SCOTUS: states cannot ban same sex marriage

[percysunshine]

The problem is the Government incentivizes single motherhood through the welfare state. The more you subsidize a behavior, the more you get of it. As long as single motherhood is a viable economic option, and women who have children outside of wedlock can rely on the State, this situation won't be corrected.

Well it's clearly not a viable economic option, nor is apparently working at min wage. Cutting off all welfare is not... an acceptable solution in my mind. We are a wealthy enough country to help folks in need of help out. There needs to be limits of course, and perhaps stronger limits than we have now. However, that does /nothing/ to address the underlying problem that mothers today cannot handle the supervision of their child(ren) while working, it does not address the fact that fathers are abandoning their children and dodging child support. Again, the process of shaming the single parent is not working, and I'll agree neither is just throwing money at them for eternity; we need to find a different method.

The rise in single motherhood has directly correlated with the rise of the welfare state, and federal assistance for single moms. Women have children out of wedlock because they know they will have a bailout. That isn't to say that all single motherhood will be eliminated. But it will be reduced significantly. At the end of the day, humans are economic actors, and act to maximize their resources. If women know they wont have government resources, and have to pay it all on their own, they are more likely to not get into situations that lead to children out of wedlock.

It may sound mean, but in reality, we shouldn't be expected to pick up the tab for other people's bad decisions, particularly at the federal level. In the long run everyone will be better off when this economic incentive for dysfunctional behavior is removed. It is better off for the moms, children, and the society as a whole.

Do you have data to support your claim that the rise in single motherhood has directly correlated with the rise of the welfare state, and federal assistance for single moms?

In a forthcoming study for the journal Demography, Robert Moffitt, an economist at Johns Hopkins University, details how the poorest single-parent families—80 percent of which are headed by single mothers—receive 35 percent less in government transfers than they did three decades ago. Also, the birth rate to unmarried women has been flat since 2006 and declined in 2014

How Welfare Reform Left Single Moms Behind - The Atlantic

Share of births to unmarried women dips reversing a long trend Pew Research Center

At the same time, the evidence of a link between the availability of welfare and out-of-wedlock births is overwhelming. There have been 13 major studies of the relationship between the availability of welfare benefits and out-of-wedlock birth. Of these, 11 found a statistically significant correlation. Among the best of these studies is the work done by June O’Neill for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Holding constant a wide range of variables, including income, education, and urban vs. suburban setting, the study found that a 50 percent increase in the value of AFDC and foodstamp payments led to a 43 percent increase in the number of out-of-wedlock births.(7) Likewise, research by Shelley Lundberg and Robert Plotnick of the University of Washington showed that an increase in welfare benefits of $200 per month per family increased the rate of out-of-wedlock births among teenagers by 150 percent.(8)

Relationship Between the Welfare State and Crime Cato Institute

But in addition to this data, it is just common sense. If you subsidize something, you get more of it. Humans are resource maximizing beings that respond to economic signals. If women knew there wasn't a safety net where their poor decision wasn't subsidized, they would be less likely to make that poor decision. Obviously, such a program will have to phased out overtime, and you can't just cut aid to already born children. At the most, it should be a state issue, but even at my state level, I wouldn't support it because it just creates more of the problem it tries to solve.

It appears that this thread has been run off the rails. How did we get from SCOYUS and same sex marriage to welfare and crime? Let me take a stab at it. The same declining social and sexual morals that allowed gay marriage has resulted in more single parent families and thus more welfare, poverty and crime. Is that it?

If so, it still has NOTHING to do with same sex marriage. Same sex marriage has NO effect on the behavior or values of heterosexual people who will do what they do regardless.

However, same sex marriage WILL have an effect on gay and lesbian families and the well being of their children. Those children will enjoy greater financial security and family stability and be less likely to wind up on welfare. Then there are all of those children who are wards of the state who might be adopted by gay and lesbian couples. We might just come out ahead.

But while we are on the subject of social safety nets, I will finish by saying that it is not those programs that cause the poverty, it is capitalism. With capitalism there are always winners and losers and poverty and unemployment are built in side effects.

"It appears that this thread has been run off the rails. How did we get from SCOYUS and same sex marriage to welfare and crime?"

More advertising dollars that way


We might need 2/3d's of Congress to answer that question.

They are probably all on holiday this week.

 

[LittleNipper]

And according to Paul, the death and resurrection of Jesus fulfilled the Law and the prophecies ushering in a new era of Judaism that abolished the old covenant and brought in a new one. If you had read Chapter One of the book you quote, you would recognize that the author makes clear through the genealogy that every 14th generation something massive happens and Judaism changes. After the first 14 generations, David came and established the royal line which dramatically changed everything. 14 generations later was the Babylonian exile which again dramatically changed everything. Now 14 generations later, here comes Jesus ushering in yet another era wherein the prophecies are fulfilled, the old covenant is no more, and a new covenant is established.

You're saying Paul knew something Jesus did not? Jesus said he did not come to change the law. Paul did not get to reverse that.

Do you think Jesus loved the sinner or the sin?

I think he loved both. I think Jesus was a narcissist who thrived on sin since without it, he would have been out of business. He had to fool others into believing no matter how righteous they were, they were still a sinner, barring them from the Kingdom of G-d; and the only way in was through him. Sin was to him what ailments were to a charlatan "doctor" in a medicine show -- a marketing tool designed to draw in customers for which he had the cure.

Righteousness comes from God. Man is not righteous without God. I think you never read the Bible if you believe Jesus was a narcissist. A house divided cannot stand.

This is nothing but your own personal belief system. Do you understand that other people do not share the same belief system that you do?

This belief of mine is supported by the Bible. The Declaration of Independence is also supported by the Bible. I do understand that many people hate the United States for its historic background.

 

[ChrisL]

You're saying Paul knew something Jesus did not? Jesus said he did not come to change the law. Paul did not get to reverse that.

Do you think Jesus loved the sinner or the sin?

I think he loved both. I think Jesus was a narcissist who thrived on sin since without it, he would have been out of business. He had to fool others into believing no matter how righteous they were, they were still a sinner, barring them from the Kingdom of G-d; and the only way in was through him. Sin was to him what ailments were to a charlatan "doctor" in a medicine show -- a marketing tool designed to draw in customers for which he had the cure.

Righteousness comes from God. Man is not righteous without God. I think you never read the Bible if you believe Jesus was a narcissist. A house divided cannot stand.

This is nothing but your own personal belief system. Do you understand that other people do not share the same belief system that you do?

This belief of mine is supported by the Bible. The Declaration of Independence is also supported by the Bible. I do understand that many people hate the United States for its historic background.

Sorry, America stands for freedom. No one has to get your approval. Why don't you try reversing this situation and see how you would feel about it then?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Wow Zoro!! Calm the fuck down. Don’t have a stroke. The 2nd Amendment refers to a well regulated militia. The right to bear arms is in that same sentence. Yes, there is room for interpretation as to whether that means individuals or just militia groups, but” well regulated “ is the operative word while gun nuts want no regulations. It defiantly does not say that every mentally unstable yahoo can have as many assault weapons that they want-but that is what you guys mean by gun rights. All rights have limits and gun rights are limited by the need to ensure public safety which is a compelling state interst

Now, you want to talk about the 14th amendment? The 14th was ratified in 1868 to protect the rights of native-born Black Americans, whose rights were being denied as recently-freed slaves. However, it serves to protect against all other forms of discrimination as well.

And consider this as well:

It’s pretty clear what the intent was. It has been applied in a wide variety of cases that did not involve race

WASHINGTON — Oklahoma has presented the U.S. Supreme Court with some peculiar 14th Amendment cases.

You might also know that there were 14 Supreme Court Cases that established Marriage as a Fundamental Right http://www.afer.org/blog/14-supreme-court-cases-marriage-is-a-fundamental-right/

Here are some notable cases where race was not a factor and were decided on the 14th amendment. Does anyone think that these decisions were a liberal over reach??


There are more, but you get the idea. So get over it. You had better take a chill pill in June when SCOTUS rules that same sex marriage is in fact a right under the 14th amendment. Have a good evening.


Lastly Civil Unions are horseshit and do not result in equality. More on that later. I don’t want to overwhelm your limited capacity to understand things.

Keep it coming if you enjoy getting smacked down so much.

You can quote SCOTUS all you want MARRIAGE is not a RIGHT!

"May was a game-changer for the national conversation on homosexual marriage.

On May 8, North Carolinans overwhelmingly voted in favor of Amendment 1. The ballot measure changed the state's constitution to define marriage as a union existing solely between a man and a woman. The approximately 61 percent to 39 percent vote in favor of the Amendment 1 makes North Carolina the 30th state to vote against homosexual marriage.

The very next day, to the surprise of exactly no one, President Barack Obama finally stated this belief: "At a certain point, I've just concluded that for me — personally — it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same-sex couples should be able to get married."

Of course, both of these incidents revved up the debate over the legalization of homosexual marriage and its consequences. But there are several issues regarding homosexual marriage that have yet to be given the proper discussion they deserve.

The first is the notion of "rights." Homosexual marriage advocates argue that marriage is a basic right. Denying this right to homosexuals would therefore be illegal. That's not true. There's no right to marry contained in the U.S. Constitution.

Every person who claims that the denial of the ability to marry is unconstitutional is misguided.

Getting married isn't a right. Marriage is a civil institution that all societies in history have recognized and used as the best way to legitimize, protect and raise children as well as to solidify familial and political connections.

Second, the North Carolina law doesn't unfairly deny anyone of the ability to marry. The law — and others like it — defines and recognizes marriage as a union between one man and one woman. It doesn't exclude anyone from marrying. The law treats a heterosexual person the exact same way it treats a homosexual person, with both prohibited from marrying a person of the same sex.

Traditional marriage laws simply define what constitutes a married couple. The laws are extended equally — regardless of sexual preference.

So the right that homosexual marriage proponents claim exists really does not. There is no right to marry someone of the same sex. The ability for a person to marry someone of the same sex is equally denied to everyone.

Another claim that is offered in defense of homosexual marriage is that consenting adults should be allowed to marry whomever they love. But at what point is it alright to arbitrarily move the discriminatory lines of demarcation, and how is it justified?

If it's acceptable for homosexuals to marry each other because of love and consent, then why is polygamy illegal when the parties involved are similarly in love and consenting? What about aunts and nephews or uncles and nieces when the same standards are present? If it is discrimination against homosexuals, why would it not be discrimination against these other parties?

Lastly, homosexual marriage advocates claim that legalizing homosexual marriage is a civil rights issue — equating it with the struggle to legalize interracial marriages of the past. The attempt to correlate race with sexual preferences doesn't hold up when properly scrutinized.

Legalizing interracial marriages fulfilled the legal requirement of marriage between a man and a woman because there's no difference between a white man and a black man or a white woman and a black woman. But there are enormous differences between a man and a woman, which is why there are separate bathrooms for men and women.

It's why there is an NBA and an WNBA and an PGA and an LPGA. In all the aforementioned sporting leagues, there is a logical separation by gender while races and ethnicities are not classified.

Race doesn't matter. Gender does.

The emotional desire to legalize homosexual marriage is understandable, but to do so would be to change the law for a specific group of people. That's really discrimination."

Marriage is Not a Right

SCOTUS is NOT the final word, but apparently you aren't nuanced enough to understand that!

Well hell, if Derryck says marriage is not a right, then it must not be. Every court decision ever rendered on the matter must have been wrong. Chief Justice Derryck says so and vagisil confirms.

Fag Boy, glad to see you came out as what I've always believed you were! Nice avatar, Pawned....

Dude if you think posting a bunch of political cartoons is pwning someone I would like to enroll you in the STTAB school of wit so that you might at least take the next step

Dude, if you don't like them, don't look at them... by my ratings, it seems that many appreciate POLITICAL SATIRE, if you aren't nuanced enough to enjoy it, I suggest YOU attend the STTAB school of wit!.... Political satire has been around longer than this country has been a independent country.... learn something!

Hey Zorro, Here is a little something that you and all of the other anti gay rights nutters on here might appreciate. You are not alone! There are plenty of other's who are distraught and hysterical over the SCOTUS decision. Get on boards! Donate!

Ryan Anderson's Road Map for Marriage Resisters

The Heritage Foundation’s Ryan Anderson, celebrated as the anti-marriage movement’s fresh young face, is promoting his new book Truth Overruled: The Future of Marriage and Religious Freedom, which promises to tell anguished opponents of marriage equality how to respond in to the Supreme Court ruling that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to be legally married. Anderson’s book will be available July 20, but there’s probably no need to order it, since he has been flooding the media with his analysis of the ruling and advice about what anti-equality Christians should do in its wake.

Anderson is a protégé of Robert George, the Princeton professor and current intellectual godfather of the anti-gay movement. Like George, Anderson has made the case that the dispute over marriage is not about discrimination but about definition. Same-sex couples cannot be married, they argue, because marriage is by definition a relationship between a man and a woman, “uniting comprehensively, creating new life, and uniting new human beings with their mother and father.”

- See more at: Ryan Anderson s Road Map for Marriage Resisters Right Wing Watch

 

[thanatos144]

Do you think Jesus loved the sinner or the sin?

I think he loved both. I think Jesus was a narcissist who thrived on sin since without it, he would have been out of business. He had to fool others into believing no matter how righteous they were, they were still a sinner, barring them from the Kingdom of G-d; and the only way in was through him. Sin was to him what ailments were to a charlatan "doctor" in a medicine show -- a marketing tool designed to draw in customers for which he had the cure.

Righteousness comes from God. Man is not righteous without God. I think you never read the Bible if you believe Jesus was a narcissist. A house divided cannot stand.

This is nothing but your own personal belief system. Do you understand that other people do not share the same belief system that you do?

This belief of mine is supported by the Bible. The Declaration of Independence is also supported by the Bible. I do understand that many people hate the United States for its historic background.

Sorry, America stands for freedom. No one has to get your approval. Why don't you try reversing this situation and see how you would feel about it then?

So freedom by tyranny huh? What a joke you are

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I think he loved both. I think Jesus was a narcissist who thrived on sin since without it, he would have been out of business. He had to fool others into believing no matter how righteous they were, they were still a sinner, barring them from the Kingdom of G-d; and the only way in was through him. Sin was to him what ailments were to a charlatan "doctor" in a medicine show -- a marketing tool designed to draw in customers for which he had the cure.

Righteousness comes from God. Man is not righteous without God. I think you never read the Bible if you believe Jesus was a narcissist. A house divided cannot stand.

This is nothing but your own personal belief system. Do you understand that other people do not share the same belief system that you do?

This belief of mine is supported by the Bible. The Declaration of Independence is also supported by the Bible. I do understand that many people hate the United States for its historic background.

Sorry, America stands for freedom. No one has to get your approval. Why don't you try reversing this situation and see how you would feel about it then?

So freedom by tyranny huh? What a joke you are

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

So your "freedom" to oppress others is not tyranny , it is just freedom
But when others who you disapprove of want freedom, the same freedom that you have, they are guilty of tyranny. Are you fucking serious??!!

 

[ChrisL]

I think he loved both. I think Jesus was a narcissist who thrived on sin since without it, he would have been out of business. He had to fool others into believing no matter how righteous they were, they were still a sinner, barring them from the Kingdom of G-d; and the only way in was through him. Sin was to him what ailments were to a charlatan "doctor" in a medicine show -- a marketing tool designed to draw in customers for which he had the cure.

Righteousness comes from God. Man is not righteous without God. I think you never read the Bible if you believe Jesus was a narcissist. A house divided cannot stand.

This is nothing but your own personal belief system. Do you understand that other people do not share the same belief system that you do?

This belief of mine is supported by the Bible. The Declaration of Independence is also supported by the Bible. I do understand that many people hate the United States for its historic background.

Sorry, America stands for freedom. No one has to get your approval. Why don't you try reversing this situation and see how you would feel about it then?

So freedom by tyranny huh? What a joke you are

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

Another nut job I see. Don't you see? YOU are the tyrant for trying to force people to live by your ridiculous ancient man written religious views. That is not what America is about.

 

[ChrisL]

Righteousness comes from God. Man is not righteous without God. I think you never read the Bible if you believe Jesus was a narcissist. A house divided cannot stand.

This is nothing but your own personal belief system. Do you understand that other people do not share the same belief system that you do?

This belief of mine is supported by the Bible. The Declaration of Independence is also supported by the Bible. I do understand that many people hate the United States for its historic background.

Sorry, America stands for freedom. No one has to get your approval. Why don't you try reversing this situation and see how you would feel about it then?

So freedom by tyranny huh? What a joke you are

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

So your "freedom" to oppress others is not tyranny , it is just freedom
But when others who you disapprove of want freedom, the same freedom that you have, they are guilty of tyranny. Are you fucking serious??!!

It is ignorance at it's finest. The bible belt people are nuttier than squirrel poop.

 

[Steinlight]

The problem is the Government incentivizes single motherhood through the welfare state. The more you subsidize a behavior, the more you get of it. As long as single motherhood is a viable economic option, and women who have children outside of wedlock can rely on the State, this situation won't be corrected.

Well it's clearly not a viable economic option, nor is apparently working at min wage. Cutting off all welfare is not... an acceptable solution in my mind. We are a wealthy enough country to help folks in need of help out. There needs to be limits of course, and perhaps stronger limits than we have now. However, that does /nothing/ to address the underlying problem that mothers today cannot handle the supervision of their child(ren) while working, it does not address the fact that fathers are abandoning their children and dodging child support. Again, the process of shaming the single parent is not working, and I'll agree neither is just throwing money at them for eternity; we need to find a different method.

The rise in single motherhood has directly correlated with the rise of the welfare state, and federal assistance for single moms. Women have children out of wedlock because they know they will have a bailout. That isn't to say that all single motherhood will be eliminated. But it will be reduced significantly. At the end of the day, humans are economic actors, and act to maximize their resources. If women know they wont have government resources, and have to pay it all on their own, they are more likely to not get into situations that lead to children out of wedlock.

It may sound mean, but in reality, we shouldn't be expected to pick up the tab for other people's bad decisions, particularly at the federal level. In the long run everyone will be better off when this economic incentive for dysfunctional behavior is removed. It is better off for the moms, children, and the society as a whole.

Do you have data to support your claim that the rise in single motherhood has directly correlated with the rise of the welfare state, and federal assistance for single moms?

In a forthcoming study for the journal Demography, Robert Moffitt, an economist at Johns Hopkins University, details how the poorest single-parent families—80 percent of which are headed by single mothers—receive 35 percent less in government transfers than they did three decades ago. Also, the birth rate to unmarried women has been flat since 2006 and declined in 2014

How Welfare Reform Left Single Moms Behind - The Atlantic

Share of births to unmarried women dips reversing a long trend Pew Research Center

At the same time, the evidence of a link between the availability of welfare and out-of-wedlock births is overwhelming. There have been 13 major studies of the relationship between the availability of welfare benefits and out-of-wedlock birth. Of these, 11 found a statistically significant correlation. Among the best of these studies is the work done by June O’Neill for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Holding constant a wide range of variables, including income, education, and urban vs. suburban setting, the study found that a 50 percent increase in the value of AFDC and foodstamp payments led to a 43 percent increase in the number of out-of-wedlock births.(7) Likewise, research by Shelley Lundberg and Robert Plotnick of the University of Washington showed that an increase in welfare benefits of $200 per month per family increased the rate of out-of-wedlock births among teenagers by 150 percent.(8)

Relationship Between the Welfare State and Crime Cato Institute

But in addition to this data, it is just common sense. If you subsidize something, you get more of it. Humans are resource maximizing beings that respond to economic signals. If women knew there wasn't a safety net where their poor decision wasn't subsidized, they would be less likely to make that poor decision. Obviously, such a program will have to phased out overtime, and you can't just cut aid to already born children. At the most, it should be a state issue, but even at my state level, I wouldn't support it because it just creates more of the problem it tries to solve.

It appears that this thread has been run off the rails. How did we get from SCOTUS and same sex marriage to welfare and crime? Let me take a stab at it. The same declining social and sexual morals that allowed gay marriage has resulted in more single parent families and thus more welfare, poverty and crime. Is that it?

If so, it still has NOTHING to do with same sex marriage. Same sex marriage has NO effect on the behavior or values of heterosexual people who will do what they do regardless.

However, same sex marriage WILL have an effect on gay and lesbian families and the well being of their children. Those children will enjoy greater financial security and family stability and be less likely to wind up on welfare. Then there are all of those children who are wards of the state who might be adopted by gay and lesbian couples. We might just come out ahead.

But while we are on the subject of social safety nets, I will finish by saying that it is not those programs that cause the poverty, it is capitalism. With capitalism there are always winners and losers and poverty and unemployment are built in side effects.

Heterosexuals and homosexuals are intertwined, we share a society after all, that is far more interconnected than ever before through social and mass media. It is the hyperliberalization of heterosexual sexual behavior that led to a social climate. The idea there isn't a connection or heterosexuals and homosexuals are isolated and don't share a culture that includes sexual norms is incorrect. It is changing heterosexual norms, and decline in traditional values, that led to toleration of homosexuality among a significant section of the population(not flyover country though where all those hicks live) . Same sex marriage further erodes the idea of conjugal marriage, detaching marriage and sex from procreation in the larger culture. It isn't that homosexuality has wrought a social decline, but toleration and social and political normalization of this anti-social behavior is a manifestation of the decline.

I think the idea homosexual relations are "stable" has no basis in reality. You have an incredibly sanitized view of homosexuality that is given to you by mass media. But it isn't really the case. 55% of gay couples are either in an open relationship(47%) or "not sure"(8%).
Many gay couples negotiate open relationships - SFGate

Capitalism(the private ownership of the means of production), does not cause women to have sex out of wedlock.

 

[ChrisL]

Well it's clearly not a viable economic option, nor is apparently working at min wage. Cutting off all welfare is not... an acceptable solution in my mind. We are a wealthy enough country to help folks in need of help out. There needs to be limits of course, and perhaps stronger limits than we have now. However, that does /nothing/ to address the underlying problem that mothers today cannot handle the supervision of their child(ren) while working, it does not address the fact that fathers are abandoning their children and dodging child support. Again, the process of shaming the single parent is not working, and I'll agree neither is just throwing money at them for eternity; we need to find a different method.

The rise in single motherhood has directly correlated with the rise of the welfare state, and federal assistance for single moms. Women have children out of wedlock because they know they will have a bailout. That isn't to say that all single motherhood will be eliminated. But it will be reduced significantly. At the end of the day, humans are economic actors, and act to maximize their resources. If women know they wont have government resources, and have to pay it all on their own, they are more likely to not get into situations that lead to children out of wedlock.

It may sound mean, but in reality, we shouldn't be expected to pick up the tab for other people's bad decisions, particularly at the federal level. In the long run everyone will be better off when this economic incentive for dysfunctional behavior is removed. It is better off for the moms, children, and the society as a whole.

Do you have data to support your claim that the rise in single motherhood has directly correlated with the rise of the welfare state, and federal assistance for single moms?

In a forthcoming study for the journal Demography, Robert Moffitt, an economist at Johns Hopkins University, details how the poorest single-parent families—80 percent of which are headed by single mothers—receive 35 percent less in government transfers than they did three decades ago. Also, the birth rate to unmarried women has been flat since 2006 and declined in 2014

How Welfare Reform Left Single Moms Behind - The Atlantic

Share of births to unmarried women dips reversing a long trend Pew Research Center

At the same time, the evidence of a link between the availability of welfare and out-of-wedlock births is overwhelming. There have been 13 major studies of the relationship between the availability of welfare benefits and out-of-wedlock birth. Of these, 11 found a statistically significant correlation. Among the best of these studies is the work done by June O’Neill for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Holding constant a wide range of variables, including income, education, and urban vs. suburban setting, the study found that a 50 percent increase in the value of AFDC and foodstamp payments led to a 43 percent increase in the number of out-of-wedlock births.(7) Likewise, research by Shelley Lundberg and Robert Plotnick of the University of Washington showed that an increase in welfare benefits of $200 per month per family increased the rate of out-of-wedlock births among teenagers by 150 percent.(8)

Relationship Between the Welfare State and Crime Cato Institute

But in addition to this data, it is just common sense. If you subsidize something, you get more of it. Humans are resource maximizing beings that respond to economic signals. If women knew there wasn't a safety net where their poor decision wasn't subsidized, they would be less likely to make that poor decision. Obviously, such a program will have to phased out overtime, and you can't just cut aid to already born children. At the most, it should be a state issue, but even at my state level, I wouldn't support it because it just creates more of the problem it tries to solve.

It appears that this thread has been run off the rails. How did we get from SCOTUS and same sex marriage to welfare and crime? Let me take a stab at it. The same declining social and sexual morals that allowed gay marriage has resulted in more single parent families and thus more welfare, poverty and crime. Is that it?

If so, it still has NOTHING to do with same sex marriage. Same sex marriage has NO effect on the behavior or values of heterosexual people who will do what they do regardless.

However, same sex marriage WILL have an effect on gay and lesbian families and the well being of their children. Those children will enjoy greater financial security and family stability and be less likely to wind up on welfare. Then there are all of those children who are wards of the state who might be adopted by gay and lesbian couples. We might just come out ahead.

But while we are on the subject of social safety nets, I will finish by saying that it is not those programs that cause the poverty, it is capitalism. With capitalism there are always winners and losers and poverty and unemployment are built in side effects.

Heterosexuals and homosexuals are intertwined, we share a society after all, that is far more interconnected than ever before through social and mass media. It is the hyperliberalization of heterosexual sexual behavior that led to a social climate. The idea there isn't a connection or heterosexuals and homosexuals are isolated and don't share a culture that includes sexual norms is incorrect. It is changing heterosexual norms, and decline in traditional values, that led to toleration of homosexuality among a significant section of the population(not flyover country though where all those hicks live) . Same sex marriage further erodes the idea of conjugal marriage, detaching marriage and sex from procreation in the larger culture. It isn't that homosexuality has wrought a social decline, but toleration and social and political normalization of this anti-social behavior is a manifestation of the decline.

I think the idea homosexual relations are "stable" has no basis in reality. You have an incredibly sanitized view of homosexuality that is given to you by mass media. But it isn't really the case. 55% of gay couples are either in an open relationship(47%) or "not sure"(8%).
Many gay couples negotiate open relationships - SFGate

Capitalism(the private ownership of the means of production), does not cause women to have sex out of wedlock.

Since gay people are not heterosexuals, I do not see how they affect heterosexual norms. There are also straight couples that have open relationships.

 

[Steinlight]

The rise in single motherhood has directly correlated with the rise of the welfare state, and federal assistance for single moms. Women have children out of wedlock because they know they will have a bailout. That isn't to say that all single motherhood will be eliminated. But it will be reduced significantly. At the end of the day, humans are economic actors, and act to maximize their resources. If women know they wont have government resources, and have to pay it all on their own, they are more likely to not get into situations that lead to children out of wedlock.

It may sound mean, but in reality, we shouldn't be expected to pick up the tab for other people's bad decisions, particularly at the federal level. In the long run everyone will be better off when this economic incentive for dysfunctional behavior is removed. It is better off for the moms, children, and the society as a whole.

Do you have data to support your claim that the rise in single motherhood has directly correlated with the rise of the welfare state, and federal assistance for single moms?

In a forthcoming study for the journal Demography, Robert Moffitt, an economist at Johns Hopkins University, details how the poorest single-parent families—80 percent of which are headed by single mothers—receive 35 percent less in government transfers than they did three decades ago. Also, the birth rate to unmarried women has been flat since 2006 and declined in 2014

How Welfare Reform Left Single Moms Behind - The Atlantic

Share of births to unmarried women dips reversing a long trend Pew Research Center

At the same time, the evidence of a link between the availability of welfare and out-of-wedlock births is overwhelming. There have been 13 major studies of the relationship between the availability of welfare benefits and out-of-wedlock birth. Of these, 11 found a statistically significant correlation. Among the best of these studies is the work done by June O’Neill for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Holding constant a wide range of variables, including income, education, and urban vs. suburban setting, the study found that a 50 percent increase in the value of AFDC and foodstamp payments led to a 43 percent increase in the number of out-of-wedlock births.(7) Likewise, research by Shelley Lundberg and Robert Plotnick of the University of Washington showed that an increase in welfare benefits of $200 per month per family increased the rate of out-of-wedlock births among teenagers by 150 percent.(8)

Relationship Between the Welfare State and Crime Cato Institute

But in addition to this data, it is just common sense. If you subsidize something, you get more of it. Humans are resource maximizing beings that respond to economic signals. If women knew there wasn't a safety net where their poor decision wasn't subsidized, they would be less likely to make that poor decision. Obviously, such a program will have to phased out overtime, and you can't just cut aid to already born children. At the most, it should be a state issue, but even at my state level, I wouldn't support it because it just creates more of the problem it tries to solve.

It appears that this thread has been run off the rails. How did we get from SCOTUS and same sex marriage to welfare and crime? Let me take a stab at it. The same declining social and sexual morals that allowed gay marriage has resulted in more single parent families and thus more welfare, poverty and crime. Is that it?

If so, it still has NOTHING to do with same sex marriage. Same sex marriage has NO effect on the behavior or values of heterosexual people who will do what they do regardless.

However, same sex marriage WILL have an effect on gay and lesbian families and the well being of their children. Those children will enjoy greater financial security and family stability and be less likely to wind up on welfare. Then there are all of those children who are wards of the state who might be adopted by gay and lesbian couples. We might just come out ahead.

But while we are on the subject of social safety nets, I will finish by saying that it is not those programs that cause the poverty, it is capitalism. With capitalism there are always winners and losers and poverty and unemployment are built in side effects.

Heterosexuals and homosexuals are intertwined, we share a society after all, that is far more interconnected than ever before through social and mass media. It is the hyperliberalization of heterosexual sexual behavior that led to a social climate. The idea there isn't a connection or heterosexuals and homosexuals are isolated and don't share a culture that includes sexual norms is incorrect. It is changing heterosexual norms, and decline in traditional values, that led to toleration of homosexuality among a significant section of the population(not flyover country though where all those hicks live) . Same sex marriage further erodes the idea of conjugal marriage, detaching marriage and sex from procreation in the larger culture. It isn't that homosexuality has wrought a social decline, but toleration and social and political normalization of this anti-social behavior is a manifestation of the decline.

I think the idea homosexual relations are "stable" has no basis in reality. You have an incredibly sanitized view of homosexuality that is given to you by mass media. But it isn't really the case. 55% of gay couples are either in an open relationship(47%) or "not sure"(8%).
Many gay couples negotiate open relationships - SFGate

Capitalism(the private ownership of the means of production), does not cause women to have sex out of wedlock.

Since gay people are not heterosexuals, I do not see how they affect heterosexual norms. There are also straight couples that have open relationships.

I can't help you if you can't see that the liberalization of sexual norms amongst heterosexuals led to greater toleration of homosexuality amongst significant segments of the heterosexual population.

Not 55% of heterosexual couples.

 

[ChrisL]

Do you have data to support your claim that the rise in single motherhood has directly correlated with the rise of the welfare state, and federal assistance for single moms?

In a forthcoming study for the journal Demography, Robert Moffitt, an economist at Johns Hopkins University, details how the poorest single-parent families—80 percent of which are headed by single mothers—receive 35 percent less in government transfers than they did three decades ago. Also, the birth rate to unmarried women has been flat since 2006 and declined in 2014

How Welfare Reform Left Single Moms Behind - The Atlantic

Share of births to unmarried women dips reversing a long trend Pew Research Center

At the same time, the evidence of a link between the availability of welfare and out-of-wedlock births is overwhelming. There have been 13 major studies of the relationship between the availability of welfare benefits and out-of-wedlock birth. Of these, 11 found a statistically significant correlation. Among the best of these studies is the work done by June O’Neill for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Holding constant a wide range of variables, including income, education, and urban vs. suburban setting, the study found that a 50 percent increase in the value of AFDC and foodstamp payments led to a 43 percent increase in the number of out-of-wedlock births.(7) Likewise, research by Shelley Lundberg and Robert Plotnick of the University of Washington showed that an increase in welfare benefits of $200 per month per family increased the rate of out-of-wedlock births among teenagers by 150 percent.(8)

Relationship Between the Welfare State and Crime Cato Institute

But in addition to this data, it is just common sense. If you subsidize something, you get more of it. Humans are resource maximizing beings that respond to economic signals. If women knew there wasn't a safety net where their poor decision wasn't subsidized, they would be less likely to make that poor decision. Obviously, such a program will have to phased out overtime, and you can't just cut aid to already born children. At the most, it should be a state issue, but even at my state level, I wouldn't support it because it just creates more of the problem it tries to solve.

It appears that this thread has been run off the rails. How did we get from SCOTUS and same sex marriage to welfare and crime? Let me take a stab at it. The same declining social and sexual morals that allowed gay marriage has resulted in more single parent families and thus more welfare, poverty and crime. Is that it?

If so, it still has NOTHING to do with same sex marriage. Same sex marriage has NO effect on the behavior or values of heterosexual people who will do what they do regardless.

However, same sex marriage WILL have an effect on gay and lesbian families and the well being of their children. Those children will enjoy greater financial security and family stability and be less likely to wind up on welfare. Then there are all of those children who are wards of the state who might be adopted by gay and lesbian couples. We might just come out ahead.

But while we are on the subject of social safety nets, I will finish by saying that it is not those programs that cause the poverty, it is capitalism. With capitalism there are always winners and losers and poverty and unemployment are built in side effects.

Heterosexuals and homosexuals are intertwined, we share a society after all, that is far more interconnected than ever before through social and mass media. It is the hyperliberalization of heterosexual sexual behavior that led to a social climate. The idea there isn't a connection or heterosexuals and homosexuals are isolated and don't share a culture that includes sexual norms is incorrect. It is changing heterosexual norms, and decline in traditional values, that led to toleration of homosexuality among a significant section of the population(not flyover country though where all those hicks live) . Same sex marriage further erodes the idea of conjugal marriage, detaching marriage and sex from procreation in the larger culture. It isn't that homosexuality has wrought a social decline, but toleration and social and political normalization of this anti-social behavior is a manifestation of the decline.

I think the idea homosexual relations are "stable" has no basis in reality. You have an incredibly sanitized view of homosexuality that is given to you by mass media. But it isn't really the case. 55% of gay couples are either in an open relationship(47%) or "not sure"(8%).
Many gay couples negotiate open relationships - SFGate

Capitalism(the private ownership of the means of production), does not cause women to have sex out of wedlock.

Since gay people are not heterosexuals, I do not see how they affect heterosexual norms. There are also straight couples that have open relationships.

I can't help you if you can't see that the liberalization of sexual norms amongst heterosexuals led to greater toleration of homosexuality amongst significant segments of the heterosexual population.

Not 55% of heterosexual couples.

I don't see what is wrong with having tolerance for them. I really do not understand your objection. You can't go back in time.

 

[Steinlight]

Relationship Between the Welfare State and Crime Cato Institute

But in addition to this data, it is just common sense. If you subsidize something, you get more of it. Humans are resource maximizing beings that respond to economic signals. If women knew there wasn't a safety net where their poor decision wasn't subsidized, they would be less likely to make that poor decision. Obviously, such a program will have to phased out overtime, and you can't just cut aid to already born children. At the most, it should be a state issue, but even at my state level, I wouldn't support it because it just creates more of the problem it tries to solve.

It appears that this thread has been run off the rails. How did we get from SCOTUS and same sex marriage to welfare and crime? Let me take a stab at it. The same declining social and sexual morals that allowed gay marriage has resulted in more single parent families and thus more welfare, poverty and crime. Is that it?

If so, it still has NOTHING to do with same sex marriage. Same sex marriage has NO effect on the behavior or values of heterosexual people who will do what they do regardless.

However, same sex marriage WILL have an effect on gay and lesbian families and the well being of their children. Those children will enjoy greater financial security and family stability and be less likely to wind up on welfare. Then there are all of those children who are wards of the state who might be adopted by gay and lesbian couples. We might just come out ahead.

But while we are on the subject of social safety nets, I will finish by saying that it is not those programs that cause the poverty, it is capitalism. With capitalism there are always winners and losers and poverty and unemployment are built in side effects.

Heterosexuals and homosexuals are intertwined, we share a society after all, that is far more interconnected than ever before through social and mass media. It is the hyperliberalization of heterosexual sexual behavior that led to a social climate. The idea there isn't a connection or heterosexuals and homosexuals are isolated and don't share a culture that includes sexual norms is incorrect. It is changing heterosexual norms, and decline in traditional values, that led to toleration of homosexuality among a significant section of the population(not flyover country though where all those hicks live) . Same sex marriage further erodes the idea of conjugal marriage, detaching marriage and sex from procreation in the larger culture. It isn't that homosexuality has wrought a social decline, but toleration and social and political normalization of this anti-social behavior is a manifestation of the decline.

I think the idea homosexual relations are "stable" has no basis in reality. You have an incredibly sanitized view of homosexuality that is given to you by mass media. But it isn't really the case. 55% of gay couples are either in an open relationship(47%) or "not sure"(8%).
Many gay couples negotiate open relationships - SFGate

Capitalism(the private ownership of the means of production), does not cause women to have sex out of wedlock.

Since gay people are not heterosexuals, I do not see how they affect heterosexual norms. There are also straight couples that have open relationships.

I can't help you if you can't see that the liberalization of sexual norms amongst heterosexuals led to greater toleration of homosexuality amongst significant segments of the heterosexual population.

Not 55% of heterosexual couples.

I don't see what is wrong with having tolerance for them. I really do not understand your objection. You can't go back in time.

I don't see why I should tolerate their deviant sexual behavior(which includes the aforementioned open relationships and high rate of HIV, at 20%), or the overall sexual revolution in general. So I don't understand your support for these lifestyles.
CDC 20 of Gay Men Are HIV-Positive but Nearly Half Don t Know It TIME.com

Social norms shift overtime. Societies go through cycles, from more religious to less so, from more conservative to less so. Societies historically do not go in a linear but instead a cyclical manner.

 

[ChrisL]

It appears that this thread has been run off the rails. How did we get from SCOTUS and same sex marriage to welfare and crime? Let me take a stab at it. The same declining social and sexual morals that allowed gay marriage has resulted in more single parent families and thus more welfare, poverty and crime. Is that it?

If so, it still has NOTHING to do with same sex marriage. Same sex marriage has NO effect on the behavior or values of heterosexual people who will do what they do regardless.

However, same sex marriage WILL have an effect on gay and lesbian families and the well being of their children. Those children will enjoy greater financial security and family stability and be less likely to wind up on welfare. Then there are all of those children who are wards of the state who might be adopted by gay and lesbian couples. We might just come out ahead.

But while we are on the subject of social safety nets, I will finish by saying that it is not those programs that cause the poverty, it is capitalism. With capitalism there are always winners and losers and poverty and unemployment are built in side effects.

Heterosexuals and homosexuals are intertwined, we share a society after all, that is far more interconnected than ever before through social and mass media. It is the hyperliberalization of heterosexual sexual behavior that led to a social climate. The idea there isn't a connection or heterosexuals and homosexuals are isolated and don't share a culture that includes sexual norms is incorrect. It is changing heterosexual norms, and decline in traditional values, that led to toleration of homosexuality among a significant section of the population(not flyover country though where all those hicks live) . Same sex marriage further erodes the idea of conjugal marriage, detaching marriage and sex from procreation in the larger culture. It isn't that homosexuality has wrought a social decline, but toleration and social and political normalization of this anti-social behavior is a manifestation of the decline.

I think the idea homosexual relations are "stable" has no basis in reality. You have an incredibly sanitized view of homosexuality that is given to you by mass media. But it isn't really the case. 55% of gay couples are either in an open relationship(47%) or "not sure"(8%).
Many gay couples negotiate open relationships - SFGate

Capitalism(the private ownership of the means of production), does not cause women to have sex out of wedlock.

Since gay people are not heterosexuals, I do not see how they affect heterosexual norms. There are also straight couples that have open relationships.

I can't help you if you can't see that the liberalization of sexual norms amongst heterosexuals led to greater toleration of homosexuality amongst significant segments of the heterosexual population.

Not 55% of heterosexual couples.

I don't see what is wrong with having tolerance for them. I really do not understand your objection. You can't go back in time.

I don't see why I should tolerate their deviant sexual behavior(which includes the aforementioned open relationships and high rate of HIV, at 20%), or the overall sexual revolution in general. So I don't understand your support for these lifestyles.
CDC 20 of Gay Men Are HIV-Positive but Nearly Half Don t Know It TIME.com

Social norms shift overtime. Societies go through cycles, from more religious to less so, from more conservative to less so. Societies historically do not go in a linear but instead a cyclical manner.

Well you don't really have to. Just don't associate with them.

Also, I don't really "support" a lifestyle. I support equal rights and privileges for all American citizens because that is what I was raised to believe America stands for.

 

[Faun]

Well it's clearly not a viable economic option, nor is apparently working at min wage. Cutting off all welfare is not... an acceptable solution in my mind. We are a wealthy enough country to help folks in need of help out. There needs to be limits of course, and perhaps stronger limits than we have now. However, that does /nothing/ to address the underlying problem that mothers today cannot handle the supervision of their child(ren) while working, it does not address the fact that fathers are abandoning their children and dodging child support. Again, the process of shaming the single parent is not working, and I'll agree neither is just throwing money at them for eternity; we need to find a different method.

The rise in single motherhood has directly correlated with the rise of the welfare state, and federal assistance for single moms. Women have children out of wedlock because they know they will have a bailout. That isn't to say that all single motherhood will be eliminated. But it will be reduced significantly. At the end of the day, humans are economic actors, and act to maximize their resources. If women know they wont have government resources, and have to pay it all on their own, they are more likely to not get into situations that lead to children out of wedlock.

It may sound mean, but in reality, we shouldn't be expected to pick up the tab for other people's bad decisions, particularly at the federal level. In the long run everyone will be better off when this economic incentive for dysfunctional behavior is removed. It is better off for the moms, children, and the society as a whole.

Do you have data to support your claim that the rise in single motherhood has directly correlated with the rise of the welfare state, and federal assistance for single moms?

In a forthcoming study for the journal Demography, Robert Moffitt, an economist at Johns Hopkins University, details how the poorest single-parent families—80 percent of which are headed by single mothers—receive 35 percent less in government transfers than they did three decades ago. Also, the birth rate to unmarried women has been flat since 2006 and declined in 2014

How Welfare Reform Left Single Moms Behind - The Atlantic

Share of births to unmarried women dips reversing a long trend Pew Research Center

At the same time, the evidence of a link between the availability of welfare and out-of-wedlock births is overwhelming. There have been 13 major studies of the relationship between the availability of welfare benefits and out-of-wedlock birth. Of these, 11 found a statistically significant correlation. Among the best of these studies is the work done by June O’Neill for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Holding constant a wide range of variables, including income, education, and urban vs. suburban setting, the study found that a 50 percent increase in the value of AFDC and foodstamp payments led to a 43 percent increase in the number of out-of-wedlock births.(7) Likewise, research by Shelley Lundberg and Robert Plotnick of the University of Washington showed that an increase in welfare benefits of $200 per month per family increased the rate of out-of-wedlock births among teenagers by 150 percent.(8)

Relationship Between the Welfare State and Crime Cato Institute

But in addition to this data, it is just common sense. If you subsidize something, you get more of it. Humans are resource maximizing beings that respond to economic signals. If women knew there wasn't a safety net where their poor decision wasn't subsidized, they would be less likely to make that poor decision. Obviously, such a program will have to phased out overtime, and you can't just cut aid to already born children. At the most, it should be a state issue, but even at my state level, I wouldn't support it because it just creates more of the problem it tries to solve.

It appears that this thread has been run off the rails. How did we get from SCOTUS and same sex marriage to welfare and crime? Let me take a stab at it. The same declining social and sexual morals that allowed gay marriage has resulted in more single parent families and thus more welfare, poverty and crime. Is that it?

If so, it still has NOTHING to do with same sex marriage. Same sex marriage has NO effect on the behavior or values of heterosexual people who will do what they do regardless.

However, same sex marriage WILL have an effect on gay and lesbian families and the well being of their children. Those children will enjoy greater financial security and family stability and be less likely to wind up on welfare. Then there are all of those children who are wards of the state who might be adopted by gay and lesbian couples. We might just come out ahead.

But while we are on the subject of social safety nets, I will finish by saying that it is not those programs that cause the poverty, it is capitalism. With capitalism there are always winners and losers and poverty and unemployment are built in side effects.

Heterosexuals and homosexuals are intertwined, we share a society after all, that is far more interconnected than ever before through social and mass media. It is the hyperliberalization of heterosexual sexual behavior that led to a social climate. The idea there isn't a connection or heterosexuals and homosexuals are isolated and don't share a culture that includes sexual norms is incorrect. It is changing heterosexual norms, and decline in traditional values, that led to toleration of homosexuality among a significant section of the population(not flyover country though where all those hicks live) . Same sex marriage further erodes the idea of conjugal marriage, detaching marriage and sex from procreation in the larger culture. It isn't that homosexuality has wrought a social decline, but toleration and social and political normalization of this anti-social behavior is a manifestation of the decline.

I think the idea homosexual relations are "stable" has no basis in reality. You have an incredibly sanitized view of homosexuality that is given to you by mass media. But it isn't really the case. 55% of gay couples are either in an open relationship(47%) or "not sure"(8%).
Many gay couples negotiate open relationships - SFGate

Capitalism(the private ownership of the means of production), does not cause women to have sex out of wedlock.

What a shame you still don't get it.

I suppose you never will.

 

[Faun]

It appears that this thread has been run off the rails. How did we get from SCOTUS and same sex marriage to welfare and crime? Let me take a stab at it. The same declining social and sexual morals that allowed gay marriage has resulted in more single parent families and thus more welfare, poverty and crime. Is that it?

If so, it still has NOTHING to do with same sex marriage. Same sex marriage has NO effect on the behavior or values of heterosexual people who will do what they do regardless.

However, same sex marriage WILL have an effect on gay and lesbian families and the well being of their children. Those children will enjoy greater financial security and family stability and be less likely to wind up on welfare. Then there are all of those children who are wards of the state who might be adopted by gay and lesbian couples. We might just come out ahead.

But while we are on the subject of social safety nets, I will finish by saying that it is not those programs that cause the poverty, it is capitalism. With capitalism there are always winners and losers and poverty and unemployment are built in side effects.

Heterosexuals and homosexuals are intertwined, we share a society after all, that is far more interconnected than ever before through social and mass media. It is the hyperliberalization of heterosexual sexual behavior that led to a social climate. The idea there isn't a connection or heterosexuals and homosexuals are isolated and don't share a culture that includes sexual norms is incorrect. It is changing heterosexual norms, and decline in traditional values, that led to toleration of homosexuality among a significant section of the population(not flyover country though where all those hicks live) . Same sex marriage further erodes the idea of conjugal marriage, detaching marriage and sex from procreation in the larger culture. It isn't that homosexuality has wrought a social decline, but toleration and social and political normalization of this anti-social behavior is a manifestation of the decline.

I think the idea homosexual relations are "stable" has no basis in reality. You have an incredibly sanitized view of homosexuality that is given to you by mass media. But it isn't really the case. 55% of gay couples are either in an open relationship(47%) or "not sure"(8%).
Many gay couples negotiate open relationships - SFGate

Capitalism(the private ownership of the means of production), does not cause women to have sex out of wedlock.

Since gay people are not heterosexuals, I do not see how they affect heterosexual norms. There are also straight couples that have open relationships.

I can't help you if you can't see that the liberalization of sexual norms amongst heterosexuals led to greater toleration of homosexuality amongst significant segments of the heterosexual population.

Not 55% of heterosexual couples.

I don't see what is wrong with having tolerance for them. I really do not understand your objection. You can't go back in time.

I don't see why I should tolerate their deviant sexual behavior(which includes the aforementioned open relationships and high rate of HIV, at 20%), or the overall sexual revolution in general. So I don't understand your support for these lifestyles.
CDC 20 of Gay Men Are HIV-Positive but Nearly Half Don t Know It TIME.com

Social norms shift overtime. Societies go through cycles, from more religious to less so, from more conservative to less so. Societies historically do not go in a linear but instead a cyclical manner.

Who asked you to tolerate it? Who cares if you do or don't?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Well it's clearly not a viable economic option, nor is apparently working at min wage. Cutting off all welfare is not... an acceptable solution in my mind. We are a wealthy enough country to help folks in need of help out. There needs to be limits of course, and perhaps stronger limits than we have now. However, that does /nothing/ to address the underlying problem that mothers today cannot handle the supervision of their child(ren) while working, it does not address the fact that fathers are abandoning their children and dodging child support. Again, the process of shaming the single parent is not working, and I'll agree neither is just throwing money at them for eternity; we need to find a different method.

The rise in single motherhood has directly correlated with the rise of the welfare state, and federal assistance for single moms. Women have children out of wedlock because they know they will have a bailout. That isn't to say that all single motherhood will be eliminated. But it will be reduced significantly. At the end of the day, humans are economic actors, and act to maximize their resources. If women know they wont have government resources, and have to pay it all on their own, they are more likely to not get into situations that lead to children out of wedlock.

It may sound mean, but in reality, we shouldn't be expected to pick up the tab for other people's bad decisions, particularly at the federal level. In the long run everyone will be better off when this economic incentive for dysfunctional behavior is removed. It is better off for the moms, children, and the society as a whole.

Do you have data to support your claim that the rise in single motherhood has directly correlated with the rise of the welfare state, and federal assistance for single moms?

In a forthcoming study for the journal Demography, Robert Moffitt, an economist at Johns Hopkins University, details how the poorest single-parent families—80 percent of which are headed by single mothers—receive 35 percent less in government transfers than they did three decades ago. Also, the birth rate to unmarried women has been flat since 2006 and declined in 2014

How Welfare Reform Left Single Moms Behind - The Atlantic

Share of births to unmarried women dips reversing a long trend Pew Research Center

At the same time, the evidence of a link between the availability of welfare and out-of-wedlock births is overwhelming. There have been 13 major studies of the relationship between the availability of welfare benefits and out-of-wedlock birth. Of these, 11 found a statistically significant correlation. Among the best of these studies is the work done by June O’Neill for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Holding constant a wide range of variables, including income, education, and urban vs. suburban setting, the study found that a 50 percent increase in the value of AFDC and foodstamp payments led to a 43 percent increase in the number of out-of-wedlock births.(7) Likewise, research by Shelley Lundberg and Robert Plotnick of the University of Washington showed that an increase in welfare benefits of $200 per month per family increased the rate of out-of-wedlock births among teenagers by 150 percent.(8)

Relationship Between the Welfare State and Crime Cato Institute

But in addition to this data, it is just common sense. If you subsidize something, you get more of it. Humans are resource maximizing beings that respond to economic signals. If women knew there wasn't a safety net where their poor decision wasn't subsidized, they would be less likely to make that poor decision. Obviously, such a program will have to phased out overtime, and you can't just cut aid to already born children. At the most, it should be a state issue, but even at my state level, I wouldn't support it because it just creates more of the problem it tries to solve.

It appears that this thread has been run off the rails. How did we get from SCOTUS and same sex marriage to welfare and crime? Let me take a stab at it. The same declining social and sexual morals that allowed gay marriage has resulted in more single parent families and thus more welfare, poverty and crime. Is that it?

If so, it still has NOTHING to do with same sex marriage. Same sex marriage has NO effect on the behavior or values of heterosexual people who will do what they do regardless.

However, same sex marriage WILL have an effect on gay and lesbian families and the well being of their children. Those children will enjoy greater financial security and family stability and be less likely to wind up on welfare. Then there are all of those children who are wards of the state who might be adopted by gay and lesbian couples. We might just come out ahead.

But while we are on the subject of social safety nets, I will finish by saying that it is not those programs that cause the poverty, it is capitalism. With capitalism there are always winners and losers and poverty and unemployment are built in side effects.

Heterosexuals and homosexuals are intertwined, we share a society after all, that is far more interconnected than ever before through social and mass media. It is the hyperliberalization of heterosexual sexual behavior that led to a social climate. The idea there isn't a connection or heterosexuals and homosexuals are isolated and don't share a culture that includes sexual norms is incorrect. It is changing heterosexual norms, and decline in traditional values, that led to toleration of homosexuality among a significant section of the population(not flyover country though where all those hicks live) . Same sex marriage further erodes the idea of conjugal marriage, detaching marriage and sex from procreation in the larger culture. It isn't that homosexuality has wrought a social decline, but toleration and social and political normalization of this anti-social behavior is a manifestation of the decline.

I think the idea homosexual relations are "stable" has no basis in reality. You have an incredibly sanitized view of homosexuality that is given to you by mass media. But it isn't really the case. 55% of gay couples are either in an open relationship(47%) or "not sure"(8%).
Many gay couples negotiate open relationships - SFGate

Capitalism(the private ownership of the means of production), does not cause women to have sex out of wedlock.

Where on earth are you coming from with this. ?? You start out by making some degree of sense but then spiral down by saying:

“Same sex marriage further erodes the idea of conjugal marriage, detaching marriage and sex from procreation in the larger culture

What the hell does that mean and how is it true? Gay marriage does not erode anything. Marriage has been detached from procreation for a long time. Furthermore, gay people do have children, with help but they do have children. They procreate. But more than it being about procreation, marriage is about raising children and gay people do raise children who are better off if the parents are married.

.Then you say….

It isn't that homosexuality has wrought a social decline, but toleration and social and political normalization of this anti-social behavior is a manifestation of the decline

.”

What social decline? Tolerating discrimination is social decline, not tolerating variations on human sexuality that have no effect on others or society in general. A just and fair society is an advanced society. You might want to consider joining it.

You get further into the stupid zone by questioning the stability of gay relationships. Stability in relation to who? Some relationships are stable, some are not. What evidence do you have that same sex relationships are less stale than heterosexual relationships? In the last year, we had two heterosexual couple neighbors-on either side of us split up. If gays are any less stable, maybe it is because of being forced to live in the shadows, of having been marginalized for so long, of not having their relationships validated. MAYBE with marriage and general equality they will be just as stable as anyone else.

And open relationships not equate with unstable relationships. I am straight, we are not monogamous and we have been married for 30 fucking years . Do you not know anything about life

 

[ChrisL]

The rise in single motherhood has directly correlated with the rise of the welfare state, and federal assistance for single moms. Women have children out of wedlock because they know they will have a bailout. That isn't to say that all single motherhood will be eliminated. But it will be reduced significantly. At the end of the day, humans are economic actors, and act to maximize their resources. If women know they wont have government resources, and have to pay it all on their own, they are more likely to not get into situations that lead to children out of wedlock.

It may sound mean, but in reality, we shouldn't be expected to pick up the tab for other people's bad decisions, particularly at the federal level. In the long run everyone will be better off when this economic incentive for dysfunctional behavior is removed. It is better off for the moms, children, and the society as a whole.

Do you have data to support your claim that the rise in single motherhood has directly correlated with the rise of the welfare state, and federal assistance for single moms?

In a forthcoming study for the journal Demography, Robert Moffitt, an economist at Johns Hopkins University, details how the poorest single-parent families—80 percent of which are headed by single mothers—receive 35 percent less in government transfers than they did three decades ago. Also, the birth rate to unmarried women has been flat since 2006 and declined in 2014

How Welfare Reform Left Single Moms Behind - The Atlantic

Share of births to unmarried women dips reversing a long trend Pew Research Center

At the same time, the evidence of a link between the availability of welfare and out-of-wedlock births is overwhelming. There have been 13 major studies of the relationship between the availability of welfare benefits and out-of-wedlock birth. Of these, 11 found a statistically significant correlation. Among the best of these studies is the work done by June O’Neill for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Holding constant a wide range of variables, including income, education, and urban vs. suburban setting, the study found that a 50 percent increase in the value of AFDC and foodstamp payments led to a 43 percent increase in the number of out-of-wedlock births.(7) Likewise, research by Shelley Lundberg and Robert Plotnick of the University of Washington showed that an increase in welfare benefits of $200 per month per family increased the rate of out-of-wedlock births among teenagers by 150 percent.(8)

Relationship Between the Welfare State and Crime Cato Institute

But in addition to this data, it is just common sense. If you subsidize something, you get more of it. Humans are resource maximizing beings that respond to economic signals. If women knew there wasn't a safety net where their poor decision wasn't subsidized, they would be less likely to make that poor decision. Obviously, such a program will have to phased out overtime, and you can't just cut aid to already born children. At the most, it should be a state issue, but even at my state level, I wouldn't support it because it just creates more of the problem it tries to solve.

It appears that this thread has been run off the rails. How did we get from SCOTUS and same sex marriage to welfare and crime? Let me take a stab at it. The same declining social and sexual morals that allowed gay marriage has resulted in more single parent families and thus more welfare, poverty and crime. Is that it?

If so, it still has NOTHING to do with same sex marriage. Same sex marriage has NO effect on the behavior or values of heterosexual people who will do what they do regardless.

However, same sex marriage WILL have an effect on gay and lesbian families and the well being of their children. Those children will enjoy greater financial security and family stability and be less likely to wind up on welfare. Then there are all of those children who are wards of the state who might be adopted by gay and lesbian couples. We might just come out ahead.

But while we are on the subject of social safety nets, I will finish by saying that it is not those programs that cause the poverty, it is capitalism. With capitalism there are always winners and losers and poverty and unemployment are built in side effects.

Heterosexuals and homosexuals are intertwined, we share a society after all, that is far more interconnected than ever before through social and mass media. It is the hyperliberalization of heterosexual sexual behavior that led to a social climate. The idea there isn't a connection or heterosexuals and homosexuals are isolated and don't share a culture that includes sexual norms is incorrect. It is changing heterosexual norms, and decline in traditional values, that led to toleration of homosexuality among a significant section of the population(not flyover country though where all those hicks live) . Same sex marriage further erodes the idea of conjugal marriage, detaching marriage and sex from procreation in the larger culture. It isn't that homosexuality has wrought a social decline, but toleration and social and political normalization of this anti-social behavior is a manifestation of the decline.

I think the idea homosexual relations are "stable" has no basis in reality. You have an incredibly sanitized view of homosexuality that is given to you by mass media. But it isn't really the case. 55% of gay couples are either in an open relationship(47%) or "not sure"(8%).
Many gay couples negotiate open relationships - SFGate

Capitalism(the private ownership of the means of production), does not cause women to have sex out of wedlock.

Where on earth are you coming from with this. ?? You start out by making some degree of sense but then spiral down by saying:

“Same sex marriage further erodes the idea of conjugal marriage, detaching marriage and sex from procreation in the larger culture

What the hell does that mean and how is it true? Gay marriage does not erode anything. Marriage has been detached from procreation for a long time. Furthermore, gay people do have children, with help but they do have children. They procreate. But more than it being about procreation, marriage is about raising children and gay people do raise children who are better off if the parents are married.

.Then you say….

It isn't that homosexuality has wrought a social decline, but toleration and social and political normalization of this anti-social behavior is a manifestation of the decline

.”

What social decline? Tolerating discrimination is social decline, not tolerating variations on human sexuality that have no effect on others or society in general. A just and fair society is an advanced society. You might want to consider joining it.

You get further into the stupid zone by questioning the stability of gay relationships. Stability in relation to who? Some relationships are stable, some are not. What evidence do you have that same sex relationships are less stale than heterosexual relationships? In the last year, we had two heterosexual couple neighbors-on either side of us split up. If gays are any less stable, maybe it is because of being forced to live in the shadows, of having been marginalized for so long, of not having their relationships validated. MAYBE with marriage and general equality they will be just as stable as anyone else.

And open relationships not equate with unstable relationships. I am straight, we are not monogamous and we have been married for 30 fucking years . Do you not know anything about life

I really think this is related to a fear of change amongst the older people. They are frightened to death of change and resist it as if their lives depend on it. You should have seen some of the posts after this forum changed. Lol!

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Do you have data to support your claim that the rise in single motherhood has directly correlated with the rise of the welfare state, and federal assistance for single moms?

In a forthcoming study for the journal Demography, Robert Moffitt, an economist at Johns Hopkins University, details how the poorest single-parent families—80 percent of which are headed by single mothers—receive 35 percent less in government transfers than they did three decades ago. Also, the birth rate to unmarried women has been flat since 2006 and declined in 2014

How Welfare Reform Left Single Moms Behind - The Atlantic

Share of births to unmarried women dips reversing a long trend Pew Research Center

At the same time, the evidence of a link between the availability of welfare and out-of-wedlock births is overwhelming. There have been 13 major studies of the relationship between the availability of welfare benefits and out-of-wedlock birth. Of these, 11 found a statistically significant correlation. Among the best of these studies is the work done by June O’Neill for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Holding constant a wide range of variables, including income, education, and urban vs. suburban setting, the study found that a 50 percent increase in the value of AFDC and foodstamp payments led to a 43 percent increase in the number of out-of-wedlock births.(7) Likewise, research by Shelley Lundberg and Robert Plotnick of the University of Washington showed that an increase in welfare benefits of $200 per month per family increased the rate of out-of-wedlock births among teenagers by 150 percent.(8)

Relationship Between the Welfare State and Crime Cato Institute

But in addition to this data, it is just common sense. If you subsidize something, you get more of it. Humans are resource maximizing beings that respond to economic signals. If women knew there wasn't a safety net where their poor decision wasn't subsidized, they would be less likely to make that poor decision. Obviously, such a program will have to phased out overtime, and you can't just cut aid to already born children. At the most, it should be a state issue, but even at my state level, I wouldn't support it because it just creates more of the problem it tries to solve.

It appears that this thread has been run off the rails. How did we get from SCOTUS and same sex marriage to welfare and crime? Let me take a stab at it. The same declining social and sexual morals that allowed gay marriage has resulted in more single parent families and thus more welfare, poverty and crime. Is that it?

If so, it still has NOTHING to do with same sex marriage. Same sex marriage has NO effect on the behavior or values of heterosexual people who will do what they do regardless.

However, same sex marriage WILL have an effect on gay and lesbian families and the well being of their children. Those children will enjoy greater financial security and family stability and be less likely to wind up on welfare. Then there are all of those children who are wards of the state who might be adopted by gay and lesbian couples. We might just come out ahead.

But while we are on the subject of social safety nets, I will finish by saying that it is not those programs that cause the poverty, it is capitalism. With capitalism there are always winners and losers and poverty and unemployment are built in side effects.

Heterosexuals and homosexuals are intertwined, we share a society after all, that is far more interconnected than ever before through social and mass media. It is the hyperliberalization of heterosexual sexual behavior that led to a social climate. The idea there isn't a connection or heterosexuals and homosexuals are isolated and don't share a culture that includes sexual norms is incorrect. It is changing heterosexual norms, and decline in traditional values, that led to toleration of homosexuality among a significant section of the population(not flyover country though where all those hicks live) . Same sex marriage further erodes the idea of conjugal marriage, detaching marriage and sex from procreation in the larger culture. It isn't that homosexuality has wrought a social decline, but toleration and social and political normalization of this anti-social behavior is a manifestation of the decline.

I think the idea homosexual relations are "stable" has no basis in reality. You have an incredibly sanitized view of homosexuality that is given to you by mass media. But it isn't really the case. 55% of gay couples are either in an open relationship(47%) or "not sure"(8%).
Many gay couples negotiate open relationships - SFGate

Capitalism(the private ownership of the means of production), does not cause women to have sex out of wedlock.

Where on earth are you coming from with this. ?? You start out by making some degree of sense but then spiral down by saying:

“Same sex marriage further erodes the idea of conjugal marriage, detaching marriage and sex from procreation in the larger culture

What the hell does that mean and how is it true? Gay marriage does not erode anything. Marriage has been detached from procreation for a long time. Furthermore, gay people do have children, with help but they do have children. They procreate. But more than it being about procreation, marriage is about raising children and gay people do raise children who are better off if the parents are married.

.Then you say….

It isn't that homosexuality has wrought a social decline, but toleration and social and political normalization of this anti-social behavior is a manifestation of the decline

.”

What social decline? Tolerating discrimination is social decline, not tolerating variations on human sexuality that have no effect on others or society in general. A just and fair society is an advanced society. You might want to consider joining it.

You get further into the stupid zone by questioning the stability of gay relationships. Stability in relation to who? Some relationships are stable, some are not. What evidence do you have that same sex relationships are less stale than heterosexual relationships? In the last year, we had two heterosexual couple neighbors-on either side of us split up. If gays are any less stable, maybe it is because of being forced to live in the shadows, of having been marginalized for so long, of not having their relationships validated. MAYBE with marriage and general equality they will be just as stable as anyone else.

And open relationships not equate with unstable relationships. I am straight, we are not monogamous and we have been married for 30 fucking years . Do you not know anything about life

I really think this is related to a fear of change amongst the older people. They are frightened to death of change and resist it as if their lives depend on it. You should have seen some of the posts after this forum changed. Lol!

I am not sympathetic . I am 68 years old

 

[Steinlight]

Heterosexuals and homosexuals are intertwined, we share a society after all, that is far more interconnected than ever before through social and mass media. It is the hyperliberalization of heterosexual sexual behavior that led to a social climate. The idea there isn't a connection or heterosexuals and homosexuals are isolated and don't share a culture that includes sexual norms is incorrect. It is changing heterosexual norms, and decline in traditional values, that led to toleration of homosexuality among a significant section of the population(not flyover country though where all those hicks live) . Same sex marriage further erodes the idea of conjugal marriage, detaching marriage and sex from procreation in the larger culture. It isn't that homosexuality has wrought a social decline, but toleration and social and political normalization of this anti-social behavior is a manifestation of the decline.

I think the idea homosexual relations are "stable" has no basis in reality. You have an incredibly sanitized view of homosexuality that is given to you by mass media. But it isn't really the case. 55% of gay couples are either in an open relationship(47%) or "not sure"(8%).
Many gay couples negotiate open relationships - SFGate

Capitalism(the private ownership of the means of production), does not cause women to have sex out of wedlock.

Since gay people are not heterosexuals, I do not see how they affect heterosexual norms. There are also straight couples that have open relationships.

I can't help you if you can't see that the liberalization of sexual norms amongst heterosexuals led to greater toleration of homosexuality amongst significant segments of the heterosexual population.

Not 55% of heterosexual couples.

I don't see what is wrong with having tolerance for them. I really do not understand your objection. You can't go back in time.

I don't see why I should tolerate their deviant sexual behavior(which includes the aforementioned open relationships and high rate of HIV, at 20%), or the overall sexual revolution in general. So I don't understand your support for these lifestyles.
CDC 20 of Gay Men Are HIV-Positive but Nearly Half Don t Know It TIME.com

Social norms shift overtime. Societies go through cycles, from more religious to less so, from more conservative to less so. Societies historically do not go in a linear but instead a cyclical manner.

Well you don't really have to. Just don't associate with them.

Also, I don't really "support" a lifestyle. I support equal rights and privileges for all American citizens because that is what I was raised to believe America stands for.

Not associating with them isn't really an option, you can face very severe legal and financial consequences for refusing to associate with homosexuals, just look at the six figure fine the bakers in Oregon just got for refusing to make a wedding cake for a lesbian wedding. Or look at the catholic adoption agencies in certain states that had to close down, lest they be in violation of anti-discrimination laws for not adopting to homosexual couples.

Illinois Catholic Charities to close rather than allow same-sex couples to adopt children - Nation - The Boston Globe

Free and voluntary association is illegal under the law in the United States.

So since I cannot disassociate, I will continue to voice my opposition to the direction the culture is headed, as I have to live in the society as well. I won't be silenced.

I don't believe one has a right to a marriage license, and believe in the conjugal version of marriage. So I will continue to advocate that and voice my opposition to the normalization of a lifestyle I think is anti-social.

I am 24, I think things will shift back in a socially conservative direction in my lifetime.