marriage helps give us stability. Waiting for stability to marry is like waiting to have children until you can afford to pay for college, or waiting until you already know everything to go to school.



:shrug: that is incorrect, and, ironically, your attempted use of the studies of gay parents works in precisely the opposite direction of that which you think.

1. Most studies that show that children of gay parents perform equally to norm use "convenience samples" - samples of self-selected gay couples. The problem is that your non-representative sample is pre-selected to give you a false positive. Tests that focus on the kids, and take measurements across the populace, demonstrate that children raised by gay parents actually suffer in relation to those raised by a mother and a father.

2. Ironically, one of the leftist critiques of that point is that gays have historically been denied marriage, which has been consistently shown to provide healthy and necessary stability for children. :) It was - I admitted at the time and still will point out - one of their best arguments.

3. Virtually ALL studies show that children of married parents do better than their otherwise-raised peers in virtually every measurable category of success possible. The reason for that is because they do.

In a report last year entitled “Saving Horatio Alger,” which focused on social mobility and class in America, Richard Reeves of the Brookings Institution discovered that the likelihood of a child raised by parents born into the lowest income quintile moving to the top quintile by the age 40 was a disastrous 3 percent. Worse, 50 percent of those children stay stuck in the bottom quintile. And the outlook for the children of those marriage-less children is equally stark. That’s bad news for the country, and the American dream, such numbers.

But Reeves discovered a silver lining while crunching the data: Those children born in the lowest quintile to parents who were married and stayed married had only a 19 percent chance of remaining in the bottom income group. Reeve’s study revealed that this social-mobility advantage applied not just to the lower class: The middle class was impacted, too. The study revealed that children born into the middle class have a mere 11 percent chance of ending up in the bottom economic quintile with married parents, but that number rises to 38 percent if their parents are never married....​


Given the topic of this thread, it's worth pointing out:

Finally, mobility is significantly lower in areas with weaker family structures, as measured e.g. by the fraction of single parents. As with race, parents’ marital status does not matter purely through its effects at the individual level. Children of married parents also have higher rates of upward mobility in communities with fewer single parents. Interestingly, we find no correlation between racial shares and upward mobility once we control for the fraction of single parents in an area...

Having a piece of paper does not automatically make you a better parent and I have no idea how it could. It is the fact they have two loving parents that makes the difference. A common law couple can be just as good of parents as any married couple. Those studies contrast married couples with single parents not married couples and common law couples. There is no point to marriage unless you have children or you know that you do indeed want to live together and these days that is rather uncertain. More and more people just do want children.
 
Last edited:
Having a piece of paper does not automatically make you a better parent and I have no idea how it could.

Automatically? Certainly not. Getting Married, however, does teach us - statistically - to be better parents, and it helps make us better parents. A lot of being a good parent is just the patience to put someone else consistently ahead of ones' self - that's a mental muscle that is worked out and strengthened by living in marriage.

It is the fact they have two loving parents that makes the difference.

Sort of. Again, the social science is clear that it is having two loving parents who are married which is optimal.

A common law couple can be just as good of parents as any married couple

This is heroic butwhataboutism attempting to stand in the place of math. Bromides do not actually help heal broken portions of society.

There is no point to marriage unless you have children or you know that you do indeed want to live together and these days that is rather uncertain. More and more people just do want children.

Married people live longer, healthier, happier lives than those who are not. They also have higher incomes, and better Sex Lives.
 
About darn time, says I.
I'm still waiting for Michael Brown's step dad to be arrested for the "burn this place down" comment before Ferguson was burned down.
 
Automatically? Certainly not. Getting Married, however, does teach us - statistically - to be better parents, and it helps make us better parents. A lot of being a good parent is just the patience to put someone else consistently ahead of ones' self - that's a mental muscle that is worked out and strengthened by living in marriage.



Sort of. Again, the social science is clear that it is having two loving parents who are married which is optimal.



This is heroic butwhataboutism attempting to stand in the place of math. Bromides do not actually help heal broken portions of society.



Married people live longer, healthier, happier lives than those who are not. They also have higher incomes, and better Sex Lives.

Honestly how the **** does a piece of paper change that? You still have not provided an answer. Marriage is literally just a piece of ****ing paper. Also all but the first of those studies, again, compares married people to single people, not married to common law. You also have not addressed how is marriage practical or even desirable for people in their 20s. Why would I marry someone when I do not really have any idea about where I am going to be in a few years, both physically and financially?
 
Honestly how the **** does a piece of paper change that?

A marriage isn't "a piece of paper". You are confusing "what the terms and awarding of the public license are written on" with the thing itself.

You still have not provided an answer. Marriage is literally just a piece of ****ing paper.

Well that seems like a rather testable claim. Shall we go to the online dictionaries and see which ones define "Marriage" as "A piece of ****ing paper."?

Also all but the first of those studies, again, compares married people to single people, not married to common law.

:lol: so your argument is that a different kind of marriage is comparable to marriage? :)

But okedoke :) Whip out those studies on cohabitant parenting.

Couples who cohabitate, however, demonstrate reduced stability and commitment, engendered, it seems, by the effects of maintaining comparatively easy exits. Commitment that comes with higher hurdles for getting out of turns out to be beneficial. Which is why children of cohabitating couples are more likely to suffer from depression, delinquency, poor academic performance, and drug use - even to the point of underperforming stable single-parent situations.

You also have not addressed how is marriage practical or even desirable for people in their 20s

Actually I cited how it was beneficial for us, physically, mentally, and emotionally. :) You just block quoted and ignored those sections.

Why would I marry someone when I do not really have any idea about where I am going to be in a few years, both physically and financially?

Because the future is unknowable? Hell, I don't know where we'll be in a few years physically and financially. We didn't a few years ago, and we didn't when we got married. Again, you are putting the cart way before the horse. If anything, getting married tends to help you financially, and makes it far more likely that you will remain physically in proximity to your partner.

Saying that you shouldn't marry someone because you don't know where you will be physically or financially in a few years is like saying that you shouldn't get a membership at the gym, because you don't know how strong you'll be in two years. The first benefits the other.
 
A marriage isn't "a piece of paper". You are confusing "what the terms and awarding of the public license are written on" with the thing itself.



Well that seems like a rather testable claim. Shall we go to the online dictionaries and see which ones define "Marriage" as "A piece of ****ing paper."?



:lol: so your argument is that a different kind of marriage is comparable to marriage? :)

But okedoke :) Whip out those studies on cohabitant parenting.

Couples who cohabitate, however, demonstrate reduced stability and commitment, engendered, it seems, by the effects of maintaining comparatively easy exits. Commitment that comes with higher hurdles for getting out of turns out to be beneficial. Which is why children of cohabitating couples are more likely to suffer from depression, delinquency, poor academic performance, and drug use - even to the point of underperforming stable single-parent situations.



Actually I cited how it was beneficial for us, physically, mentally, and emotionally. :) You just block quoted and ignored those sections.



Because the future is unknowable? Hell, I don't know where we'll be in a few years physically and financially. We didn't a few years ago, and we didn't when we got married. Again, you are putting the cart way before the horse. If anything, getting married tends to help you financially, and makes it far more likely that you will remain physically in proximity to your partner.

That is what actual marriage is, a piece of paper and an expensive ceremony, which is another reason young couples do not get married. Saying that you shouldn't marry someone because you don't know where you will be physically or financially in a few years is like saying that you shouldn't get a membership at the gym, because you don't know how strong you'll be in two years. The first benefits the other.

It would be more equivalent to buying an annual gym membership but having no idea where you are going to be in a few months. Not only do you have to find work for yourself your partner must also find work. The same goes for things like transportation and housing. It makes things twice as difficult. Especially for women not being married allows one to focus more on their career.

Also your study is incredibly biased, it is from the Institute for American Values, an organization dedicated to promoting marriage. Kind of a conflict of interest.
 
Does anyone have a link to the actual FB posts. The Police do not get to decide what speech is constitutional or not.

The four's FB may be vile and totally without any redeeming social value...but they may be within the parameter of Free Speech.

If they arrested them, they had a warrant. If they had a warrant, a judge cursorily agreed there was just cause. I'm not a DA or attorney, but I'd suggest terrorist threats or inciting violence. It's about time people posting **** on social media got called into account.
 
It would be more equivalent to buying an annual gym membership but having no idea where you are going to be in a few months. Not only do you have to find work for yourself your partner must also find work. The same goes for things like transportation and housing. It makes things twice as difficult. Especially for women not being married allows one to focus more on their career.

Not necessarily at all. If ya'll have kids, that can distract. But again, you are ignoring the data that married couples do better in their careers and earn more money.

Also your study is incredibly biased, it is from the Institute for American Values, an organization dedicated to promoting marriage. Kind of a conflict of interest.

Hey! Ad Sourcinem! That's almost (but not really) as good as either actually providing a critique or any evidence to back your (thus far, failed) claims.

Sent from my XT1526 using Tapatalk
 
Most states do not provide proper sex education especially in the South where sex education is almost exclusively abstinence-only. They need real sex education, access to birth control, etc. We need to provide more opportunities, youth work programs, trade education, apprenticeships, mentoring, etc. Things that are not being done. Then it has to be shown that these programs exist, make the students aware of it. These programs cost money and so does running good schools. Right now people like you believe all they need to do is in class in an underfunded school and that provides sufficient education and they believe that school is pointless and will do thing for them, it is just reinforcing that.

Things like gangs, violence, teen pregnancy, and poverty have actually been in decline over the last few decades. The Church can do nothing except that having large families are good and they are not in control of their lives.

These programs are available for people already.....

But, you can't force people to take advantage of them. Therein lies the problem.

There is an anti-education sentiment among far too many who are already living in poverty.
 
Not necessarily at all. If ya'll have kids, that can distract. But again, you are ignoring the data that married couples do better in their careers and earn more money.



Hey! Ad Sourcinem! That's almost (but not really) as good as either actually providing a critique or any evidence to back your (thus far, failed) claims.

Sent from my XT1526 using Tapatalk

Why do you trust cancer studies from tobacco companies as well? It is a perfectly critique of the study, it was done by people who believe marriage to be superior to cohabitation It is in their best interests that cohabitation be found inferior, otherwise they would contradict themselves.

As for my research:
From Psychology Today:
That is, children fare best in married families, on average, because as researcher Susan Brown, in reviewing the research, notes, “adults who form and maintain such families are the most stable, well-adjusted, resource-rich individuals.” Likewise for marriage itself: Marriage may not really make people happier, healthier, and more financially secure. Instead, happy, healthy, secure individuals are more likely to marry in the first place.
What this article says is that long-term cohabitation is for the most part equal to marriage, it is the fact that cohabitations are more likely to end in separation and that is what harms a child. But marriages also often end in separation. As the quote above illustrates it is having stable, well-adjusted, resource-rich individuals; not whether or not they are married it is just people like that are more likely to be married.
 
we have been teaching sex education since what....the early 70's

and earlier and earlier in the classrooms?

that doesnt appear to be working.....

give them opportunities....how?

we give them a chance at free education up to the 12th grade

we have how many programs in place for kids who want use them after that? i have lost count....

how much money has been thrown at program after program tied to these communities in the last 50 years?

and are they better off today than they were in the 50's?

or are gangs, child pregnancy, violence, poverty, and hopelessness just gotten worse a little more each year?

your way isnt working.....and i know the progressive point of view is we havent thrown enough money at the problem....

but some of us think you guys are just knocking your heads into the same brick wall.....

hope and change was this presidents message.....i was hoping it would especially be for the black community

i dont see much hope, and very little change

Since teen pregnancy (not just childbirth) is lower than its been since before the 70s, that indicates it is working. There still is a problem but sex ed is helping. Are there other things that can be done? Absolutely. We could make certain "practical adult living) classes mandatory in high school. Early in high school. Teach about paying your own bills, having a job, the realities of being on your own, in the adult workforce, raising a child, and many other things that aren't mandatory in school currently but would highly benefit all young adults.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
This is the kind of crap that these dopes dwell on...and if we don't want the riots of '68, community leaders better get a handle on it.

Between booze, drugs and emotional retardation, in certain communities, we do have a powder keg.

The lack of a strong father image in so many households and the double lives being led by so many of these guys, is a real community problem.

Are there actually 'leaders' in 'black' communities? I don't see any. Plenty of rabble-rousers but that's not really the same thing.
 
Are there actually 'leaders' in 'black' communities? I don't see any. Plenty of rabble-rousers but that's not really the same thing.

The only "leaders" are those who are in bed with the Race Grievance Industry.

The R.G.I.'s main purpose is to stir up civil unrest between Blacks and Whites, spread the victimhood mentality amongst the black community, and hopefully create more race issues that they can get involved with and make more money.

2015-01-07-88541d6e_large.jpg
 
Back
Top Bottom