patrick.net

socal2 says

Right - we need MOAR government fucking this ancient civilization institution up.

Government already does this, just after the damage is done instead of prevention. It's called Child Protective Services. I guess you're in favor of dismantling that agency.

socal2 says

Our culture needs to do more to shame absent fathers and mothers who have numerous kids from numerous partners.

Honey, that won't work. The people don't care what you think of them. And a child is a welfare and/or child support check to many women.

But hey, why license parenting when you can bully and shame people instead? That's way less intrusive and disruptive than a government policy.

Remember Dan Quayle
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/20-years-later-it-turns-out-dan-quayle-was-right-about-murphy-brown-and-unmarried-moms/2012/05/25/gJQAsNCJqU_story.html?utm_term=.3c5d69ae27ae

TwoScoopsMcGee says

We should also move to have women marry younger. The current advice of "Career, then Family" makes no sense.

Without genetically engineering our species to delay puberty until age 30 or later, this is true. We age at the same rate as our Stone Age ancestors. We are evolved to reproduce between ages 12 and 28. The only way to change this is with genetic engineering, not cultural engineering.

Of course, if we replaced our organic bodies with robots, this whole problem goes away and we get virtual immortality. Just saying.

TwoScoopsMcGee says

Have babies at 20, go back to school in your 30s, start your career in your late 30s or early 40s when the kids are grown up. So many advantages to this: More mature career selection (ie Science Education instead of Social Justice Studies because money and maturity), kids had a FT Mom growing up, fewer fertility problems.

Agree with this. Now, work hard in your twenties, get somewhere, have babies and either don't see them or take 6-7 years our of a career.

Dan8267 says

And a child is a welfare and/or child support check to many women.

That's why we need unwed mothers' home. No more of my tax dollars for Carrie Ray or Shquanda to sit in their HUD home, smokin Newports and watchin' Jerry Springer, eating Mac n' Cheese and Ruffles.

Their asses are gonna be in a nice dorm style building, eating Spinach and Tofu Burgers, getting their GED or Word Processing Certificate, and a curfew so they can't make more Bastards by banging Billy Bob or Loquan. With mandatory Birth Control injections. When they get a job that allows them to live at or above the poverty line with minimal to no assistance, they can leave.

If they refuse, there will be no other options, so it's child abuse and we will CPS the child.

TwoScoopsMcGee says

That's why we need unwed mothers' home. No more of my tax dollars for Carrie Ray or Shquanda to sit in their HUD home, smokin Newports and watchin' Jerry Springer, eating Mac n' Cheese and Ruffles.

Agreed. The current system has perverse incentives for people to have children they cannot take care of.

Unwed mothers homes would definitely disincentivize the current women trend of being a bitch to their husbands and leaving him for greener pastures when they discover he's not super man but just a man. Now they have lots of financial incentives to do this. But if they were staring down life in a group home with CPS watching carefully, they wouldn't make these decisions so frequently.

TwoScoopsMcGee says

so how come society isn't aggressively disincentivizing it?

Think about what a disincentivizer divorce is.

socal2 says

They tell us a "good" single mother with government support (along with aunts, uncles and grandparents) is just as good as a 2 parent household. Now they are telling us the same about same-sex couples.

On the whole, married same-sex couples make fine parents, as multiple studies have confirmed. Some studies show advantages compared to the general population. I miss turtledove for many reasons, including her successful experience helping same-sex couples become parents. IRL, I know several same-sex couples with kids; all are doing well, and none use "government support" other than the same public roads and schools and so on that everyone else uses. Differences between married opposite-sex parents and married same-sex parents are practically insignificant compared to the differences between married parents and single parents.

TwoScoopsMcGee says

Single Mothers are the Number One Social Ill

This is an outcome, not a cause. Go back further, how do single mom's exist in the first place? They don't conceive asexually after all.

curious2 says

On the whole, married same-sex couples make fine parents, as multiple studies have confirmed. Some studies show advantages compared to the general population. I miss turtledove for many reasons, including her successful experience helping same-sex couples become parents. IRL, I know several same-sex couples with kids; all are doing well, and none use "government support" other than the same public roads and schools and so on that everyone else uses. Differences between married opposite-sex parents and married same-sex parents are practically insignificant compared to the differences between married parents and single parents.

I am aware that many of these study results are very premature. And some of the participants were self-selected. Of course I believe it would be better for a kid to be raised by two rich gay parents then bouncing around in foster care or living in poverty to a single parent in the ghetto.

But all things equal in terms of wealth, housing, education and health - I think it is a no brainer that a State adoption agency should prefer a heterosexual couple as opposed to a gay couple to adopt a child. Do you really disagree with that?

curious2 says

On the whole, married same-sex couples make fine parents, as multiple studies have confirmed.

Yes, sexual orientation is irrelevant. Even two straight guys could marry each other and be excellent parents, and this arrangement would make perfect sense.

Marriage isn't about sex. Marriage is about running a household and taking care of a family. Financial and emotional stability is what matters. Intelligence and commitment also matter.

socal2 says

I think it is a no brainer that a State adoption agency should prefer a heterosexual couple as opposed to a gay couple to adopt a child. Do you really disagree with that?

Not if the gay couple is wealthier or lives in a better school district, which is common. Then the gay couple should be preferred.

However, it's not the case that straight couples are being denied a child to adopt because the greedy gays are taking them all. You're thinking of Angelina Jolie.

There are over 670,000 children in foster care waiting to be adopted. Most don't get adopted. There is no lack of children to adopt. So the choice isn't between giving a child to a heterosexual couple or a gay couple. The choice is between giving the child to a gay couple or keeping him in a state ward at the taxpayer's expense. When is the latter ever the better choice?

socal2 says

Do you really disagree with that?

Many or most adoptions involve pre-existing relationships, e.g. step-parents, where the state role tends to be binary (yes/no) rather than multiple choice (choosing which couple to place a child with). Where the state does have a role in selecting parents, often they are trying to place foster children, including some who are old enough to say they are gay themselves. You did say "all things equal" but limited that to four categories; I would certainly disagree with favoring an unrelated heterosexual couple over a biological parent with a same-sex spouse, for example.

Also, gay couples have been raising kids for decades, so I wouldn't call study results necessarily premature.

If you want to favor heterosexual couples, you could do that without having the agency discriminate, e.g. allowing birth parent(s) to describe the type of home they believe would be best for the child whom they are putting up for adoption. In general, adoption involves so many variables that it's difficult to imagine "all things equal" and agencies have discretion to consider the best interests of the child. Placing a gay foster kid with a religious family who will try to "pray away the gay" would create a high risk of suicide compared to placing the same kid with a gay couple who are otherwise similarly situated with regard to the criteria you listed. For that reason among others, I do disagree with Catholic "charities" (which gets 90% of its funding from government) imposing Vatican policy to discriminate against otherwise qualified gay couples. Invidious discrimination motivated solely by religion is the most basic example of bigotry, and it happens when states outsource crucial functions like adoption to religious "charities" that elevate religion over evidence and reason.

Dan8267 says

Not if the gay couple is wealthier or lives in a better school district, which is common. Then the gay couple should be preferred.

As I pointed out - if all things are equal, shouldn't the adoption agency prefer the heterosexual couple?

Or is that now considered a hate crime for the SJW avengers?

Dan8267 says

Yes, sexual orientation is irrelevant. Even two straight guys could marry each other and be excellent parents, and this arrangement would make perfect sense.

Marriage isn't about sex. Marriage is about running a household and taking care of a family. Financial and emotional stability is what matters. Intelligence and commitment also matter.

See - this is a fine example of the "social engineering" that helped lead to the tragedy that we are now dealing with in terms of the staggering number of single parents and poverty. People like you were the ones saying over the last few decades that "a single mother with government assistance is just as good as a two parent family."

You really think it is "irrelevant" if a boy grows up with two Mom's instead of having a Dad in his life? Ditto with girls being raised by two men?

Again, I am not disputing that some gay parents have been able to raise fine upstanding children. I am just pointing out (that all things being equal) it is PREFERABLE to have a mother and father raising boys and girls.

socal2 says

As I pointed out - if all things are equal, shouldn't the adoption agency prefer the heterosexual couple?

I wouldn't have a problem with that if the determination of all things being equal
1. Is objectively determined.
2. Is measured precisely.
3. Is calculated by computer using a public algorithm.

I will gladly say that having parents of opposite sexes is a small advantage. After all, you get guidance and roll models from both genders. However, if two gay men have a sister that lives nearby, then that advantage is completely negated. After all, an aunt can be a female roll model and tackle girl issues. Similarly, an uncle can play the same roll for a lesbian couple. Unless the algorithm considers this, I would reject the algorithm.

Also, all things are never equal. You're never going to have a real world scenario where you have two identical couples except one couple has an extra penis. It's just not going to happen. You can't even find two perfectly identical houses even if they are the same model made by the same constructor at the same time on the same block. If you can't do that, you cannot find two identical couples wanting to adopt.

socal2 says

this is a fine example of the "social engineering"

I don't think you know what engineering is, nonetheless social engineering. Social engineering is trying to set up society in a specific way. This is the exact opposite of that. It's letting society be however it wants without pushing an agenda. Social engineering means restricting things, not letting things go their own way.

socal2 says

You really think it is "irrelevant" if a boy grows up with two Mom's instead of having a Dad in his life? Ditto with girls being raised by two men?

Irrelevant? No. Detrimental? No. The insignificant disadvantage of not have roll models for both genders is offset by the slight advantage that two parents of the same gender have in cooperation. Let's face it. Men work better with men, and women work better with women. Men and women think differently and communicate differently and this causes strife. One could easily argue that a same-sex couple will have less strife than an opposing-sex couple and thus would make a better parenting team.

So, if we're weighing that against not having a roll model for one gender, it may be that the adoption agency should prefer same-sex couples as they would be more stable.

And there is empirical evidence to support this. Half of all heterosexual marriages end in divorce. The same is not even remotely true for same-sex couples. If you factor in the risk of divorce, then clearly the same-sex couple is the safer bet.

OK, you convinced me. I recant my previous statement. The adoption agency should definitely prefer the same-sex couple as the risk of divorce is so much less. See, you changed my mind.

Dan8267 says

Marriage isn't about sex. Marriage is about running a household and taking care of a family. Financial and emotional stability is what matters. Intelligence and commitment also matter.

I agree.

Dan8267 says

Marriage isn't about sex. Marriage is about running a household and taking care of a family. Financial and emotional stability is what matters. Intelligence and commitment also matter.

Spot on sir.

I thought marraige was about marrying a rich guy, holding on till you qualify for lifetime alimony and then have fun the rest of your life-on his dime?

TwoScoopsMcGee says

Shquanda

TwoScoopsMcGee says

Loquan

Great names, but what are their chances of getting an interview, much less a job?

MMR says

Great names, but what are their chances of getting an interview, much less a job?

If they end up in Unwed Mother's Home, not too bad. One of the things we'll have to do is teach them to speak English, not Redneck or Ebonics.

Tim Aurora says

And yet we are not allowing "Planned Parenthood" ( abortion)

America currently has some of the most permissive abortion laws in the world. Europe has much more restrictions on abortion compared to the US.

The ubiquity and availability of birth control, sex education and abortion on demand in America doesn't seem to be stopping the out of wedlock birth rate.

Perhaps we should be looking at different policies to address this destructive behavior?

Move to China Dan.

Dan8267 says

TwoScoopsMcGee says

Single Mothers are the Number One Social Ill

Yet another reason to license parenting. Imagine how much more stable families would be. Imagine how much less we'd have to spend on anti-poverty programs. Imagine how much less intergenerational poverty there would be. Imagine how much less domestic violence. Imagine how much less childhood hunger. Imagine how much less youth crime including violent youth crime there would be.

The quality of life and educational and career opportunities would increase exponentially with each passing year if parenting was licensed and children had a minimal level of financial and emotional stability in their childhood.

Of course women would actually have to choose good mates, and men with educations and jobs would become highly valuable as they would be essential for women to have children. This means the so-called feminists would despise this po...

FortWayne says

Move to China Dan.

Real Americans try to make America better. You'll never understand that.

socal2 says

Perhaps we should be looking at different policies to address this destructive behavior?

You mean if we offer teenage girls an apartment of their own, food stamps, and some cash, they might decide getting knocked up by LaShawn isn't such a bad idea?

Patrick says

A lot higher than that graph for whites. They might have a partner, but they're damaged goods if they had a child with another man. Fine they live with the new guy but it's more out of desperation if it was a widow or divorce situation.

The new man is usually a loser by default and likely divorced himself. Ends bad 9 out of 10 times so they're still technically single mom's in my opinion. My nephew is one thing. I have never slept with my sister in law or cared to. It's basically an adoption. A choice to make a kids life good. And it is.

Once a woman hits 30 with kids and is not with their original parter their life is generally over. Rare occasions it works.

Black men are trash though. The women are at the same level. Their culture sucks. There's no rap allowed in our house. Does my nephew hear it, yes. But if being blatantly honest, he's not allowed to hang out with other blacks if he's living under my roof. It's working so far.

I don't agree about Black Men. Black Men are mostly created by Black Mothers.

Black Men raised primarily by their Fathers or another male figure like an Uncle are generally problem free.

AmericanKulak says

I don't agree about Black Men. Black Men are mostly created by Black Mothers.

Black Men raised primarily by their Fathers or another male figure like an Uncle are generally problem free.

Yeah, but the boys are generally raised without the dad. Why? The dad sucks at life. So do the women but it's a cultural thing. Both mom and dad are not right in the head.

I contest that a single father is a better option. I think you're probably in agreement. The black culture is shit, so both mom and dad, IF they stay together are generally stupid. Not a good start for the kid.

The government helped create this problem; it gives financial incentives to women to have a bastard child.

Government could slow this down by stopping subsidies like HUD Sec. 8 and other shit.

One absurd reward to female single mothers is the "earned income credit". This is free cash which is about $3500/kid today (I'm lazy to check the correct figure).

Women are not just "the other team"; they're out to ruin our society if we let them.

clambo says

Government could slow this down by stopping subsidies like HUD Sec. 8 and other shit.

Landlords should stop it. I had tenant prospects come and say I had to take section 8. I tell them fuck you, the government has no right to inspect my property. It's you, it the government is what I'd say.

Section 8 is a scam to screw over desperate landlords in shit areas. And they game the system to up rental rates as well. It's just a shit program.

Stop having kids and go work at McDonalds and get a $500-800/mo studio apartment. You can get that in most metros besides popular coastal cities. Get your life together and learn how to make more money.

clambo says

Women are not just "the other team"; they're out to ruin our society if we let them.

Women cannot help but to "Shit Test". Feminism isn't a secret plot, it's what happens when imposed Patriarchy is removed.

The goal of women is a Big "Longhouse" where they sit and create drama and gossip and divide up the resources Men laboriously collect amongst their favorites and themselves.

The existential FEAR of Women is fear of expulsion. The #1 reason to expel women historically was having a child with a Wild Chad and being a burden on the group.

Modern society icompletely revolves around that Fear: Women can bang Chad and have men (either via Stepdad Simp OR via Dadverment) pay all the costs.

End Hoefare yesterday.

The landlord I know loves Sec. 8; he keeps raising the rent on his Sec. 8 tenant because she's not actually paying.

Factoid: Single mothers are extremely numerous in La Paz Mexico.
Single mothers try to maintain their "girlish figure" for a long time; I know several mothers pushing 45 who have not blown up to be fatties.
Conversely, or "on the other hand", married females about that age are generally fuckin FAT.
They can all keep their figures if they make an effort; check out Jane Seymour at age 67 was in Playboy, and she's 70+ today and still looking good.
Anyway, the downside of single mothers is obvious; you will not be a priority to them, which is OK, but also they're frequently busy doing something related to the kid's school, sports, friends, father, grandparents, etc.

Takes effort for females. Wife is doing Hike Up The Hancock today (skyscraper). Works out everyday at 5am.

Eating breakfast now and will shit my brains out and lose 5lbs in 30min. My ceiling is low but my floor is high. 200-220lbs. Occasionally get to 190.