The French Way

Readers of The New York Times must have been confused the other day when the paper ran an article entitled: "Under Strain, France Examines Its Safety Net."

Because The Times is ultra-liberal on its editorial page, pretty much advocating for every entitlement possible, the hard news story seemed somewhat out-of-place. It chronicled the enormous benefits that French citizens receive: paid child care, free higher education, free health care, a mandatory five paid weeks vacation, monthly government payments for each child, two years of government-paid unemployment insurance, generous pensions, the list is endless.

But there is huge trouble in the socialist paradise. Times reporter Alissa Rubin wrote this: "The spiraling costs of cradle-to-grave social welfare programs have all but exhausted the French government's ability to raise the taxes necessary to pay for all of it, creating growing political problems for President Francois Hollande, a Socialist …

"Investors are shying away from the layers of government regulation and high taxes."

The French economy is stalled because employers must pay 48% of every workers salary to the government. That means for every $1,000 a hotel clerk receives in gross pay, another $480 bucks goes from the hotel to Paris. So fewer jobs are created and more French people are unemployed because employers get hammered when they hire anyone.

But that's okay for many over there. Ms. Rubin's article quotes an unemployed guy named Louis Paris: "You cannot take away guns from Americans, and in the same way you cannot take away social benefits from the French people. They won't stand for it."

There are 66 million people living in France, more than 320 million reside in the USA. Yet the Democratic Party and President Obama want to create a French-style nanny state here despite the evidence that France is falling apart economically. Does that make any sense?

And how can an ultra-liberal newspaper like the New York Times continue to advocate for a nanny state when it's hard news pages are full of stories about Greece, Italy, France and other countries in dire economic trouble because of entitlement debt?

The answer lies in crazy ideology. Some liberals (and conservatives on other matters) are so committed to their philosophy that they don't care about reality. As long as the program fits into their utopian vision they'll support it no matter what the consequences.

Here's backup for that statement. I submit that President Obama and all the democrat politicians that voted for Obamacare never even read the proposed law. Nancy Pelosi admitted it. So, now, when chaos reigns, they act surprised that things aren't working.

There comes a point when ideology has to be put aside and what's good for the country must be embraced. France is a selfish nation, that is going down the drain economically because the folks there want stuff and economics be damned.

The United States is not far behind.

  • Josh

    There are many women within the African American community who use babies–who use the power the government gave them–to make livelihoods for themselves and to have their boyfriends/husbands arrested and thrown out. This is documented ad nauseum.

    This happens far more often than most people realize.

    Want overwhelming proof? Check out Tommy Sotomayor and other black social commentators on YouTube, Google, etc.

    You speak about mainstream media brainwashing me in regards to sex. Well, mainstream media doesn’t even touch on issues within the black community. Conventional wisdom is that fathers are abandoning their children. Sure, that may be the case in some instances. But what’s never talked about, right or left, are the women who are using their power nefariously to get ahead.

    That’s bigoted?

    The stats are also abundantly clear as to which party in marriage files for divorce most often and their reasons for doing it. The stats are overwhelming–to the point of silliness–in regards to which party receives the home, alimony, child support, custody, and government benefits after a divorce.

    That’s bigoted? Stating points of demonstrable fact is bigoted? Saying that government has empowered women over men in relationships, and that’s what’s leading to breakups, is a bigoted stance?

    Yeah. That’s just like saying women shouldn’t be allowed to vote because men know what’s in their best interest. Identical!

    As for spilling seeds on the ground — different biology. Seed + fertilization = plant. There are many types of sex that do not involve the egg being fertilized. Blowjibbers and rear entry =/= baby. I’m not sure if you’re aware. I’m not busting your chops or being condescending, either; I know that some people have no sexual education at all in America and believe kissing can lead to children (sad, but very true) because their fundamentalist parents scared them into believing that ANY play is sex, any sex = baby, and any pleasure shames them and makes them a sinner.

  • Brian Fr Langley

    Actually no. In my perfect society, I wouldn’t even give women suffrage. (the right to vote). In the traditional model (where men get the bacon and women raise the babies), they don’t need to vote. In the cases of single women then they still have their voting fathers and brothers looking out for their interests. As for laws against sex outside of marriage, I’d prefer simple societal morals. As for sex NOT leading to children???? Lets say you walk around a giant fertile field spilling seed, would you not expect a crop? As for teaching what sex is and isn’t, of course I don’t mean prof’s in schools are lecturing on free sex. I mean our mass media has normalized the idea to the point that folks (even you) routinely disassociate sex from the obvious pro-creative outcomes. Then go on to reason, this is NOT what’s leading to vast numbers of societal orphans.

    • Josh

      I cannot tell if you’re being serious or not.

      Women shouldn’t vote? Holy smokes.

      And you’re either ignoring what I’m writing or you don’t understand sex very well. Oral, handies, finger banging, rear entry, dom-play, and other types of kink — these are forms of SEX (yes, sex) that do not lead to children. Sperm + egg = baby. That requires actual intercourse. Sexual reproduction doesn’t happen without it. And even with intercourse, provided people are being safe, pregnancies are exceedingly rare given the sheer amount of birth control.

      Yet you throw everything under “sex” for the reason that it leads to children.

      Endlessly confusing. I really don’t know if you’re being serious.

      You can go on and get your last word in here. I cannot see myself coming back to a discussion and attempting debate with someone whose stance is that women shouldn’t even be afforded the right to vote.

      Extremely bigoted. Wow. I do hope you’re just being silly here.

      • Brian Fr Langley

        For some reason my response went to moderation? So I guess you’ll have to wait a day or two for it. (it was clean honest)?

  • Gratefulconservative

    There’s no way they will admit they are wrong. They are all too mired in the corruption and idiotic views to save face now. But now that the nasty GREED has taken hold, they are all just acting stupidly, just like their leader….The blind, leading the blind and everyone is WATCHING!!!!!!!!!

  • Josh

    I would say the biggest difference between America and France is that we still have a rather large group of people who are independent and don’t want large government.

    The trouble, I think, is that those who want smaller government, freer business practices, and less government intrusion overall, also want other things piggybacked in on those limited government values: moral values.

    America isn’t going to avoid France’s fate unless we can somehow get government out of the morality business.

    More than entitlements, many American progressives vote liberal consistently due to their moral values being upheld. Conservatives and moderates might be able to counter this by making it clear that government doesn’t need to usher in value sets by which people need to live. And they can do that by not ushering in their own; leading by example. Show people that government’s scope is supposed to be very limited, that government isn’t going to police morality, and maybe everyone else will catch on and we can all keep our personal values personal and not expect that a candidate we vote for need share our entire outlook on humanity as a prerequisite for holding an office which affects the lives of over 300 million.

    If we don’t separate the two, then America’s political power is always going to reflect the nation’s trending moral values. At this juncture, a lot of younger people feel like citizens of the world and feel like conservative morality is for the birds — the dodos. A shift in that trend is harder to accomplish than simply electing leaders for their politics and effectiveness as regulators and not necessarily an aligned moral code.

    • Brian Fr Langley

      Josh, have you not ever heard, “Thou shalt not steal”? I hate to pop your bubble, but that’s a moral value statement. The American Republic is a Nation of laws. Laws are by definition, proscriptions against immoral (unethical) behavior. Without the law, we are just beast’s (you know, dog eat dog) The problem in America is that it’s devolving from the Nation of laws that was entrenched in the U.S. Constitution, (that avoids the problems you mention), to a Nation where the law is whimsical, capricious, and not applied evenly. The fix is simple. The Nation needs to read and follow the U.S. constitution and it’s underpinning documents like the Declaration of Independance. (You know, what President’s, Supreme Court Justices, and Legislator’s are all sworn to do). Documents that when followed have created the greatest civilization human history has ever seen. It’s so sad to see the Country being brought low by traitor’s eschewing the very laws, they’ve sworn to uphold.

      • Josh

        Sure, some things some may argue as moral values end up as good laws — particularly when they’re things which we can objectively agree on as a more civilized version of humanity: Not murdering, not molesting, not kidnapping, not raping, not harming others.

        One commandment that’s relatively new compared to humans (a few k vs. 200k) isn’t needed for us to figure out what’s needed to protect one another. But that’s not what I’m speaking about.

        You’re not bursting my bubble. Objective morality in not harming one another is something that’s always implied to me. It doesn’t need to come from a book to become a moral which people hold and a good law by which we all should abide. If I knew it would end up a debate, I would have mentioned it beforehand.

        Some morals are definitely needed to protect one another. But what I mean is that we can’t get into a pick-and-choose style of instituting what morality has to be; we can’t expect government officials to be the morality police as well as politicians.

        That’s when you get into morals like homosexuals not having equal rights, people having a right to free healthcare and jobs for life for being alive, forced charity, etc.

        Because people have long brought what they believe to be the best version of human morality to government with them, and people have long voted based on others upholding their value set, others feel they can do it as well. The nation is subsequently trending toward European-style morality as governance. Thus those are the politicians being elected.

        How do you expect the nation to get back to where you want it if you don’t realize that big-government spending to care for people through an entitlement culture is what millions of Americans view as morality? It’s not only people who want freebies who are voting; it’s people who believe we have an inherent right–a moral right as humans–to be taken care of.

        • Brian Fr Langley

          Americans have the answer as to how to get the Nation back. Adhere to the U.S. constitution and it’s underpinning documents (the Declaration of Independence)

          • Josh

            See how far that gets you. With a nation trending toward more of a progressive, Euro-style morality, just saying such doesn’t amount to much.

          • Brian Fr Langley

            I couldn’t agree more, so what are you going to do about it? If folks just stand by and say the constitution
            is lost, so then, is the constitutional Republic it’s based on. If true, then the Nation is already doomed. What a sad ending for a constitution (nation) bought and paid for by the blood of over 200 years of her patriot sons.

          • Josh

            What I’m going to personally do about it is not lend support to people who want to control Americans based on their sense of morality, their particular holy doctrine, or other add-ons that get in the way of people’s personal freedoms. Today’s liberals feel they can add on and change and rearrange due to the ongoing precedent in this nation that suggests it’s allowed to happen.

            I’m also not going to pretend as if conservatives today ONLY want to get back to this place the cutsie little aphorisms would suggest. Conservatives and Republicans also want their add-ons and have been piling them up. Now progressive liberals and everyday Democrats are piling on based on what they want.

            What’s sad is that few had the foresight when adding their own little things to see what would happen when a different ideology started to take root. Progressives aren’t acting any differently than anyone else; they’re just greatly speeding up the process.

            My personal support will not be given to anyone who wants to police morality or take the nation anywhere. My support will be given to people whose ideas are truly about small, non-instrusive government; not a specific God-based government and nation, not a sense of duty for our fellow man through governance, but a hands-off system that lets people be people and serves only as a watchdog to protect our freedoms to be individuals.

            If that’s all today’s conservatives wanted, I’d be lined up beside them singing the tune. But few on either side want true individualism and small government. They just want their version of morality policed upon the rest of the nation. To pretend otherwise doesn’t fool anyone at this point.

          • Brian Fr Langley

            Actually my forefathers lived exactly as you suggest. (Vikings) Have you ever heard the term “possession is 9/10ths the law”? It was an ancient Anglo-Saxon tradition that means if you’re big enough, and strong enough, to take it, and you’re big enough, and strong enough, to keep it. It’s yours. Disagreement? No problem. We solved it through the trial process. (no I don’t mean a court room) We called it trial by combat. It was assumed the right would triumph, and since might made right, it always did. (America’s founders still practised a version of this, they called it a duel). The genius of the framers (who by the way specifically referenced God) was to balance the (God given) rights of the individual (the weak) against the predations of the strong and the power of the state. AND if your rights are not inherent, (that is God given) then you have only the rights delegated you by the state. (or the strong) Rights that can be given, can also be taken. That is NOT what makes America.

          • Josh

            How that pertains to anything I’m talking about, I have no idea. But I recall being down this road with you before, where everything “America” is, at least its good parts. becomes directly attributable to the specific deity you worship.

            You folks should figure out how to combat the fact that fewer and fewer people believe that America and religion go hand-in-hand.

            You seem to be a very devout Christian. And I don’t break chops on that front; to each their own. But name-dropping “God” doesn’t do anything for your cause. For your soul? I don’t know. For your political stance? It’s a bit cult-like to folks from the outside looking in.

          • Brian Fr Langley

            Your ideology is as conflicted with reality as a socialist’s. My point is simple. You decry the gimme gimme attitude of the French. So my point is, you simply will never see a moral society without an appeal to a higher power. If the higher power is not God, then it will automatically default to Government. If you don’t believe this is so, then you don’t believe your own eyes. As you yourself pointed out, “fewer and fewer people believe that America and religion go hand in hand”. Then go on to ponder why folks turn to Government. You can either have the immutable laws of God, the mutable laws of man, or the execrable law of the jungle. America was founded on the first. And unhappily for humanity, there is not now (nor ever has been) a fourth option.

          • Josh

            Firstly, you’re guessing as to my ideology. You don’t know anything about it, other than I’m not a religious conservative. The rest is a projection of your personal biases. I’m a lot of things. “Conflicted” isn’t one of them.

            Secondly, you’re assuming that only the morals you subscribe to make a moral society.

            Thirdly, there is no need for a “higher power” in that context. A regulatory structure doesn’t have to be an all-powerful, invisible force that people are scared of. Nor is it a Stalin in lieu of a deity.

            I don’t need to ponder why folks turn to government. Folks have always used government to mold things to their liking in governments where people have a say. Such is life. My only point with this conversation was that now it’s progressives doing it, and conservatives seem panicked. But they’re only doing what conservatives have been doing. So if folks want it to stop, maybe stop expecting politicians in general to govern morality and to be an extension of religion or charity.

            For all the drum-beating on what America was founded on, it’s pointless. We exist in 2013. Another 12-response debate about which god the founders prayed to, if any, has absolutely no bearing on reality.

            It’s simply a point of pride for people who parade their piety in today’s society.

            It does as much good for America as debating whether or not gods exist in the first place — which always ends the same way, with faith granted a special exception to hope something into tangible existence despite any evidence.

            To these laws: These “immutable” laws of god, any god, are consistently interpreted and changed by man.

            It’s like calling the Titanic “unsinkable” after it sank.

            Many of the faux debates I have with religious conservatives end up the same way: Conservatives harkening back to the good old days of slavery, nonexistent women’s rights, colonies, muskets, suspected witches and demons, and a land where the big technological breakthrough was the cotton gin.

            I don’t believe folks want to go back there. I just think they’re pretty much out of options when it comes to debating against a lot of what a secular world has ushered in for us all, so it turns into “but that’s not what the founders had in mind!”

            Maybe not. Cookies all around. But the reality is that we’re stuck with what we got; we live where and when we live. As I said, name-dropping God isn’t going to help you folks get it back.

            PS

            What is the law of the jungle pertaining to mankind? I’ve often heard religious people say that, but they never expound on what it means.

            I’m assuming it means rampant violence and pillaging and the like, where people just take whatever they want when no one is there to hold them to account. Which is odd, all things considered. But I suppose folks who subscribe to this aren’t really up to date on evolutionary advantages of cooperation and how people came together to migrate and build societies in the first place.

          • Brian Fr Langley

            I’m not guessing your ideology. You’re writing it down right here. First you decry the decline in modern civilization, then call for more individual freedom. These two are inextricably linked. (making your idea’s incoherent) Individual liberty can not exist without individual responsibility. (it doesn’t matter who’s morals you subcribe too, unless we’re back to the strong consuming the weak as being okay, you know, the law of the jungle). You cannot first prescribe liberty, then NOT proscribe immorality, UNLESS you have a strongly moral (ethical) population. A population dedicated to “loving their neighbors as the do themselves”, need very few proscriptions. Thus may enjoy maximum liberty. (as America did) The decline in American civilization is a direct correlation of reversing this ideal. As for migrating together and building societies? Have you not ever read even one history book? Civilizations have always been one family (tribe) conquering their neighbors with the utmost of violence and then enslaving them. Whether Babylon, Sumeria, Greece, Rome, Carthage, Egypt, China, etc. etc. etc. Carnage, death, and slavery. With the strong always consuming the weak. Whether left wing anarchist, or right wing libertarian, without love for your fellow man all you’ll get is chaos.

          • Josh

            I think the issue is that we strongly disagree on this “law on the jungle” bit. It’s certainly a cliched soundbite, but the every-man-for-himself myth is storybook fodder.

            You said it yourself: A family, a tribe. Humans are inherently communal and protective of our fellow man. Unless, of course, they’re in a different family or tribe.

            And there’s nothing so brilliant to segment us off into different families and tribes better than religion. That’s more of a common link you seem to be leaving out — the fact that these people believed they had divinity on their side and the others didn’t.

            When these families and tribes seek to force their way on others, for land or power or resources, there always seems to be some underpinning of “destiny” or something else where they claim to be divinely guided.

            The decline of things like supreme beings and individuals thinking their morality and law is worth forcing others to abide has brought about less war and fewer land grabs. It’s when people believed their particular group or region was morally superior that the brutal irony would rear its head. We still see this today.

            And I already know we disagree on the “what made America great” bit.

            America wasn’t immune from cruelty and conquering, either — even with these morals you hold up to be so strong and immaculate. What we did with slavery and to the Native population, and with our own citizens we accused of witchcraft and such, is really no different than other nations. Most have always had some type of ultimate morality or god they held up, acting as if their actions were righteous because of it.

            When we drop that charade of judging people based on what they believe and instead judge people on their merits as individuals, then we all become a family — members of the same race.

            We don’t need a big government for that. We don’t need a holy book for that. We just need to stop enforcing our beliefs and our supposed destiny on others. We can be free individuals, with laws to protect those freedoms, and still don’t have to subscribe to divine morality or submit to a large government. This fabled “law of the jungle” only seems to kick in once people adopt the stance that their beliefs should be everyone’s beliefs.

            There can be love for all of mankind without some cherry-picked, fundamentalist revision of early American religious values.

            And as for my decrying some decline, let me be clear. I don’t see it as a moral decline. I just see progressive government as a freedom-eating force. Much stronger than fundamentalist conservatives, due to the sheer amount of spending to make people dependent; but not much different in the sense that they want to enforce their morality on everyone.

          • Brian Fr Langley

            Your comments on religion as a primary divider are simply historically inaccurate. To this day the Basque’s of Spain are seeking a seperate nation, the french speakers of Canada (Quebec) are still trying to secede. When the Iron curtain fell, virtually every last ethnic group sought to form their own nation. If you’re looking for what divides, language and ethnicity top the list. Unity however is another matter. Since religion typically transcends ethnicity and language, it has been used for millenia to unite disparate groups. (I could give hundreds of examples) That you’re so factually inaccurate, is the result of an extremely strong bias against what you perceive as communities of faith. As to your point about not seeing moral decline as contributing to American decline. Just one simple FACT. Where do you think this dependancy is coming FROM? Nearly 2 out of 4 American babies are born to singe parent mothers. If you haven’t figured it out yet, promiscuous behavior equals many more fatherless babies. Many more fatherless babies, equals much more state dependance. (who else would provide their care) Thus chastity and a restrained pro-creative population (monagamous marriage) is an ethical must. This is just one example of the moral decline leading directly to dependancy, their are so many, many, more.

          • Josh

            Yeah. Conquering rulers and nations typically don’t believe that their conquests are divinely inspired. Religions haven’t also conquered to “unify.” I’m just slandering religion by saying conquerors often believed they had their deity on their side and that they were fulfilling its will.

            It’s like I live on earth on something.

            I didn’t say religion was the primary divider; I said: “there’s nothing so brilliant to segment us off into different families and tribes better than religion.” Not necessarily the primary; just the best-working.

            Religion “unifying” people only works when those people convert to that religion. There’s a huge matzah ball hanging out there.

            As for fatherless babies due to promiscuity: That certainly is what I hear a lot of religious folks say. Though there seems to be incentive for such behaviors. A government offering over half a dozen assistance programs, a court system that favors the mothers tenfold and embitters and scares fathers, and a lack of proper education toward sexual health and responsibility all contribute to the issue.

            People have long been having sex out of wedlock, as adulterers, as teens, in groups, with random partners, with prostitutes, etc. It wasn’t until it became a lucrative venture to become a single mother that things went FUBAR.

            Folks preaching abstinence from the rooftops does little. Getting government out of the baby daddy business and actually teaching children about proper birth control is a much better way to go.

            Dependency comes primarily from a government that decided to prop people up in every walk of life. It’s been getting progressively worse. It isn’t like there was a flood of babies, dependent single mothers, and out-and-out losers who stormed the nation to make the government give up the loot. Progressives have been increasingly creating a system of dependency to secure voters and make uneducated masses slaves to welfare. And they think they’re moral people for doing it.

            The communities that are hit the hardest by single mothers are ironically amongst the most religious in America. They receive the message that they shouldn’t do X, Y or Z. So how do more religious values possibly counter that? People who already supposedly have them are amongst the biggest offenders. What they need is practical education that’s designed to teach them how to live and achieve success. Alongside getting government out of it, of course.

          • Brian Fr Langley

            Yes it’s true illicit sex has been around forever, BUT from the time of the Sumerians (some 4000 yrs ago) Illicit sex was community proscribed. In fact civilization by definition requires sexual constraint. That is, without monagamous unions, orphans (the fatherless) would overwhelm the community. And just because this idea was (is) incorporated into most monotheistic religions, doesn’t mean it doesn’t work. In fact, history clearly attests to the societal benefits attained by insisting on monagamy and proscribing alternatives. (although very rich and powerful) men were often allowed multiple marriages) As for Government dependancies, it’s pretty hard to create vast numbers of dependants without needing vast numbers (of well) dependants. That is, without destroying the family where are they going to come from? This isn’t a what comes first, the chicken or the egg. In order for the left to create dependancies, they first need a pool of folks who will become dependant. A pretty tall order from self reliant communities and families. The left has given promiscuity the hard sell. Abortion on demand, birthcontrol in schools, teenage sex as normal, and of course the media portrayal of sex as a fulltime preoccupation unrelated to making babies or settling for a monagamous relationship. The normalizing of illicit sex has become endemic. Without this one fact, there would be a significant reduction in Government dependant Americans. As for the highest rates of single parents coming from amongst the religious? That’s just something you (or somebody else) simply made up. The highest number of single parent women are coming from inner city black communities. In fact, African American fathers are now abandoning their children at a rate of nearly 3 out of 4. 73% of black babies are being born to single parents. And over 70% of (all American) single parent mothers live below the poverty line. Their girls are repeating the cycle, and their boys are growing up wild. Sure let’s get them educated? And how do you propose to do that. Who’s going to make them go to school? Their mothers? The drop out rate amongst children raised without fathers is unbelievable. So back to your original post. As a community illicit sex MUST be proscribed. If to you that means Government in the morality business, so be it. But might I point out that Governments have licensed marriage (proscribed illicit sex) since the foundation of civilization (Sumer)

          • Josh

            African Americans are the most religious race in America. That’s not something I’m making up; that’s from Pew and other studies. And the poor in general are typically more religious. That’s not something I’m making up.

            What I’m saying is that these folks already have this moral basis in their lives, but they’re rejecting it.

            So it stands to reason that something else–a better education and attitude being my stance–needs to come along.

            I agree that it’s not a chicken or egg thing. However, it has snowballed with government involvement’s as the baby daddy. It has snowballed since feminism has made it an improbability that a father will be treated as an equal parent in court or in the eyes of the law in general. It has snowballed since progressives made it clear that single mothers are somehow more courageous than families and thus need to be taken care of.

            You and I probably agree on this issue in many respects. For instance, I agree abortion on demand has hurt the nation, in that it takes away people’s personal responsibility to themselves.

            Where we’re always going to disagree, most likely, is with the sex bit in general. Sex =/= baby with responsible people. Educated, wealthier people don’t have these issues. Poorer, uneducated people typically do.

            The only reason I’m tying religion into it is that you’ve been tying religion into it from the first response, now by suggesting these folks need to get back to a more religious view of sex. But, seriously, they’re already exceedingly religious. It’s not working.

            And I suggest it’s not working because they’re absolved of all personal responsibility and individuality by government and a new progressive morality that people should be taken care of.

            I don’t fault the religious take in this regard. If people choose to live monogamous lifestyles, abstain from sex, etc, then more power to them. But people who are educated about sex and develop healthy sexual attitudes use protection and plan and don’t end up spitting out babies.

            I say not having government bailing people out forces people to act more responsibly. That’s first and foremost. And it’s an argument most conservatives wholly agree with in terms of welfare as it relates to jobs. But “sex,” well, that’s where moral enforcement needs to rear its head, unfortunately. Government giving people their morality is just redundant in these communities where single mothers are in abundance.

            Also taking the guilt and shame out of sex, and treating it as what it is, will help people develop healthier attitudes about it and thus will encourage them to protect themselves better.

            There’s no epidemic of swingers, prostitutes and porn stars having children. People who embrace sex and don’t give a damn about old-fashioned morality typically approach sex with safety in mind. They’re not frenziedly humping the repression out of their systems on Friday nights in spur-of-the-moment sweat sessions that end in pregnancies and fathers who want to run the other way.

            People who don’t have government to fall back on also don’t use babies are bargaining chips, which is a huge problem in the black community.

            Fixing these schools to give better education is another issue entirely. Getting the unions out, rewarding performance, creating higher standards, etc — nothing is a quick fix, and nothing is a standalone issue.

            Better education, less government involvement, more personal responsibility; and if folks believe that a stricter adherence to religious morality will help, then I have no issue at all with that. I’m just simply pointing out that the most affected are already very religious, and it isn’t helping.

          • Josh

            To communities and civilizations frowning upon and banning illicit sex, and that being what kept civilizations from growing out of control: A little difficult to believe.

            Bringing up history so often, you are undoubtedly aware of population booms and migration patterns over a span of 200,000 years correlating with things like climate and technological advancement.

            In stable climates with agricultural practices able to provide sustenance for people, populations grew rapidly. And that’s also taking into account the overwhelming amount of death societies had to deal with.

            No understanding of germs and disease. No real medicine to speak of. Total insanity when it came to sanitation.

            Even going back a fraction to the middle ages, the infant mortality rate was between 30-50%, with upwards of 20% of mothers expected to have died during or following childbirth, and life expectancy in general only going into the 40s. And those conditions were a vast improvement over centuries previous.

            It wasn’t a vast land of married and monogamous relationships that held the population in check. It was nature and our gross lack of scientific understanding.

          • Brian Fr Langley

            I have no argument as to what did, and did not, check populations. My argument is about large populations of fatherless children. Men tend not to raise children they have not fathered. (I know, I know, there are exceptions to the rule) Which is why virtually every ancient culture, (and most modern ones) value(d) female virginity so highly. Without marriage (which is actually a proscription on illicit sex) historical communities would have been over run with orphans (fatherless children) (which by the way, is why the monotheistic faiths so focus on “widows and orphans”, which, in the times these faiths were founded, meant husbandless and fatherless, you know, the provider of the labor that fed, clothed and sheltered the family unit) What the historical record bears out, is that for millennia the family unit has been the foundation of civilized society. Never in human history, have so many children been abandoned by their fathers as in our modern age.

          • Josh

            I don’t have any beef with a family model that more resembles traditional than the type of stuff we’re dealing with today. And, yes, men are always going to be inherently less willing to raise other men’s children. Whether that’s a societal construct or a biological tick (I lean toward the latter), men definitely–at least more so than women–value their genes being passed along.

            Though marriage and virginity fitting snugly into that is something I could quibble with, I won’t. I don’t really have much of a disagreement with you in the sense that it may have been much more beneficial to approach things that way in the past.

            My argument is that we’re living in the here and now, and for whatever reasons, people who claim to hold those same types of values are not living up to them. Not sure exactly why, but my guess is that it’s far more about government providing an out than simply wanting to have illicit sex.

            Never before in our history have single mothers been given such incentive to have children outside of a family and outside of financial security. I would argue that’s far more unprecedented than a culture full up of porno and the like.

            There was a study about a decade or so ago, I can’t rightly recall it in full detail now. I believe it was just a reinforcement of a long-held theory in evolution that men and women approach child rearing and the family model differently. Where men typically seek to simply pass on traits and keep property, women typically seek a secure environment for their children. So women would mate with a multitude of partners, seeking the strongest and most able to provide security.

            Just one of a bunch of different theories, of course, but there’s a lot of security now in being a single mother. The law is in your side. Food is given. Housing is given. Society’s heart bleeds and attention is adorned on the courageous women.

            I think there’s more to it than people just engaging in sex. A system has been created to promote single mothers. There’s incentive to having a child now without a father in the home.

          • Brian Fr Langley

            We do agree on one basic premise. Government is NOT the solution. It’s become the problem. And a Theocracy is not what the framers had in mind. And the so called “religious” (conservative evangelical) community DO NOT support a Theocracy. They by and large (there may be an idiot or two) support the intentions of the framers. Most realizing the first victims of any Theocratic institutions would be themselves.

          • Josh

            But there’s a lot on the other side of that “by and large.” There has been a strong religious contingent in this nation that has consistently tried to implement religion into a government that’s supposed to keep it separated, and into a society that’s supposed to be free to choose.

            While the religious don’t see anything wrong with “God” in the Pledge and on the money and in schools, others see something different. Where some religious folks believe it’s okay to teach Biblical creation in a public school setting, others are kinda scratching their heads. While people can celebrate Christmas or call it anything else, the fact that it’s a specific religious holiday and has been catapulted by government to be America’s official holiday of that season — it’s just instituting various aspects, little by little, into government which was not laid down by the framers.

            So, forgive the rest of us if we’re a bit worried about religious fundamentalists. That’s not to say even all religious conservatives want the same things, in terms of putting more of their religion into government, but the other side of “by and large” brings with it many things the rest of us feel we shouldn’t have to live by or under in a nation that’s supposedly free.

            To the religious, these might seem like small things, and they might wonder why people fret over them. From the outside looking in, though, it appears more as if some religious folks want to drag America back to a time far preceding the framers. They wouldn’t call it a theocracy, of course. But they’d certainly argue that a nation “under God,” by God and for God is why America was formed.

          • Brian Fr Langley

            While I agree with much of what you’re saying here, these are symptoms not causes. (which is why you see the snowballing effect you mention) As to Pew suggesting inner city poor black folks are the most religious? Someone gave you some bad info? Anyway, you go on to say they’re religious, but they reject it? Say what? That’s like saying I have perfect attendance at work, every day I attend? As to sex education to thwart piles of orphans? Been there done that. For nearly 30 years sex ed has been the magic bullet to stop teen pregnancy. Hasn’t worked an iota. In fact teen pregnancy is rising steadily (along with nearly 1000,000 abortions this year alone) But, history has dramatically proven community proscriptions, along with the shaming of illicit sexual behavior, actually works very well. And you don’t have to look very far. Modern societies that still proscribe illicit sex, (even with decent welfare payments) don’t have vast percentages of their babies abandoned by their fathers. And religious societies like Israel, and the Arab nations (where welfare can be generous) have almost no problems with fatherlessness at all. So religion is in fact a significant restraint. And the history of America (built on the Judeo-Christian ethic) bears this out as well.

          • Josh

            Giving an abridged version of sexual education isn’t sexual education. Sexual education includes embracing sex and not making people feel guilty about their urges or that they’re performing some shameful act should they participate in sex without first going through some ceremony.

            I’m sure we’ll differ on that greatly.

            To the religious folks rejecting those values: Hey, they call themselves religious. Who am I to argue? If you want to get on a podium and preach to people who claim to be religious what REAL religious values look like, be my guest. But if someone says “I’m a Christian,” then I believe they are. Just because they participate in out of wedlock sex and don’t hold fast to the particular values of some Christians doesn’t mean they don’t accept Jesus as their personal lord and savior.

            “Judge not,” and all that…

            African Americans identify as religious more so than any other race in America. Poor people in general identify as religious more than middle-class and wealthy people.

            I do agree with you that religion is quite the constraint. I really never intended to argue otherwise. It’s a restraint on freedom when it’s instituted by government. And that’s why I don’t want people ushering their religious values into government to force us all to abide.

            I don’t want to live in Israel or an Arab nation. I don’t want to live in Pakistan. There are other ways to combat the issue without having to go back in time to submit freedoms to religious rule.

            Yeah. It’s a heck of a restraint when a nation works more like a theocracy. Fear has always been one hell of a motivating factor.

            Another thing these countries don’t have, though, is a government that’s willing to play the father. Get rid of that, get rid of the epidemic.

            I just see the issue in reverse. Feminism and progressive morality through wealth redistribution didn’t arise after the epidemic. The more progressive morality insisted that people should be taken care of by government, the bigger the problem got. I see sex having extremely little to do with it.

          • Brian Fr Langley

            You’re missing a major point (in both your responses). First. I couldn’t agree more, about NOT having a Theocracy. That the framers instituted and codified religious freedom was beyond brilliant. In fact the first victims of a Theocracy would be none other than people of faith themselves. BUT, there are sound secular reasons for imposing proscriptions and shame on immoral behavior. Lets start with an easy one. Theft. We all agree there should be a law against theft. (also known as conversion in common law. You know, convert someone’s property to your own use). As a society we mandate that you MUST delay your gratification (for say a beautiful new hunting rifle) until you can pay for it your self. (from your own labors) We do this so because we each have the RIGHT to individual private property, attained through our honest labor. Folks who DO NOT delay their sexual gratification until marriage, which then requires the community to provide food, shelter and care, to their progeny, are no more than thieves. As to suggesting a civilized society would NOT offer support to the innocent progeny, who had no choice or say in the matter would be barbaric. The cause is simple, illicit sex. (which is to say, a personal choice not to delay gratification) And the solution is as simple. Proscribe and shame the behavior. Because theft, is theft, whether you take my TV, or require me to care for your progeny. Virtually every law ever written, was meant to proscribe some form of immoral behavior. (you don’t need laws against moral behavior) You’ve been brainwashed by the media into thinking illicit sex has no deleterious consequences to the community. That’s a lie. As you point out in the post below, illicit sexual behavior is costing us a fortune, as the result of immoral choices made by others. (thieves)

          • Josh

            But sex, though obviously the biological device for procreation, does not always equal procreation. There are a multitude of devices now to avoid pregnancy while still experiencing sex. This was definitely not the case in the past. As a species, we understood very little about anything until recently.

            Condoms, pills, rings, diaphragms, IUDs, patches, implants — and each category has a list of specific devices.

            People who are educated and make decent livings are also people who avoid spitting out children. Is that because they practice a more religious-style monogamy? I’d say the answer is clearly no, because you can juxtapose that community against the illicit sex community with porn stars and prostitutes and the like, and you see no rash of pregnancies or unwanted children. People protect themselves in today’s age, except in certain demographics. People who are knowledgeable about sex, approach sex openly, and who don’t typically depend on government don’t come up with unwanted fatherless babies.

            If you and the religious community in general want to make it a shameful thing and want to use your approach, that’s fine by me. But you seem to be missing the fact that they’re already supposedly religious. Some pastors are even refusing single mothers in their churches, but there’s just something that’s happened inside of that community that’s screwing things up. It goes well beyond wanting to freely have sex.

            What could society do, even with shaming tactics, to stop it?

            Though coming from the government, this is something I’d never agree with. If community leaders, churches, groups, etc, want to promote their idea of reality, I have no beef. When government gets into the morality business, I have a big issue with that.

            Stealing someone’s personal property and having sex for fun are not things I put in the same category. Raping someone–as in taking their personal property against their will–fits more, but not sex in general.

          • Brian Fr Langley

            Well if some 50% of all babies being born today in the U.S. weren’t being born to single parent mothers, you might have an argument. But since 50% of all babies currently being born in the U.S. ARE being born to single mothers (based on current census data) your argument is nothing less than lunacy. (Notwithstanding the fact that this year alone nearly another 1000,000 (1 million) babies will be aborted by their mothers). If that’s not shameful, then nothing is. All of us, every day, delay immediate gratifications for the betterment of society. We don’t drive drunk, steal, commit fraud, consume illicit drugs, or many other community sanctioned immoral activities. Why? Because liberty does NOT mean libertinism. When folks ask me to provide for their progeny, with NO choice given to me, through a CHOICE they themselves make, how is that NOT, just like theft?

          • Josh

            “your argument is nothing less than lunacy”

            Sex is the obvious here; i.e. people are obviously getting pregnant because of sex.

            It’s so obvious that it’s easy. It’s easy to point to promiscuity and to blame sex. It’s easy to shout into bedroom windows about how people should behave.

            My argument deals with WHY people are acting this way, not just holding a book in one hand and waving a finger with the other.

            Why aren’t people being more responsible? Why aren’t people clinging more to religious values, particularly considering that they already identify as religious?

            Why don’t these people care to protect themselves when engaging in sex?

            I’ve said it twice, and it was ignored both times, that the places where we see the MOST illicit sex, the most outrageous stuff you can think of, we don’t see any babies being born like this!

            If it were just the sex to blame, then places with the most libertine attitudes and actions would undoubtedly be the places with the highest rates of births and STDs. But it’s not even close.

            We see it happening the most in poor and minority communities. So, why are they approaching sex differently than other people who have sex for fun and because it feels good rather than treating their sexual organs like property of a deity?

            Again, that they’re having sex is obvious. But it’s obviously not JUST the sex. People can have sex and not have to worry about spitting out babies by the boatload.

            There is an incentive to being a single mother if you’re poor, especially if you’re poor and black.

            You get to:

            - Control the father through extortion
            - Get a place to live
            - Get cash
            - Get food

            - Get medical care
            - Get bill assistance and credit relief

            - Get society to shower attention on you
            - Get to play a bigger victim

            - Get a slew of charity through private enterprise and churches

            - Get free schooling (pre-12) which acts as a babysitter and also feeds children
            - Get a HUGE tax return of over $1,200 avg for a kid

            Put shame in the corner for a minute and just think of it in terms of practicality. It used to be that having a baby as a teen or an unwed woman would cripple you financially. Forget socially with the pariah status; the fact that it was difficult to make it financially acted as a huge deterrent to having unprotected sex on its own.

            Now it’s no longer a burden. Now government assumes the role of the father. Now there’s a huge incentive to have a child as a single lady. And the young girls today see their mothers doing it, who saw their mothers doing it. And the benefits just keep increasing to make it possible for a woman to actually benefit from doing it.

            Now a poor single woman has more financial power if she also has a baby. Being a two-weeks-a-year worker for a tax return and a 50-week loafer with a baby pays out exponentially better than a single woman working at McDonald’s or as a secretary trying to hold down bill payments.

            “Don’t have sex!” is not working. They hear this message from their pastors and community elders. They know the message. But they don’t follow it. Why?

            Because they just wanna be dirty fornicators living a sinful lifestyle? That doesn’t wash. If that were the case, another aspect to worry about is the actual pregnancy and the time after. That throws a monkey wrench in the all-out illicit sex. The same with crippling STDs and sexual dysfunction. If they just wanted to hump their brains out like lustful libertines, condoms and pills would be a better way to go.

            So, yeah, my argument is that they’re being incentivized to have children as single mothers. The message is: “It’s okay. Have a baby and be taken care of!” It’s also why these women don’t even attempt to act as a single parent. They let their children do any damn thing, wreaking havoc on society. The children are a means to an end.

            Take away that incentive, it puts the onus on people to act responsibly.

            I’ll wear the label of a lunatic for that stance, because obviously religious morality is being ignored.

            It would work if people just abstained from sex. You get no argument with me on that front. But it’s more than wishful thinking. It’s living in a dream world to think that these folks are going to give up their meal tickets.

            Maybe they would when government stopped taking care of them. But just like being a politician is the new Wall Street broker, being a single mother is the new career move for these women.

            Fathers don’t get to stick around even when they want to. They’re being chased out and replaced.

            Sex in and of itself is not the problem. Sure, without sex, we don’t see this. But there’s also the fact that we don’t see this with just sex. So there’s no way I’d ever put sex with stealing on a “moral” scale.

            Lunacy? Government playing the parent is lunacy. Me wanting it to stop, while asserting responsible people can have sex if they damn well please, is about as out there as it gets, I guess. Maybe I need a straight jacket.

          • Brian Fr Langley

            I’m not talking about religiois morality? I’m talking about community proscriptions. The reason our modern civilization is having such difficulty with orphans and abortions is not just because some of it’s members are immoral. It’s because they are NOT being held to account. Despite the fact that illicit sex is far more harmful to our civilization, than illicit gambling, illicit moonshining, or illicit drugs, there are not only no penalties for engaging in this society wrecking behavior, this illicit behavior (as you point out) is actually rewarded. Any behavior that’s rewarded (as opposed to proscribed) will not only continue, it will get worse. Like sex, booze, drugs and gambling are not universally evil, in and of themselves. But throw in large rewards (and no sanctions) and you’ll get nearly a whole nation addicted to oppium. (China in the early 19th century). Proscribe the behavior and don’t reward it. And the behavior will not continue. The reason you won’t put sex on a moral scale with stealing is 1. your brainwashed by the media. or 2. you have a personal commitment to this type of anti-social behavior. But by any measurement you could give it, illicit sex, (like the other illicits), create enormous personal and societal harm. It’s not innocent fun, it’s wrecked marriages, wrecked relationships, venereal diseases, and millions of abortions, and orphans. (fatherlessness) When we pretend (especially women) that we can engage in unconsequencial, intercourse, we’re just kidding ourselves. The why is simple. This type of anti-social behavior is rewarded rather than sanctioned in our communities.

          • Josh

            3. I champion freedom and don’t judge people who want to do things with their own bodies with their own consent.

            And getting government out of the baby daddy business is more than enough to bring about personal responsibility. Shaming and condemnation is redundant and archaic.

            You’re not living a free life if you’re living in fear — whether it’s a fear of an invisible character that’s threatening damnation or fear of judgmental, holier-than-thou self-appointed morality agents who attach scarlet letters on people like it’s a sport.

            I agree that they’re not being held to account. But not to account by self-righteous moral high-roaders who want to sneer at their lifestyles and make them pariahs; they’re not holding themselves accountable to themselves because there’s too much incentive not to.

          • Brian Fr Langley

            The problem here is you just pick and choose your morals based on your own personal feelings. The judge of societal sanctioned behavior should be the resulting damage to the society. I don’t give a damn if you don’t want to wear a seat belt, or a motor cycle helmet, BUT, if I have to pay a significantly higher medical premium so you can,? Then there ought to be a law. Liberty can not exist without responsibility. How is liberty served, if the labors of my body are used to pay for your refusal to wear a seat belt or motorcycle helmet? And yes, these are akin to theft. My money is being coerced from me (against my choosing) in favor of your choosing. This is 100% antithetical to liberty. If you agree that society can sanction a thief, (with a scarlet letter), then it has the same right to sanction any illicit behavior that takes my money from my pocket, against my will. Suggesting otherwise is not a defense of liberty.

          • Josh

            Yeah. That’s the trouble.

            The trouble isn’t picking and choosing what’s bad for society based on your personal moral code and then insisting a magical mass following will heal all wounds? Oh, no.

            Money being coerced from me and you to pay for children is why government should be out of it.

            I don’t want our money going toward this nonsense! For Pete’s sake, I’ve been agreeing with at least 50% of what you’re saying from jump. Have you read nothing I’ve wrote here? I don’t agree with our money being taken and given out to this garbage.

            I want people to be responsible for themselves. When they are, government doesn’t have to get involved.

            If someone is married and decides to run out and knock up another dozen girls, government shouldn’t step in and pick up the tab. Hell no. That person should be more responsible if they don’t want to mess up their life and the lives of others. All parties involved need to be more responsible. But a law is going to stop that? Society shaming them is going to stop that?

            In today’s age?

            It doesn’t stop molesters, murderers, thieves, rapists, drunk drivers, etc. And those are things which directly harm others, not simply inconveniences for the supposedly morally upright who like to judge neighbors through their windows.

            I’m not arguing for a lawless state. Things which objectively cause direct harm to others should be prohibited. But you’re conflating things which are objectively different: The right to do with one’s body what one wishes, and causing direct harm to someone else.

            Consenting adults having sex is not harming anyone. Idiots who get knocked up unprepared are milking the system. But that’s not the fault of sex itself; that’s the fault of their lack of education, lack of caring, lack of precaution, wanting to punch their ticket, etc.

            Don’t forget, too, that many single mothers are single mothers because relationships failed, or they were conned, and not because they had illicit sex to satisfy some devilish craving.

            Government assuming the role of the child’s caretaker is what’s taking the money away and giving people incentive to double-down on their foolishness. Government overwhelmingly empowering mothers over fathers–custody, child support, CPS, etc–is working to break up otherwise happy homes.

            What’s seriously going to work better there? Waving your finger at them or refusing to take care of their mistake?

            Maybe back when people thought prayer cured illness or sacrifice brought crops, then shaming was a working formula. But it’s 2013. They’re obviously not ashamed, even with a rather large religious contingent in this country constantly reminding people of what “morality” is supposed to be on a wide variety of television channels, radio stations, billboards, books and pamphlets, churches, etc.

            If you get into creating laws which punish people for sex acts the enlightened deem “illicit” between consenting adults, then you get into theocratic territory. So obviously finger-wagging is all you’re bringing to the table, along with a stance on how people SHOULD act according to what pleases you.

            So, how does your solution provide a fix? “The community should proscribe it; people should be moral.”

            Could’ve, would’ve, should’ve. That’s like the feminists who say “We don’t have to protect ourselves; the rapists shouldn’t be rapists!”

            Very true. The rapists shouldn’t be rapists. But we exist in reality, not in a hypothetical daydream where you can play the SIMs with society and make 300 million toe the same line.

            Make people responsible for their own actions, and when Megan sees that Marie can’t get bailed out for spitting out babies, Megan’s going to think twice.

            When Megan sees that Marie is only being shamed, yet still getting her checks and apartment, she’s going to LOL and get on Twitter and holler “#YOLO!”

            On a smartphone that government paid for.

            This conversation is ironic to the point of being cringe-worthy. It it were about welfare moochers in general who don’t try to get jobs and who game the system, the remedy would be ripping the band-aid off and getting government to stop funding laziness. But because it’s a religious dictate that genitals should be governed from the highest level, it suddenly becomes a different matter. Getting government to stop supporting it is now not only something that won’t work, but it’s called lunacy.

            As I’ve said, oh, a handful of times already, I actually don’t have an issue with your view that society should act a certain way toward people. If that’s how people want to carry it, they’re free to do so in my estimation! But because I don’t see the issue 100% the way you do, it’s “lunacy” and a problem and I’m supporting loose morals.

            I’m also supporting your rights! If that’s how you want to carry it, have at it!

            And you guys seriously wonder why people are fleeing your side in droves? The most judgmental folks in the nation.

          • Brian Fr Langley

            I’ve read your responses and note we’ve both said we AGREE with much of the other persons view point. Most particularly “big Government as being much (most) of the problem. My point (where we disagree) is that liberty can NOT exist without commensurate responsibility. Think theft again. (you’re just too biased on sex) Let’s say, there were no laws against theft, no community opprobrium, and TV and movies showed routine theft, as either normal, or even glorified the behavior. Do you think theft cases would go up or down? Unhappily civilized societies MUST, either have individual internal controls, (morals, ethics, or religion, for example) or external physical controls (the law, and it’s enforcement). Without the first, (internal) you simply must have the second. (external) Being as to how difficult it is, in setting coercive standards to apply to human behavior, (our current argument is an example) what solution can there be? My main argument is, that the framers of the U.S. constitution (undergirded by the Declaration of Independence) comes as close as any codified (civilization creating) document ever has. Were modern America, to more strictly adhere to the founding principles, and the rights enshrined in the founding document, much (if not most) of today’s problems would not exist. While anarchists (of the far left) and libertarians (of the right) eschew coercive laws, (that constrain individual behavior) in a democracy, (especially where women have the vote), there is NO chance that folks who suffer as the result of their own bad choices, will be left to their own devices. As an aside, coercion works as a control to human behavior. Have you noticed how few people will testify against a Biker gang? Why? Because coercion works.

          • Josh

            Theft is taking from someone their personal property in some manner. Testifying against criminals — well, we all know criminals don’t take too kindly to whistle-blowers.

            My beef is throwing sex up there on the same level as theft.

            As I’ve mentioned around four times already, we don’t see these problems ONLY associated with illicit sex.

            Prostitution, especially where controlled, has less disease and far fewer pregnancies than the general population. (Even rubbing out the drastic boom in single mothers.)

            The same with the porn industry. Some cases, sure. And, let’s be real, 1 AIDS case in porn = 1 million in real life in terms of the “I told you so” and “See what happens!” folks. But compared to the general public, these people are far safer.

            They have embraced sex. They use sex as a commodity, as a device for pleasure, etc. And as such, they know to protect themselves against things like pregnancy and disease.

            But when you flash over to the poorer and minority communities, where the real issue is happening, you see that it’s FAR more than sex that’s the problem.

            You see people who are massively uneducated. You see institutional systems put in place which work against the father. You see a culture of dependency which is the antithesis of personal responsibility.

            I’m not any more “biased” with sex than I am anything else. Sex itself is not the issue.

            People having sex with whom they want because they want to….who is it hurting?

            Society? That’s a bit much.

            Bad parenting, people refusing to protect themselves, government enablers, a culture of dependents, an I-don’t-care, nose-in-the-air attitude about what society thinks, extremely low levels of intelligence, and abject poverty. Sex isn’t the problem; it’s just one of many ways a person can hurt themselves and others if they’re not acting responsibly.

            When you decide to make laws or shame people for sex in general, you’re not only going after the people whose sexual activity is irresponsible and leading to problems; you’re going after EVERYONE with the same broad brush.

            And cultural attitudes on sex in the culture leading to more sex is about the same as saying violent video games equate to more violence, violent movies equal more violence, etc.

            Sure, a little girl might see a teen pregnant on TV and think it’s cool. Such has been the case before in real life; pregnancy packs and the like. Just like there have been guys who played Grand Theft Auto and went on a rampage IRL.

            But where were the parents? Where was the education? If these kids are that impressionable that EVERYONE ELSE must abstain from acting freely to set a better example, then society has to police practically everything else that can be spun as unethical.

            In minority communities especially, where fathers are rarely in the home, it’s understandable on its face to assert that society itself must shield young people from this bad example. But the best example you can possibly set for these youngsters is to make it clear that government DOES NOT cover their mistakes in life, and teach them that sex is perfectly fine, perfectly natural, and perfectly safe if they take measures to protect themselves.

            Why blame the sex itself and attempt to control the sex?

            Theft is always objectively wrong. You do not steal from other people. But with sex, it always gets into an angle that’s strictly religious, dealing with monogamy and celibacy and waiting until marriage, etc.

            That’s a broad brush with which everyone must be painted. But people consistently show that they can protect themselves while still having sex. So it must be because it’s a religious dictate that religious people expect everyone else to follow, or else it would be approached with more honesty.

            In other words, people would be looking to institute fixes for the places where it’s happening and the people to whom it’s an issue — not for society across the board. The rest of society shows that it can handle itself responsibly, particularly in the places where sex is embraced the most as an activity and not simply a God-gifted tool for spreading seeds.

            Expecting me to act a certain way because someone else doesn’t isn’t allowing me my freedoms. It’s my body. If I want to inject things into it, put things on it, and share it with another consenting adult, it’s nobody’s business. It’s not hurting anyone.

          • Brian Fr Langley

            Actually your comments are patently false. STD’s are rampant in the sex for hire business (porn and prostitution) I suspect many of your statements are anecdotal (urban legends) NOT facts. Even a modicum of study reveals STD’s are the bane of the industry. Now back to societal harm. Why on earth should a Government be involved in “theft” as a crime? That is, from one individual stealing from another individual? Who cares? The reason is simple, society cares, because it’s not a crime against the individual, that makes it criminal. It’s a crime against society. (a concept ALL criminal law is based on) The criteria is always the mitigation of societal harm. (peaceful, ordered communities). The plain fact is, criminal vice laws (illicit sex, gambling, drugs, alcohol, etc.) have historically been as necessary as any other laws (like theft) proscribing societal harm. What do I care how the thief steals the fruits of my labors? It’s no worse to me if he takes my new bike, than it’s coerced through Government social programs. Either way, the fruits of my labors have been ENSLAVED, to the base lust of others. (whether by theft, illicit drugs, alcohol or sex).
            In fact this blindness you (and the mainstream media, along with leftists and liberals) have towards immoral, unethical, human demeaning behavior is one of the reasons modern civilization is failing. One of the more significant threats we’ve caused (particularly by illicit sex) is the objectification of women.They’re not mothers, sisters, daughters or wives anymore, they’re simply objects of lust. Is it any wonder then, that they and their progeny are abandoned at rates unique in human history? There is no liberty without responsibility. This is probably true in your own family. It is in mine. “Son maybe should consider getting a job”. “Dad, you need to let me make my own decisions and let me live my own life, by the way can I get a thousand bucks for my rent this month”. There is no liberty without responsibility. nuff said.

          • Josh

            Modern civilization is failing? What planet are you on?

            We live longer. We’re typically healthier and wealthier. Crime has been on the decline nationwide for some time. Women and minorities have a ton of human rights where they didn’t before, with the LGBT community trailing closely behind. Other than fanatical religious sects wreaking havoc with terror, stuck in the middle ages, civilized nations are no longer at war with one another. Modern technology is booming. Science is continually breaking new ground.

            Civilization is failing?

            For Pete’s sake. What type of survivalist’s doomsday-is-coming mindset is that?

            Let me correct something from above:

            Pregnancies are certainly dramatically lower where illicit sex is embraced. STDs in the porn industry are lower than single mothers in the African American community. I misspoke in one paragraph, though the rest still stands — particularly controlled prostitution (see the Bunny Ranch et al, not Hookers at the Point). And is easily backed up. But I have a feeling that doesn’t matter. You seem the type to accuse others of “anecdotal” evidence but then don’t bring the burger yourself, like with pooh-poohing Pew as wrong. But such is to be expected and really holds no meaning.

            …..

            I agree with you wholeheartedly on theft. Who’s saying otherwise?

            It’s when you throw sex in with theft that it loses me.

            I’m not advocating for people being able to steal. I am, however, advocating for people to do whatever they choose with their bodies, without you sticking your nose in as if it’s any of your business.

            Don’t want YOUR kid engaging in illicit sex? Make it a rule in your house. Block YOUR channels. Guard YOUR computer. Choose YOUR school. Teach YOUR principles. But when you think it’s okay to step out to shame everyone’s children and to preach your principles to the rest of us, that’s when you fail.

            And that’s what’s failing: Religious rule over modern nations. Not civilization itself; just by-the-book rule, where slavery was okay, women belonged to men, and “freedom” meant you were free to either follow man’s current interpretation of scripture or become a pariah.

            PS

            Don’t put illicit sex on liberals. Do you even know what you’re talking about? You religious conservatives and progressive liberal feminists are both trying to get porn banned, strip clubs shut down, prostitution done away with, etc. Some of the reasons are even the same.

            Libertarian-minded people are all for it. Progressive liberals want to control sexuality just as badly as religious conservatives.

            But I guess they don’t count as principled, since they’re also okay with dude-on-dude buttsex.

          • Brian Fr Langley

            Libertarians are NOT liberals. “civilization failing”? To not notice the decline is wishful thinking. Capitalism, which I believe is the most efficient means of food production is the primary target of the left. Without extra-ordinarily efficient food production, populations which were barely a billion in your own Grandfathers (or great’s) lifetime is now over 7 billion. I further argue, it’s the destruction of the family that’s destroying capitalism. America was unique in human history. It took some very basic ethics (we today call them the Judeo-Christian ethic) and founded a civilization based on Family, the right to individual ownership of private property, (thus free markets) and of course, not the rule of men, but the rule of law. Back to sex. It’s been known now for millennia, that if a civilization does NOT control sex, they can NOT control their populations. (until the advent of modern birth control) All the traditions of civilization have NOT sought to control sex because it’s pleasure is inherently evil. But because the unfettered outcome is. In particular men, once they decouple sex from pro-creational outcomes, to outcomes that only relate to pleasure, will not raise the progeny. (Just ask how many men will marry prostitutes and you’ll see what I mean) Back to food production. What civilization can afford to feed ever growing numbers of dependants. Capitalism, which is the most efficient method of food production becomes quickly undermined when the fruits of individual labor are coerced to achieve the ends of others. Marxists have for decades now, knowingly (and with malice aforethought), promoted fully liberalized sex as a way to destroy the family and cause mass dependence on the state. Even if you don’t agree with the statement, the outcome is obvious. There are large masses now dependant on the state and not their families. (because for most of these dependants they don’t actually have families, although they may have dependant mothers) As the American experiment ends (along with capitalism) food and water will become as scarce as they’ve historically been. Hunger and thirst will become endemic.

          • Josh

            Is it capitalism feeding the world, or science?

            The two are not mutually exclusive, don’t get me wrong. But where does capitalism, in and of itself, have a bearing on feeding the world?

            A capitalistic setup for commodity trading is vastly superior to government-run, knock-the-top-down Marxist systems of faux social justice. No argument from me. But it’s not capitalism feeding the world.

            Science has increased food production. The Haber-Bosch process being the most notable — created in Germany and responsible today for feeding 1/3 of the world’s population. Capitalism?

            There’s also genetically modified food; vastly improved food safety; safer water and processes to turn sea water, dirty water and recycled water into drinking water; refrigeration and shipping; and on and on.

            Technology has made it possible to feed more people. Technology and our scientific knowledge has always been the number-one population driver. Always.

            Capitalism, as a political system, isn’t necessarily responsible for more water and food. That’s technology.

            Now, if you want to argue that people had ample incentive to innovate, and then you want to tie that in with capitalism, I won’t argue. But the fact of the matter is that we advanced as a culture scientifically.

            Some of these innovations came by way of people trying to make a profit. But others came from people who were just trying to help feed the world, and who were working off of government grants, and who, like Tesla or Einstein, were just visionaries and did what they did.

            Because many of these advancements came under the American flag, and thus under capitalism, does not necessarily make them products of only capitalism. That’s like me driving a Mazda to work and then insisting I couldn’t have got there any other way.

            I can only assume that your take is that the reds are going to eventually control America, take from the wealthy, ration everything, and have people waiting in bread lines.

            That’s a little too sensationalist for me to respond to in full. Suffice it to say that we disagree on what’s coming down the pike.

            My final word on sex: I’m being a realist here, even if you’re not. Sure, the virtues of chastity and monogamy have their benefits. I never argued otherwise (only that they shouldn’t be forced on people!). But you have to face up to reality in the here and now.

            The people who are having the most unwanted, unloved, out-of-wedlock children, and who are spreading the most STDs, already claim to hold religious values, yet they scoff at and ignore the ones about sex. That’s just how it is.

            Now, the question becomes one of fixing the issue.

            Community shaming, finger-wagging, and preaching to people the value of virginity and marriage is not going to get through to this culture, in this age, with this level of dependency, and with a segregated mindset (black community-specific).

            We’re simply not in 1813. It’s 2013, like it or not. So what’s to be done?

            I know you’ve called it lunacy, but the only tangible, workable, logical fix that will have a swift and heavy impact is drastically shrinking the “safety net” until it no longer entices able-bodied people to jump into it as a way of life.

            I think neither of us want a Marxist government. But for people to start electing small government Republicans, conservatives, libertarians, etc, it’s going to take a show-and-prove strategy, not a finger-wagging naysayer telling people how to live.

            It comes down to tangibility vs. philosophical musings. People want their lives subsidized these days. A young girl getting knocked uses the government as the new “sugar daddy.” Instead of seeking out a wealthy man, they just spread their legs, take the father to court for money, get money and housing from the government, and keep the child away from the father — assuming the father didn’t run out to begin with.

            The current strategy from the Republicans, which seeks to paint a doomsday scenario, isn’t absorbed by the dependents.

            It’s going to take an Obama-like “yes we can” level of motivation to make people believe that they can do it on their own, that they can start businesses and achieve success.

            Once in a position to do so, put the sex rhetoric away. Don’t preach to people how they should act. Just stop providing their livelihoods, and the insanity will stop. When there’s no more incentive for being a single mother, there will be fewer single mothers.

            But preaching about how illicit sex is bad isn’t going to do anything. Especially because sex in and of itself isn’t bad for anyone. It’s the irresponsible people who end up pregnant and with STDs.

            Happy Thanksgiving.

          • Brian Fr Langley

            It’s not just that capitalism is the superior system, it’s what underpins capitalism. When you think it through, capitalism is simply an extension of the concept of individual private property rights. Have you ever heard of a Patent? This is capitalism writ large. How many modern day significant scientific advances are you aware of that wasn’t patented? Without ownership of private property I disagree there would have been any (but a very few) modern scientific advances. (why do you think the Soviets and Chinese are such technology thieves) Read a book on Edison or the Wrights. In addition to achieving their dreams, they also wanted to get rich. In fact the Wrights spent years fighting in the courts over patent infringements. As to how far we’ve really come in how short a time? In WW1 both Axis and Allied powers still went to war riding horses and carrying swords. (yes WW1 had vast numbers of cavalry,) And just 50 years earlier, (in the Civil War) Americans were still using muskets. War, which has always been the apogee of a civilizations advances, was still being fought by methods dating back into pre-history. Onto conspiracies. While true the media says very little about Lenin’s or Stalin’s or Commintern (Communist International) intentions. They are in fact well documented. Marx never intended a national revolution. His view, was that in order to work (like Obama care) it was all in or all out. (He was for all in) To this day there are 10′s of millions of Marxist acolyte’s striving towards this achievement. U.S. Canadian, and European University’s are chock a block with them. More notably are how many Prof’s have infiltrated journalism schools. Modern society is being fiercely propagandized with barely a notice. (recently one of Romanian Dictators Ceucescu’s generals wrote an easy reading book on this, I’m sure you can find it with a simple search ) On to sex. We all have opinions. But, history proves what works and what doesn’t. The traditional family has succeeded no matter the ideology of Nations, or Kingdoms. Further it has succeeded for millennia. It’s only failing in our modern age, as we undermine it’s foundations. (monogamous pro-creational couples). If (more likely when) the traditional family fails completely, (that is, when it’s the exception rather than the rule) so too will our civilization. I hope (and pray) I’m wrong, but history remains the best teacher. And Happy Thanksgiving to you and yours.

          • Josh

            Patent law has been around and has been big since the 1300s, where people knew that inventors had to be protected. There’s even a historical record of patents existing in ancient Greece. So that’s not capitalist or American-specific.

            We do things better. No argument there. But America’s capitalism didn’t create patents or the laws to protect them. We just improved them.

            Property rights were also big in medieval Islam, the early days of England, and France.

            Again, America did it better, but these things existed in the world prior to American capitalism.

            I hold capitalism to be the superior of all economic systems. Humans need to participate in commodity trading in a value-based system (relative) in order to ensure personal property rights and property as a concept, and there needs to be a regulatory body to ensure the rights of the individual are protected. In this regard, American capitalism, in its purest form, smokes the competition.

            But theories and practices dealing with individual intellectual and property rights date back millennia. There were just too many kings and wannabe gods and dictators throughout the world for it to ever take off as it did in America.

            Though to suggest things like the Haber process and water purification, etc, were contingent on America doesn’t hold. Some governments that aren’t American government still aren’t cruel and controlling. Some want to improve their citizenry and ultimately the world. This is where science breaks through.

            Incentive will always speed the process up. Again, no argument there. Competition and securing a better lifestyle are huge carrots to dangle out in front of hard-working, intelligent people.

            Nobody does it better than America in that regard.

          • Brian Fr Langley

            No America’s framer’s didn’t invent rights, they merely extrapolated them from what they believed was a transendant source. The genius of the founders wasn’t simply their embrace of capitalism, individual property rights, or the rule of law. It was ALL of these things, and the EXPLICIT recognition that rights were universal, and therefore MUST be derived from a transendant source. That is, it is “self evident that all men are created equal”. Rights given by men can be taken by men. America was founded on the idea that individual rights are not a gift from kings, (or voting majorities), nor are they earned or awarded. They are not self derived, nor are they community derived. Thus in order for rights to be both permanent, and universal, then by definition they must be transendant. Again such was the genius of America’s framer’s. Back to sex. Also implicit in the Judeo-Christian ethic, are the transendant rights of children to be raised by their own two parents (assuming they live, or their extended family if they don’t). In all the discussions we hear today (in the mass media) of unfettered sexual rights, why is not one word ever uttered about the rights of the tens of millions of babies born to father abandoned families. Why does a father have a right to any amount of consensual sex, but his progeny have no rights to ensure he provides fully and completely for their care and upbringing?

          • Josh

            You’ll have to fully define what you mean by “sex” then. Because, as it stands, we seem to be talking about two different things.

            You’re talking about children.

            I’m talking about sex in general and people doing what they want with their bodies.

            Now, one can argue that one either requires or leads to the other, but then that isn’t an absolute.

            Oral, in-through-the-out-door, handies, and a thousand different kinds of kink — these all fall under the category of “sex,” yet none of them produce children.

            The people who end up with unwanted children–i.e. single mothers in the black community and poorer communities–have a lot more than “sex” to blame. They’re more irresponsible at life in general. They’re typically undereducated, more prone to violence, and far more dependent on government than other people. There’s a lot more going on than just sex.

            For the babies bit, let’s try this in modern, realistic terms.

            Government involvement in what families “should” be has ruined the family dynamic! It has empowered women 10,000:1 over men in every way, shape and form. Men are held to such an incredibly high standard that it peaks, inverts, and they’re left with nothing in terms of rights.

            Government attempts to force men to be fathers, but all they’re doing is creating multiple wallets for women to dip into.

            Here’s a scenario that I’m familiar with, that many people I know are familiar with, that the nation is becoming more familiar with, and that you may be familiar with.

            A man and wife–or committed BF/GF–start a family, have a home, and everything’s going well for some years. One day, the woman tells the man she isn’t happy and wants a divorce. Being a housewife isn’t satisfying her. She wants out.

            The man here is powerless. Nothing he can do. He is FORCED to give up the home. He is FORCED to give up half of his assets. He is FORCED to pay alimony and child support. He is FORCED out of the child’s life while the woman gets custody, and then he’s left with weekend visitation and is FORCED to watch his wife, his home, his child and his money from the lens of an outside observer.

            Government did this.

            It can happen to any of us. It’s not just an outlier today. There are millions of men in America who belong to groups and communities where they have been shafted this way and where other men pledge to avoid the “traditional” family because of it. None of us are immune.

            You can be married for 20 years, have 5 healthy and happy kids, a nice home, a great job, and all it takes is for your wife to tell you she wants out. Government deciding what “family” is has ruined it for fathers. You get nothing but agita.

            And in many instances, especially in the black community, fathers are chased out instantly! You think they’re abandoning these kids because they’re dead-beats? Not so fast. They’re being held hostage by women who use babies as bargaining chips.

            Women can simply call the police and have the man removed from his own home. Women can take the man to court and get instant custody, instant child support, instant benefits, and the threat of jail looms over the man’s head. And thanks to government, it doesn’t even have to be the man’s biological child! If the woman tricks him into signing the birth certificate, the man is on the hook for money and there’s nothing he can do — even when DNA tests prove he’s not the father.

            You think it’s just men running around sticking their dongs in anything with a pulse and spitting out babies and then running away? That happens, but it’s not often the case.

            Men have condoms, sure, but women have the patch, pills and a slew of different birth control inserts they can use. Where’s their responsibility at? Where are their higher standards at? It seems they want to get pregnant.

            Many men today want nothing to do with the family model you’re talking about. Not because they want random sex, but because they become slaves to government legislation any time the woman decides to play her hand.

            Because government stuck its nose in and decided to dictate to everyone what a family should be, men have been transformed into nothing but sniveling, cowering tools with wallets.

            You paint more of an entertainment-driven scenario, where men are running around, taking advantage of helpless, stupid women, knocking them up, and then leaving them to raise children. That’s the outlier in today’s society. Women are using men. Babies are ensuring livelihoods. Women have all the power in relationships.

            Government has been trying to ensure that fathers provide “fully and completely” for their children, and all it’s done is screwed things up. Men are the only ones considered to bear any sort of responsibility, and women are taking full advantage of it.

            What’s driving divorce rates up more? This collapse of society you’re speaking about with sex everywhere, or the fact that a woman can enter a relationship with nothing and leave loaded? The fact that one party in a two-party marriage is now emboldened and empowered with a massive body of legislation on her side? Even a lot of men who initiate the divorce are doing so to escape with their sanity.

            Statistics for breakups aren’t kept, so the mass number of unwed couples splitting in minority communities is impossible to quantify in terms of who initiated it. However, among married couples who are college educated, the woman files for divorce 90% of the time! People who wonder why don’t have to wonder for long. It’s because she’s smart enough to know government is in her favor.

            On average, women file for divorce over 2/3 of the time.

            Remember, this is marriage. Do you think those numbers differ in unmarried relationships? Highly unlikely. It’s still the women pushing the men out.

            Women are citing things like “verbal abuse” and “emotional neglect” for reasons they want out. But they’re options on a checklist. When they go to court, lobby for legislation, and scream for more parental rights as single mothers, it’s obvious what they want: Financial security as mothers without fathers in the picture.

            Men have ran around screwing things since the dawn of man. Even the most supposedly devout dude has more skeletons in his closet than Jeffery Dahmer. But the rash of unwanted children isn’t going up because of that. It’s because what used to turn into a traditional family has now turned into a one-sided relationship where women can opt out for a lifetime bonus at any minute.

            In these times you keep harkening back to, women didn’t vote, didn’t have much freedom in their dress or to whom they spoke or congregated with, or what they did in life. They got married, had babies, raised babies, and kept quiet.

            Allowing access their inherent rights as people–as they obviously deserve–has gone to the extreme, and it’s all government’s doing.

            These rights you’re speaking of that need to be government enforced have already ruined the family.

            Government needs to get out of families!

          • Brian Fr Langley

            Your opening comment is exactly defining the problem. Sex and children are NOT two different things. Whether or not you’re an evolutionist or a creationist, sex is now, and has been since time immemorial mammalian means of biological reproduction. The goal of both creation or evolution is progeny NOT pleasure. (although I confess pleasure is a most satisfactory by product). Here is the problem. Whole generations are being taught (against the natural order) sex is primarily for pleasure, rather than primarily for procreation. Is it any wonder then that men abandon their children and women abort them. As to the rest of your comments on the emerging male/ female power imbalance. This is what you get when you get duped by lefties and their media allies. (you know, the ones who’ve convinced us that sex should be divorced from pro-creation and only regarded as pleasure).

      • Gratefulconservative

        I agree with you, Brian. It’s those who bend and re-shape in order to break them ie., re-writing the constitution for their own benefit. In order to understand democrats lingo, one has to use a thesaurus and assume their meaning which is pure political hacking. If Americans started acting like Americans and pulled their own weight, progressive and socialists democrats would all be in a world of hurt and confusion. Faced with good common sense solutions, they are all at a loss.

      • D Parri

        We are now facing one of the most critical pivotal issues in our nation’s upholding of the U.S. Constitution and the framework it created. If the executive branch is allowed to modify laws, e.g., “the law of the land”–Obamacare, at will with no challenges mounted, then it will soon be necessary to change the title of the office. It would seem much more appropriate for King Obama to issue his decrees as needed to run our government effectively.