[PBVBROOK]

Troll.

Nice try. They are from that liberal stronghold Witicha Kansas.

No doubt white republicans. So typical of conservative behavior. Hide out in the bible belt and sell your children on the side.

sarcastic enough?

[DanDaMan]

Hey, look, a married woman killed her daughter. Does this mean marriage is evil and needs to stop?

Yes, if you can show us marriage has higher rates of abuse and other social failure than single motherhood.

See, as a conservative, I can competently judge what behavior leads to more success than failure.
Can you competently do that or can all you do is badmouth every behavior because all have some failures in them?

[ThereBeDragons]

Yes, if you can show us marriage has higher rates of abuse and other social failure than single motherhood.

The way to do this is by collecting statistics and studies, not posting news articles about single tragedies.

Can you competently do that or can all you do is badmouth every behavior because all have some failures in them?

The way you address the issue in the original post doesn't seem to suggest you don't do this.

[PBVBROOK]

See, as a conservative, I can competently judge what behavior leads to more success than failure.

I see. And liberals and moderates can't?

You as a judge of anything is a frightening notion.

[DanDaMan]

See, as a conservative, I can competently judge what behavior leads to more success than failure.

I see. And liberals and moderates can't?

She did not. She unilaterally judged marriage bad because they too have failures.
Can you do better than her?

Tell us right here and now... What is the better method of child rearing... father in the house or no father in the house?
We await to see how competent you are at judging.
No BS excuses. Just a general opinion on the subject when looked at a s a whole.

[PBVBROOK]

Tell us right here and now... What is the better method of child rearing... father in the house or no father in the house?
We await to see how competent you are at judging.
No BS excuses. Just a general opinion on the subject when looked at a s a whole.

Two parent households are best bye and large.

But.

To determine outcomes you have to look at the individual household.

Besides. The question has little use these days unless you discuss what government action should be taken to keep couples together. What do you propose? How about a ban on divorces? Do you like that? Prison for fathers who leave? The ball is in your court. You say you can judge. No BS, no excuses. What should government do to keep the father and mother together? It is government or nothing DDM. Nobody else has the authority to act. So what do they do?

[DanDaMan]

Two parent households are best bye and large.

But.

Of course there are always "buts".

But what should society do... push forward the better method of child rearing... a married man and wife...
or should they tell society both (unwed mothers) have equal outcomes?

I would make a judgment telling society to push for married life.
Would you?

[PBVBROOK]

I would make a judgment telling society to push for married life.

Nice try sport. Lots of people say that now. Most people say that now. But you didn't answer my question. (I knew you couldn't) So I will try again. What should government do? What practical steps should government take? Answer like this:

1........


2.......

3.......

[franfran]

What is the better method of child rearing... father in the house or no father in the house?

If the father, step-father, partner or whatever he is abuses a child in exchange for money for alcohol and cigarettes then obviously it is better that he not be in the house.

Here is another wonderful product of our Liberal society!

Sounds like this had been going on for a while. How long has the US in general, and Kansas in particular, been a "Liberal society"?

[Paradigm]

I, for one, blame Grover Cleveland for being elected president when everyone knew he had an illegitimate son. What kind of tragic liberal society would elect such a man?

[DanDaMan]

Nice try sport. Lots of people say that now. Most people say that now. But you didn't answer my question. (I knew you couldn't) So I will try again. What should government do? What practical steps should government take? Answer like this:

It's not the governement I am reallyu concerned with. It's the modern Liberal mentality that there is no best way to live.

So let's deal with that.. if asked... what would you say is the best family unit for raising a child?

If the father, step-father, partner or whatever he is abuses a child in exchange for money for alcohol and cigarettes then obviously it is better that he not be in the house.

No duh!
But that begs the question... who is the least likely to do that... a father by blood or a stand in that chose a woman in distress ( woman that has a child and is seen as needing help versus a woman with no such problems)?

[PBVBROOK]

It's not the governement I am reallyu concerned with. It's the modern Liberal mentality that there is no best way to live.

So let's deal with that.. if asked... what would you say is the best family unit for raising a child?

No. Let's not. Let's have you answer my question.

But you can't.

[DanDaMan]

I did. I said government should push for married life. Not directly though. Indirectly via taxation and reinstatement of older laws that gave rights only to fathers at home.

Now... whats' the best family for a child, a mother and father or or just a mother?

[franfran]

I said government should push for married life. Not directly though. Indirectly via taxation and reinstatement of older laws that gave rights only to fathers at home.

The comment about taxation is pretty obvious, even although you didn't give any details, but what on earth do you mean by "reinstatement of older laws that gave rights only to fathers at home" and what rights would mothers and children lose as a result of this?

[Huntster]

The question has little use these days unless you discuss what government action should be taken to keep couples together. What do you propose? How about a ban on divorces? Do you like that?

I like it, but I don't believe it will ever occur.

However, a ban on re-marriage is appropriate (if your spouse is still alive).

Prison for fathers who leave?

Only if they don't pay their required support (and that amount and how it is set needs reform), and that prison should be a work prison.

The same holds true for the mother

From yesterday's readings:

Reading II
Eph 5:21-32 or 5:2a, 25-32

Brothers and sisters:
Be subordinate to one another out of reverence for Christ.
Wives should be subordinate to their husbands as to the Lord.
For the husband is head of his wife
just as Christ is head of the church,
he himself the savior of the body.
As the church is subordinate to Christ,
so wives should be subordinate to their husbands in everything.
Husbands, love your wives,
even as Christ loved the church
and handed himself over for her to sanctify her,
cleansing her by the bath of water with the word,
that he might present to himself the church in splendor,
without spot or wrinkle or any such thing,
that she might be holy and without blemish.
So also husbands should love their wives as their own bodies.
He who loves his wife loves himself.
For no one hates his own flesh
but rather nourishes and cherishes it,
even as Christ does the church,
because we are members of his body.
For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother
and be joined to his wife,
and the two shall become one flesh.
This is a great mystery,
but I speak in reference to Christ and the church.

My wife and children charge me with legitimacy. I have meaning in this world because of my duty to them. As long as I serve them, care for them, provide for them, I have meaning.

I bring honor to my wife. She is not a used up heap of flesh left for another to use and abuse. She is loved. All who see us and know us know this. She is not prey for wolves.

Men need to honor their commitments, and women need to honor their men.

[PBVBROOK]

I did. I said government should push for married life. Not directly though. Indirectly via taxation and reinstatement of older laws that gave rights only to fathers at home.

So you believe that the government should tax single people more than married ones? You consider that fair? Children are already a major tax deduciton. There are many more deductions for the expenses of raising them. There is an earned income credit for families. When the father is present in a welfare home there is money for him too. What else do you want the government to do that they haven't already done?

As for "rights only to fathers at home" what, pray tell, does this mean? Explain that to me.

[DanDaMan]

The comment about taxation is pretty obvious, even although you didn't give any details, but what on earth do you mean by "reinstatement of older laws that gave rights only to fathers at home" and what rights would mothers and children lose as a result of this?

I'm not up to speed on this but it used to be fathers lost rights to their kids when they failed to marry. Now that is not so true in America. Ergo the importance of marriage is diluted.


Where is my answer PBV?

[PBVBROOK]

Where is my answer PBV?

Well sport. If you read my previous posts you would see I answered it. So start paying attention and stop running off at your mouth. If you are going to post, the least you can do is give the other posters the courtesy of reading thiers.

Are you having a problem comprehending what others write?

[DanDaMan]

I don't see where you answered what is the best family unit for children!
Real quick... would it be a married mother and father?

[PBVBROOK]

As I said. It would be married parents. That is ideal. Two parents.

You are trying to get me to say mother and father. That indicates that I think the gender of the parents is important. I don't. Nice try.