President Barack Obama, at a Thursday fundraising stop in New York City, told a group of 600 gay and lesbian supporters that “gay and lesbian couples deserve the same legal rights as every other couple in this country” but stopped short of endorsing same-sex marriage.
6. If you are currently married but have cohabited with a lover other than your current spouse, you are slightly more than twice as likely to divorce than someone who has never cohabited.
The same study by Ohio State University sociologists that produced this result also found that even those who cohabit only with their future spouses "are still 83 percent more likely to experience a marital disruption relative to those that did not cohabit prior to marriage." Cohabitation statistics are hot buttons, used by some pundits to decry premarital sex and "shacking up." A widely quoted 2003 study by Western Washington University sociologist Jay Teachman found that women who cohabit with anyone besides their future husbands face a raised divorce risk ranging from 55 to 166 percent, but that those who cohabit only with their future husbands face no elevated risk at all.
Anna M. Cunningham (2007): Premarital cohabitation and marital disruption across time: new results from the NSFH 3, paper delivered at the Population Association of America 2007 annual meeting.
You would not be able to print enough money in a thousand years to pay for the government you would need if the traditional family continues to collapse.According to The City Paper, this is a "scandal." I don't think so. Belmont needs to stand by their policy, without regard to the cat calls from our culture's libertine left or squishy "center-right." There's no question that the Bible prohibits homosexual activity. Belmont may offend their biggest individual financial supporter. They may be swimming upstream against political correctness. They may lose a great soccer coach. But they needn't accept the premise that this or any other policies rooted in Judeo-Christian ethics are arbitrary or based in bigotry.
On Monday, . . . Det. Timothy Palchak of the Washington Metropolitan Police Department, chatted online with a person using the name “F.L.” Palchak said “F.L.” described specific sex acts he had performed on a 5-year-old child and said that he lived in Durham.
. . .
[The perpetrator--Frank Lombard] is asked how he got access to a child so young. "Adopted," he replied, and said that the process was "not so hard ... esp (sic) for a black boy."
In the chat, "F.L.” told Palchak that abusing the child was "easier when he was too young to know what was happening and when he couldn't talk ...He had a little too much Benadryl. Was knocked out."
Neighbors of Lombard had nothing to say about him Saturday to a reporter who visited Eno Commons, a co-housing community in north Durham.Sounds like a corny, Liberal place, frankly. But the website highlights that people of all "affectional preferences" are welcome. And you gotta love the gay-friendliest make of car helping the neighborhood to circle the wagons of one of their own. Nice.
Residents ordered the reporter to leave the neighborhood, which emphasizes communal life.
A roadblock with a "no trespassing" sign and a Subaru greeted visitors Saturday to Indigo Creek Trail, a private street in the 22-home neighborhood.
Co-housing communities allow residents have a say in the area's design, and they manage and maintain the community together. Decisions are made through consensus, and residents share common space.
Behold the cultural contradictions of progressivism.Goldberg goes on to emphasize a point that I often think of as an inherent weakness of the Democratic Party (inherent inasmuch as the Democratic Party is based on Liberalism): that the Dems are a coalition party rather than a consensus party like the GOP.
Barack Obama’s victory was a huge win for self-described progressives. Arguably the most liberal presidential nominee in American history, Obama has given some very old ideas an aura of new coolness. Congrats on all that. Hope it works out for you.
. . . .
But something interesting happened on Election Day that didn’t get much attention. Bans on gay marriage were on ballots in several states, and they all won. In fact, gay marriage bans have ultimately passed in all 30 of the states in which they were on the ballot.
. . . .
In other words, Obama had some major un-progressive coattails. The tidal wave of black and Hispanic voters who came out to support Obama voted in enormous numbers against what most white liberals consider to be the foremost civil rights issue of the day.
Put aside the substance of the gay marriage debate; what’s fascinating is how these returns expose the underlying weakness, or at least vulnerability, of progressivism.
It doesn’t help matters that society isn’t exactly encouraging my mommy self to put on stiletto heels and channel my inner sex kitten. American mothers are expected to take on the persona of a woman entirely preoccupied with disinfecting her kitchen counters and baking the perfect cupcake, in addition to holding down a full-time job and heading up the Booster Club. While shows like Desperate Housewives seem to knock the notion of a sexless motherhood on its [hiney], just try wearing one of Terri Hatcher’s low-cut top/ tight jeans combos to your next PTA meeting and just see how many friends you make. ["Sexpert"] Raskin says this asexual mom image can be problematic for the whole family.Ironically, this assertion contradicts all the data offered up in the first half of the article. As demonstrated by all the examples Ferrier supplies, there's no need for Victoria's Secret weapon (you know it just dawned on me that there might be a pun in the name of that store) to get a faithful husband (the subject of the article) interested in intimacy. I don't believe Ferrier or Raskin would assert that "showing off one's merchandise" somehow counters a mother's busy lifestyle or that the fires that need stoking (or ought to be stoked) are also going to be at a PTA meeting.
"Religious left clerics also ignore the evidence that much poverty in prosperous, opportunity-rich America results from dysfunctional—dare one call it 'sinful'?—behavior. Around two-thirds of poor families today are single-parent households, largely dependent on government subsidies and headed by women with little education. The entry-level, low-wage work for which these mothers are qualified makes it hard to support large families. And the time they must devote to raising their kids makes it hard to climb the economic ladder. Poverty is increasingly about the irresponsible decision to have children out of wedlock. In many inner city communities where poverty is entrenched, 75% of all children are now born out of wedlock."
