The Forum > Article Comments > Bernardi's views backed by the facts > Comments
Bernardi's views backed by the facts : Comments
By Bill Muehlenberg, published 8/1/2014It is not picking on single mums to state the very clear empirical facts that children raised in single parent homes do perform, generally speaking, worse by every social indicator.
- Pages:
- ‹
- 1
- 2
- 3
- ...
- 9
- 10
- 11
- ›
- All
If anyone wants to brighten up their morning I can recommend reading the Amazon reviews of Cory Bernardi's Conservative Revolution. Some of them are very, very funny.
Posted by Candide, Wednesday, 8 January 2014 8:27:25 AM
| |
Maybe lets use adoption rather than abortion. Bill Clinton, John Lennon, Nelson Mandela and Steve Jobs we're adopted.
Posted by progressive pat, Wednesday, 8 January 2014 8:40:15 AM
| |
Here is the nub of your article, and summarises Bernardi's point of view:
"from a public policy point of view, we should seek to so arrange things so as to have as many children as possible raised in intact two-parent homes, and discourage these alternative lifestyle homes which so often can disadvantage if not damage children in so many ways." While it is probably true that kids do best with married parents, nobody should attempt to "arrange things". It is none of the government's business. The government should keep its "public policy" away from personal matters entirely. Posted by DavidL, Wednesday, 8 January 2014 9:17:47 AM
| |
Bill, Bernardi's and your views may be facts but that does not mean that the analysis is correct.
I'll happily agree that all other things being equal a couple with a long term commitment to each other and their children have a better chance of succeeding at raising well balanced children than either of those parents trying to do it on their own. I'm not so convinced that a dysfunctional pairing staying together and not managing to resolve their issues has the same advantage when it comes to raising children. A significant percentage of single parents are single parents because they were unable to work effectively with the other parent in creating a sane and healthy home. Living apart in that instance may well reduce the harm done to children by ongoing parental conflict. If you and Cory Bernardi want a focus that results in better outcomes for children your focus might be better spent on initiatives that accept that some couples won't be able to make it work and that government policy can impact on post separation conflict. It's very clear that parental conflict is a significant factor in outcomes for children. For instance the ongoing financial ties that the existing property settlement, Centerlink and Child Support legislation which create a source of ongoing parental conflict. There are a variety of issues which hit both resident and non-resident parents either to provide an unfair advantage or hardship depending on the circumstances. Neither conservatives nor progressives appear to have any interest in reducing those sources of conflict with both sides generally focussed on their particular agenda. I'll do a follow up post with some suggestions for ways I think that government inspired financial conflict between separated parents might be reduced. For context I've mostly been the sole carer of our son since separation with a period of shared care and a period as the non-resident parent. R0bert Posted by R0bert, Wednesday, 8 January 2014 9:42:43 AM
| |
Thanks for pointing out what old farts have been observing for decades - that the de-stigmatizing of pregnancy and child rearing outside of marriage (or committed stable couple) and welfare support for this lifestyle has led to a disturbing increase in the number of troubled and troublesome youngsters. Not to mention child neglect, abuse, deprivation, risk of predation and so on ....
If the trendy new age ideologues reading this article and my post want evidence - spend some time researching juvenile crime and childrens services for the irrefutable evidence. Of course you will invariably point out that children/youth from traditional 2 parent families are also affected. Most definitely! Just nowhere near as often or at as seriously. Somehow we must stop the rot, or at least seek to slow and contain it. I support assisted fertility medicare payments to married couples only for a start and ditto a "baby bonus" payment. Next - unsupported (that is not under the support of parents or a partner of adult age)girls under 18 (legally children) having babies should not have exclusive right to decide whether they retain their child nor exclusive custody. It is the immature children having children that seems to be root cause of the biggest problems. Posted by divine_msn, Wednesday, 8 January 2014 9:44:14 AM
| |
Part 2
Some thoughts on reducing government created financial tension in separated families - Break the ties between child residency at the time of property settlement and long term ownership of family assets. Find another way to deal with the needs of the children than the current winner takes it all approach. Property held in trust if the children's needs impact on the division of assets for example. - Accept that children will be materially impacted by family separation as they are by other family events - loss of employment, parental need to change pace etc. The current approach seems to deny that. - Make both parents responsible for the upkeep of their children regardless of their employment choices. Too many inconsistencies in the existing system where parents can either avoid contributing or sometimes profit from their children. - Establish a means to break the direct ties between parents - eg a pool that CSA payments could be paid into or taken from if the direct tie is a source of conflict. - Find a means to account for moneys paid in child support above a share of basic costs - eg a debit card or similar. Too many payers have found themselves paying far more than is being spent on their children. R0bert Posted by R0bert, Wednesday, 8 January 2014 9:47:37 AM
| |
It is hard to decide which is worse: Bernardi's book or this equally ignorant apologia.
OLO claims to publish a variety of viewpoints, but it is remarkable how much space is given to ill-informed bigotry. There is at least some antidote in the comments section and Candide's suggestion is spot-on. It newer occurs to people like Bernardi and Muehlenberg that insofar as the sociological data show that certain categories of families and their children are disadvantaged relative to other categories that the authors approve of, it is at least in part due to the effects of government policies and social attitudes. Those attitudes and policies, when based upon the bigoted ignorance of people like Bernardi and Muehlenberg, unsurprisingly result in social disadvantage. In sociological circles it is referred to as the self-fulfilling prophecy. As DavidL intimates, the danger in Bernardi's approach (with Muehlenberg's support) is their likely "solutions" to what they perceive as the "problem". We would have a long and fruitless wait to hear either of them argue for policies based on true equality rather than the bigoted definitions of what is and is not an "appropriate" lifestyle. Posted by James O'Neill, Wednesday, 8 January 2014 9:54:08 AM
| |
Three cheers for Cori Bernardi. He is one of the very few conservatives left in Australian politics. He knows what he thinks, and says what he thinks. He also speaks for a large block of the electorate, which is a big change from the rest of the gutless wonders in the Coalition.
Nobody has to agree with him if they don’t want to; but to treat him like two-headed monster, as the ‘progressives’ do, is pure hysterics and hate. There are certainly occasions when abortion is appropriate, and politicians should keep their noses out of it. But, having said that politicians should keep their noses out of what people do with their own bodies, I have to agree with Bernadi that females who use abortion when they should be using contraception are wrong; they are also stupid tramps. I’ll read the book, and I doubt that I’ll find it “very, very funny” as CANDIDE did the reviews. She probably will not read the book itself, but rather, will use a little bit of knowledge to snipe at others, thereby laying herself open to laughs at here own ‘funny’, peculiar and one-eyed views. Posted by NeverTrustPoliticians, Wednesday, 8 January 2014 10:33:11 AM
| |
It is clear to me that humans are in a race to catch up with the advanced evolution of the Bonobos. If you don't know anything about them, then just Goggle it up.
Yeah, those naughty monkeys are into every form of perversion known to mankind and then some. Mothers mate with sons, males enjoy dubious sexual pleasure in smelly, germ-filled places with other males, females carryout mutual masturbation, etc, etc. Of course, they're not silly enough to want to change the free and easy routines and codes (or lack of them) of their little tribes. No, Let it all hang out, is their motto. If it turns you on, get into it is their rationale. Fortunately, not many species are aping the promiscuous Bonobos. Only we humans it seems. Perhaps we'll end up living in trees again although, with nukes and immorality, it's unlikely! Posted by David G, Wednesday, 8 January 2014 11:18:16 AM
| |
James O'Neill as usual your post is meaningless, as you continue to use catch phrases, which are not defined.
If you want your post to have any meaning, try defining "true equality" to start with. Do you mean an equal income to all regardless of effort, or do you mean income only related to the effort expended in acquiring such income. It does appear you are recommending communism, but catch phrases may be leading me astray in interpreting your meaning. Surely you would not be promoting such a proven failure. Such other phrases as "bigoted ignorance" do tend to put your post in the "rant" by a ratbag category. If I have misinterpreted your meaning do try to clarify. Posted by Hasbeen, Wednesday, 8 January 2014 11:33:50 AM
| |
Hooray for James ONeill say I.
And of course Hasbeen in his usual style attempts to reduce everything to back-and-white binary exclusions. Posted by Daffy Duck, Wednesday, 8 January 2014 12:25:01 PM
| |
My own experience has been that a self-righteous woman can readily weasel her way through the existing rules, alienating the children almost completely from their father.
Several secular friends have volunteered the opinion that Family Law is skewed against the integrity of the father-mother-children family. My experience in situations where adults make homosexual choices (an identical-twins meta-study completed last year demonstrates that there is no genetic factor in such choices at all, so born-that-way is a myth) has been that at best, any children involved are confused; zero of that experience has included observation of balanced, healthy, emotionally stable development of children. Some (not all) single-parent families do a creditable job of raising a child (or children), however the results have always been second-best. Where practical, a family including two complementary adults is the obvious way to go. A parent who is so full of themselves that other people cannot be genuinely significant to them (that is, beyond being pawns in their life-game) is a threat to the well-being of those in their proximity, and there is no realistic provision within existing Family Law for dealing with such situations. That Mr Bernardi is willing to stand up and state what to any impartial observer is blindingly obvious (despite opposition even from within his own political party) is a credit to his character. Posted by AusTux, Wednesday, 8 January 2014 1:49:16 PM
| |
' that Mr Bernardi is willing to stand up and state what to any impartial observer is blindingly obvious (despite opposition even from within his own political party) is a credit to his character. '
could not be said better Aus. Posted by runner, Wednesday, 8 January 2014 2:22:10 PM
| |
And Ducky, socialists/communists try to use intentional misunderstanding to get people to agree with something they would never agree too, in a million years.
Typical lying conniving lot of con men. Posted by Hasbeen, Wednesday, 8 January 2014 2:34:18 PM
| |
"from a public policy point of view, we should seek to so arrange things so as to have as many children as possible raised in intact two-parent homes, and discourage these alternative lifestyle homes which so often can disadvantage if not damage children in so many ways."
Like gay marriage how is this even an issue Government feels the need to deal with ? People have every right to be offended by gay marriage, or gay parents or whatever issue that makes Mr Bernardi's frock blow but Government should have no right to tell them not to, of all of this that's the most repugnant. I can't even imagine the vitriol that goes through voters heads when they vote LNP for the Senate in SA. Posted by Valley Guy, Wednesday, 8 January 2014 3:01:27 PM
| |
All the world's a critic.
While I personally share few values with C.B. I do believe that he has the right to express his views. The left once again is demanding that this basic human right is suppressed in favour of their sanitized PC view. The most noticeable thing is that most of the people condemning the book have probably never read it, and are reacting to the somewhat imaginative interpretations by his critics. Posted by Shadow Minister, Wednesday, 8 January 2014 3:10:31 PM
| |
Candide
thanks for the Amazon tip I see from Muehlenberg's Amazon review of this book (posted 7 Jan) that he says: "Unlike perhaps 90 per cent of the haters bashing Cory Bernardi here, I actually have his new book and have actually read all 164 pages of it (and all 137 footnotes)." yet in this article he says: "As I say, when I get the book I will be able to better speak to all this ...." So, has he read the book or not? Or, did he write this article a few days ago and not bother to update it? i think we should be told ... Posted by Rhian, Wednesday, 8 January 2014 3:12:05 PM
| |
The government should keep its "public policy" away from personal matters entirely.
David L, What would happen if Government turned around & said we're not interested in personal matters so stop asking us for help. Posted by individual, Wednesday, 8 January 2014 4:13:08 PM
| |
Yes Bill Muehlenberg
I see your point and the logical conclusions. What if these children of single parents replicate? And are not the children of non-white people at similar risk? Maybe they should be saved from the arms of their single mothers (and non-white parents) and sent to safe two white heterosexual parental families like the good years of the 1890s to 1960s? Like-minded Messiah Planta Posted by plantagenet, Wednesday, 8 January 2014 4:15:06 PM
| |
Valley Guy, hundreds of thousands of people protested in Paris (including many practising a homosexual lifestyle) against it, yet the French government went on to create "Gay Marriage" laws anyway.
A few fairly famous homosexuals of good renown have stated that homosexual "marriage" is not marriage. Quite a few less-famous homosexual activists have confessed that their aim is not to establish "Gay Marriage," it is to destroy marriage as it currently exists. When you state that "Government should have no right to tell them not to," you invert the reality. I assert that government bodies have no particular right (or mandate) to create an artificial structure (consider the idea of "Natural Selection" in this context) which encourages people to practice a lifestyle which is (both medically and socially, at least) very unhealthy, and which undermines and tends to disrupt the basis for our (already damaged) society. Instead of manufacturing rights to demand, take personal responsibility for your own choices and actions. Posted by AusTux, Wednesday, 8 January 2014 4:22:21 PM
| |
So AusTux, when and why did you decide to be heterosexual?
Posted by Candide, Wednesday, 8 January 2014 4:23:05 PM
| |
I don’t usually reply to all the many tedious haters and trolls on these pages, but let me respond to one particularly nasty and brainless comment. I wrote this article some two days ago, and it was just posted today on OLO. I recently received the Bernardi book, read it, and posted a review of it, just an hour ago on amazon, which is of course in America, thus it is dated January 7. Either this critic is quite disingenuous, or really is woefully lacking in basic knowledge of the reality of planet earth, and simple things like time zones. But I realise this is the best the ‘tolerance brigade’ can come up with. Making such vacuous attacks certainly beats actually arguing, offering evidence, and dealing with facts and data.
Posted by Bill M, Wednesday, 8 January 2014 5:09:50 PM
| |
On "tedious haters and trolls"
Thankyou for the mirrored reminder Bill. Pete Posted by plantagenet, Wednesday, 8 January 2014 5:15:36 PM
| |
Bill
My comment was intended to highlight the fact you wrote an article about a book you hadn’t read, which is also pretty vacuous, I think Posted by Rhian, Wednesday, 8 January 2014 5:29:04 PM
| |
… As to “facts and data”, one of the first things you are taught about using stats in social science is to be careful about confusing correlation and causation. Another is to establish the “null hypothesis”.
It is not surprising that children of single parent families do less well on some metrics than children of “traditional” families. As you discussed, single parents face lots of challenges that traditional families don’t – money, time, organisation, relationships. The question is not whether the children would be better off in a family with two happily married parents who are its natural parents; but whether they would be better off in a family with two parents who don’t want to be together. I have seen families where otherwise estranged couples have stayed together for the sake of the children. It caused the parents, and the children, a lot of hurt and harm over the long term. Posted by Rhian, Wednesday, 8 January 2014 5:40:54 PM
| |
Aus Tex, are you saying that mob rule should dictate the social order in Australia.
Read why there was a WWII, and why you live in a democracy, and not a dictatorship. Posted by Kipp, Wednesday, 8 January 2014 5:50:19 PM
| |
Hasbeen Sweetie, the cold war ended so long ago, and there was never a "Red under The bed", just your piggy bank savings.
Relax and enjoy life, as nothing is going to be taken away from you!! Posted by Kipp, Wednesday, 8 January 2014 6:01:19 PM
| |
Candide, there is no decision to make.
We are all born heterosexual. A meta-study completed last year (based on studies done in several different countries by different organisations across a significant number of samples) determined that there was no difference at all in the choice ratios of identical twins (genetically identical) versus the choice ratios of non-twin siblings and non-identical twins. There is no homosexual gene. Wanting one to exist will not cause any such to materialise. We can choose to think/feel/act homosexually, which can change our habits and expectations, yet cannot change our nature. Some of the circumstances which may tend to skew our choices into dysfunctional domains (to nominate just one factor of many, males following a homosexual lifestyle have a seventeen-fold risk of developing anal cancer when compared with the average) can be fairly horrible, yet in the end it remains a choice. The concept of "born gay" removes one's perception of their ability to choose, which exposes them to (destructive) shame (rather than guilt, which is a form of feedback), so (sticking to the motif of your handle) deliberately furthering it is a malicious act. Posted by AusTux, Wednesday, 8 January 2014 6:20:22 PM
| |
Kipp, the (in)tolerance brigade _are_ mob rule.
Nothing I wrote suggested mob rule. "Might Is Right" is amoral, and painfully close to "The End Justifies The Means." WW-II (and WW-I, and the soon-coming war) happened as a result of Albert Pike (author of /Morals And Dogma of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite of Freemasonry/ prepared for the Supreme Council of the Thirty Third Degree for the Southern Jurisdiction of the United States, in Charleston SC, 1871) deciding that they were necessary, and his followers making it so. Posted by AusTux, Wednesday, 8 January 2014 6:31:15 PM
| |
Austux
You are proposing a false dichotomy – either homosexuality is genetic, or it is chosen. There could be lots of other reasons why some people are homosexual. One hypothesis is exposure to hormones in the womb. Or, it could just be random chance, like my left-handedness (probably – they’re not sure about that, either!). Posted by Rhian, Wednesday, 8 January 2014 7:04:08 PM
| |
AusTux, if you'd care to share the link to "A meta-study completed last year determined that there was no difference..." we could draw our own conclusions but unless it also addresses questions like different hand dominance and non identical finger prints in monozygotic twins it won't be possible to maintain the claims you make.
Posted by WmTrevor, Wednesday, 8 January 2014 7:04:57 PM
| |
From todays paper comes this moment of truth:
"Liberal MP Warren Entsch attacks Cory Bernardi on 'gay obsession'" "''He's obviously got an obsession with people that are gay,'' Mr Entsch said. ''It worries me. You've really got to watch out for those that have these obsessions. He who protests the loudest …'' Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/liberal-mp-warren-entsch-attacks-cory-bernardi-on-gay-obsession-20140107-30fhl.html#ixzz2pnS9EVJ0 Should we be worried? Posted by plantagenet, Wednesday, 8 January 2014 7:19:43 PM
| |
Aus Tex being Gay is not a fault, so do not worry yourself and talk to someone; and your personal anxieties of your own sexuality will be resolved.
Posted by Kipp, Wednesday, 8 January 2014 7:35:25 PM
| |
being Gay is not a fault,
Kipp, If it's not by choice it's an unfortunate condition & if it's by choice it is wrong. Posted by individual, Wednesday, 8 January 2014 10:00:00 PM
| |
'Liberal MP Warren Entsch attacks Cory Bernardi on 'gay obsession'" '
what a laugh. it is the anti family brigade who is obsessed with perverting the marriage act. No one would be saying anything if the ABC/fairfax and others who have failed in marriage were not so obsessed with pushing their views. Posted by runner, Wednesday, 8 January 2014 10:05:34 PM
| |
Warren Entsch presumably knows Cory Bernardi better than people outside the parliamentary Liberal Party.
Posted by Candide, Wednesday, 8 January 2014 10:35:19 PM
| |
James O'Neill: "It is hard to decide which is worse: Bernardi's book or this equally ignorant apologia.
OLO claims to publish a variety of viewpoints, but it is remarkable how much space is given to ill-informed bigotry." It is remarkable that Bernardi and Bill Muehlenberg are being attacked for holding traditional values and views. For instance, it is illogical and irrational of O'Neill to argue against social science fact that family structure really does matter, and children will do best when raised by their own biological parents. Unlike OLO, it is obvious that O'Neill does not respect freedom of speech. Posted by Raycom, Wednesday, 8 January 2014 11:10:37 PM
| |
Runner "what a laugh. it is the anti family brigade who is obsessed with perverting the marriage act. No one would be saying anything if the ABC/fairfax and others who have failed in marriage were not so obsessed with pushing their views."
What a nasty comment. I hope you aren't blaming the spouse who was the punching bag for her former husband before daring to leave that marriage? What about the spouse whose husband or wife had multiple affairs, or gave them STD's (some cause death) before they finally left the marriage? Should these people have stayed in that marriage 'for the children'? What if one of the parents was physically or sexually abusive to those children? Should they still stay in the marriage? If my misgivings about people staying married in any of these situations makes me 'anti-family' in anyone's eyes, then so be it. Leave religious views out of politics... please. Posted by Suseonline, Thursday, 9 January 2014 12:11:31 AM
| |
This has all gone silly, the rot started with the media "backlash" and people like Carrie Bickmore sticking their oar in.
The two examples of single parent success stories we're presented with, Malcolm Turnbull and Carrie Bickmore are not what Cory Bernardi is talking about, I'm sure Mrs Bickmore and Turnbull senior would have given anything to have their spouses survive to raise their children. It seems to me that Cory Bernardi is advancing the "kill the poor" position via typically gutless Christian sermon. He's not talking about nice middle class people like the Turnbulls and Bickomres who have the intelligence,resources and time to put into child rearing, Bernardi is talking about the poor, the idle and Indigenous but he doesn't have the guts to go into specifics, if he did he'd be booted out of the Liberal party. Suse, There's a lot of misinformation coming from both sides on the issue of marriage and the family,that's a problem of the internet age,getting good information should be straight forward but because of the way Google tailors search results to individual users it tends to reinforce one's point of view at the beginning of the search for information and limit the reader's access to other points of view. The obvious point here is that patterns in marriage, divorce and family stability are best seen as trends which are tied to other factors at play in people's lives and that these trends can change very dramatically in a relatively short time. Posted by Jay Of Melbourne, Thursday, 9 January 2014 11:18:52 AM
| |
Unfortunately, a lot of people taking the statistical data personally, even when these are just numbers. They just feel guilty and hopeless. Unable to change their circumstances they attack the messenger rather than attempt to understand and apply the message to enrich their existence and buildup a better, more civilized community.
Sad, really. Posted by BB747, Thursday, 9 January 2014 11:53:04 AM
| |
'I hope you aren't blaming the spouse who was the punching bag for her former husband before daring to leave that marriage?
What about the spouse whose husband or wife had multiple affairs, or gave them STD's (some cause death) before they finally left the marriage? ' I don't know if you deliberately misrepresent me Sudsie or are just blinded to the simple fact that a defacto is far more likely to use their partner as a punching bag and pass on std's just like a stepfather is far more likley to molest a son or daughter than the natural father. No one has ever said that a wife should stay in such a situation. The fact is she is far more likely to be in that situation if she is not a wife. Homosexual relationships in particular are prone to excessive violence. Posted by runner, Thursday, 9 January 2014 12:11:27 PM
| |
One thing Cory likes is the war mongering parasites, not a word against them , not having read his book I dare say he is against Voluntary Euthanasia, killing is ok on the war front, but daresay he opposes a peaceful death by VE.
Posted by Ojnab, Thursday, 9 January 2014 12:38:45 PM
| |
Ojnab , if by "war mongering parasites" you mean Jews just say it, there's no need to beat around the bush but there's no need to be rude either. Christianity places Jews at the centre of the world, not Judaism, it's important to remember that, if not for White Christians and their weak martyr Jesus Christ there would be no, as you put it "warmongering and parasitism" by anyone, we'd all have to make our own way in the world.
Posted by Jay Of Melbourne, Thursday, 9 January 2014 12:55:01 PM
| |
Jay of Melbourne I think you have taken my post incorrectly, nothing to do with the Muslim people, but referred to the war mongering parasites in general such as Bush, Blair, Hpward, Downer, Obama, Cory is a patron within the RSL.
Posted by Ojnab, Thursday, 9 January 2014 1:05:32 PM
| |
Homosexual relationships in particular are prone to excessive violence.
runner, not to mention the hygiene aspect of it. Posted by individual, Thursday, 9 January 2014 2:55:58 PM
| |
Runner & Individual, no different to the rest of society, lets face it sex is not the cleanest part of our lives, but enjoyable, if you are concerned about anal sex, hetero's also indulge, so lets not criticise one group of people over the other, there would be less violence in the homosexual society than in the heterosexual society, do we see a lot of homosexuals going to war as we see in the rest of society, that is violence at its worst.
Posted by Ojnab, Thursday, 9 January 2014 3:54:07 PM
| |
Kipp> being Gay is not a fault
There is no ‘being’ Gay. Homosexual attitudes and actions are a choice. If such actions were hard-wired in, we as a species would be long extinct. Since they are a choice, choosing the unhealthiest, least stable, artificial modes of behaviour from the alternatives is indeed being at fault. If they were _not_ a choice, non-reproductive pairing would result in extinction, so they would indeed be faulty. Kipp> so do not worry yourself and talk to someone; You make an auto-conflicting statement: I do not worry myself. I do talk to someone. Many someones. And listen. Carefully. Kipp> and your personal anxieties of your own sexuality will be resolved. I am not even slightly anxious about my own "sexuality." I am male, and do not (nor have I ever) choose to pretend otherwise. Ergo, there is nothing to resolve. Try being honest, rather than indirect. It works for me. Posted by AusTux, Thursday, 9 January 2014 4:37:16 PM
| |
Aus Tux I was born this way, how about you, or are you hiding from something ?
Posted by Kipp, Thursday, 9 January 2014 5:09:15 PM
| |
Yep and I was born with a nature that gave me the choice to be an adulterer, a liar, a fornicator etc etc. Thankfully my parents and others at least taught me the right way (though I ignored them for a long time).
Posted by runner, Thursday, 9 January 2014 5:24:09 PM
| |
Intriguing discussion on an important topic.
Rhian is spot on to observe that much so-called evidence confuses correlation and causation. A prior question, however, of both Cory B and Bill M is why they refer to the research. Is it because the data seems to show kids with two parents do better that they are so passionate about the two-parent heterosexual natural family (2phnf)? Or is it the other way around? They are committed to the 2phnf on religious grounds. They then seek secular research to bolster their position. So here is a test: If research shows two-parent families produce better adjusted kids than one-parent families, then what about three-parent families? Would they produce better outcomes still? Would Bill and Cory support rigorous peer-reviewed research into this question? And would they agree in advance that should the results be affirmative that they will then support “making it part of our social policy to encourage this so that as many children as possible are raised in this ideal environment"? Cheers, AA Posted by Alan Austin, Thursday, 9 January 2014 7:23:02 PM
| |
I see what you mean AA.
But I would go one step further and ask CoryB and his holy mate Bill just how they think the obvious advantages of traditional married mum/dad/own kids families can be 'promoted' to an increasingly secular society? If these sorts of families work so well, I can't see any difference to the unmarried dad and mum living with the kids for example? Is the fact there is no marriage cert involved going to change anything? Maybe if we let the Gay couples marry and possess this magic cert, their lives will be perfect too? Life is never straight forward unless you are a middle-old aged overly religious man, obviously. And apparently it is these same men who feel the burning need to tell everyone else that they must live the same way as them, or burn in their hell... Posted by Suseonline, Thursday, 9 January 2014 9:20:41 PM
| |
Yes. Good questions, Suseonline.
From what CB and BM have said elsewhere, they seem to want government to withdraw support for non-2phnf families currently provided. This includes some single parent benefits, IVF services, and of course recognition of same-sex relationships. No, there is no difference between having parents married or unmarried. Both are prevalent here in France. Of my partner’s many long-term friends in functional families I still don’t know which couples are actually married and which aren’t. Nobody cares. Yes, the increasing acceptance of gay couples will probably see the research on outcomes for the kids change over time. And regarding religion, this is changing rapidly, Suse. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominational_positions_on_homosexuality Cheers, AA Posted by Alan Austin, Thursday, 9 January 2014 10:59:03 PM
| |
'Life is never straight forward unless you are a middle-old aged overly religious man, obviously.
unless of course you work for the ABC where feminist/gays want to dictate to everyone else the way people should live. Have any view however perverted as long as its not biblical is their mantra and Susie seems to push the same dogma. Posted by runner, Thursday, 9 January 2014 11:02:49 PM
| |
If both parents are Labor supporters than of course the children will turn out differently to those of Conservative parents.
Same goes with football watching parents vs outdoor activity parents. Academic parents will instil a different mentality to working class parents. That's why a Natonal Service is vital to put them all into the same environment for a while to give them the opportunity to be away from parental indoctrination. I guarantee that & it has actually been proven that people who have served are far better adjusted than those who haven't. Just look at the difference in mentality between an Australian & a Swiss or Swede or any of those countries where they have Natinal Service. National service promotes forward thinking by using hindsight. In the recent past Australia has operated the other way round by constantly dragging up the past instead of focussing on the future. Posted by individual, Friday, 10 January 2014 6:35:20 AM
| |
Yeah, a wonderful idea, Individual! Let's force all our young people into the army and train them to be killers.
Once we get them trained up, we in Australia might go into the warmongering business like the Yanks and the Brits do. And we wonder why our world is such a barbaric, war-filled place. Have you got any other good ideas? Let's make gun ownership possible from 10 years of age. Let's put people who try to promote peace in jail! Posted by David G, Friday, 10 January 2014 7:35:53 AM
| |
Individual, I definately agree with David G, I did National Service training in 1954,it did not make me a better or worse person, it did teach me how to kill people in the most barbaric way using bayonets , 303 4rifles, hand grenades and every other method of killing . Is this what you want in our much more enlightened age now, as mentioned in an earlier post "warmongering parasites" at the helm.
Posted by Ojnab, Friday, 10 January 2014 8:15:17 AM
| |
Kipp> I was born this way,
Which way? Indirection again. Kipp> how about you, or are you hiding from something ? No. I have checked (and also asked others) quite a few times in different ways. I have no big secrets. So... what are _you_ hiding from? runner> I was born with a nature that gave me the choice to be an adulterer, a liar, a fornicator etc etc. As are we all. Including 'honest,' 'highly-integral,' 'diligent,' 'industrious,' etc, which leads me to idly wonder why you only chose to list destructive behaviours. runner> Thankfully my parents and others at least taught me the right way (though I ignored them for a long time). Yes, that's a big part of parenthood, however 'right' in this sense is a subjective term, and not monochrome (there are states other than flat-out 'right' or 'wrong'), as of course is this sentence. Terms like 'functional,' 'effective,' or 'cooperative' are somewhat more objective and also tending a little more towards precise. This said, what you say is relatively easy to understand as you have stated things in a fairly definite and firm manner. Posted by AusTux, Friday, 10 January 2014 8:29:37 AM
| |
Alan Austin> what about three-parent families?
Such research (more than two parents) has unquestionably been done, in the case of observations of followers of Joseph Smith jnr, who have often practised polygamy (a subset: polygyny). I would guess that the additional stability would be beneficial, minor confusion over the role of a parent (and about differences from other families) would not, some confusion would be added by their original rôle model having been a power-hungry sex maniac and a founding member of the Nuavoo Lodge of Freemasonry (not nearly as much as the personality cult [*not* a religion: members have no genuine choices, they are required to conquer, enslave or murder all others] started by a genocidal, misogynist, paedophile, rapist, false prophet and known as Islam). Suseonline> apparently it is these same men who feel the burning need to tell everyone else that they must live the same way as them, or burn in their hell No, it is the 'tolerant' mob who wish to destroy the existing systems (and have not suggested any functional replacement) who have been doing that. An ever-painful Hell is an importation from Chaldean Mithraism and has often been used to coerce those reluctant to provide funds or obedience to the self-appointed authorities: read the verse Jude 7 in a bible (use the KJV, it has been warped in the NIV) then ask yourself if Sodom and Gomorrha are still aflame? When they were discovered (ranged down the West side of the Dead Sea), it was found that the burning sulphur which had rained down on them had eaten holes into the stone the towns were constructed from. The verses in Revelation 21:7-8 make it plain that there are exactly two alternative outcomes for all, so if anybody tells you differently, ask them for their authority. Posted by AusTux, Friday, 10 January 2014 9:10:27 AM
| |
AA,
Your question of whether 3 parents would be better for raising children while obviously intended as a flippant throw away remark, actually to some extent has already been researched in the guise of extended families, where one or more of the grandparents lives with the children and is involved in their parenting. The results actually do appear to indicate that children raised in this environment fare better than the simple nuclear family. I have not seen anywhere where CB denigrates the parents of non traditional families, this is purely the interpretation of the left whingers that need something to be angry about. Posted by Shadow Minister, Friday, 10 January 2014 12:41:21 PM
| |
AusTux
What on earth is 'highly integral' ? 'The verses in Revelation 21:7-8 make it plain that there are exactly two alternative outcomes for all, so if anybody tells you differently, ask them for their authority.' Why should a piece of ancient fantasy writing have more authority than anything else ? Posted by Candide, Sunday, 12 January 2014 8:46:26 AM
| |
Candide, "highly integral" means without the slightest taint of deceit, dishonour or false implications.
The "ancient fantasy writing" you mention accurately predicted the arrival of a certain gent in Jerusalem to the very day, more than 400 years before he arrived. They also predicted the demise of a world leader (to the very year) more than two millennia before he was deposed. it (they: the whole book was not written in a day by one person) also speak of Sirius as being fixed from our perspective, and the Pleiades as being mobile, a bit much to expect of "desert nomads" without access to the Palomar Telescope. They describe a past from which it is reasonable to find an octopus fossil today, which the deluded individuals (fixated on a quantum fluctuation turning absolutely nothing into space, time, energy and matter, for no particular reason, and which then eventually (and purely through an incredibly long series of extremely unlikely accidents) became flint, fish, ferns and philosophers) masquerading as scientists cannot. They described, millennia ago, the current political/financial/religious sequence of events taking place. I guess the definition of "fantasy" which you intended was "an imagined or conjured up sequence fulfilling a psychological need," in which case you are badly in present need of a more accurate description. Either way, if you are living in an amoral world, in which there is no genuine basis upon which to discern "good" from "bad," you have done remarkably well thus far to retain even an approximately coherent conversation. Posted by AusTux, Sunday, 12 January 2014 3:56:18 PM
| |
AusTus
You seem to have confused integral with integrity. What was that you were saying about 'approximately coherent conversation'(apart from just being rude)? Posted by Candide, Monday, 13 January 2014 6:55:31 AM
| |
Candide> seem to have confused integral with integrity
No, although the word "integral" also has a mathematical application plus the following one. In this sense, I could have seriously confused things by saying "integral integrity" to mean "integrated integrity" however English is puzzling enough _before_ one messes about with it. A slight rephrase to "high integrity" would make the statement clearer, however was inconsistent with the sense of expression of the other terms used in that sentence. At this instant, I am unable to think of a way of expressing that explanation clearly without coming across as a kind of intellectual snob, so what will be, will be. Candide> What was that you were saying about 'approximately coherent conversation' (apart from just being rude)? Kipp has been highly inconsistent in what they said, to the point where even discerning the core meaning of their words, let alone any connection with what I had said, became quite difficult. In terms of "being rude," that manner of behaviour is likely (not certain) to be a manifestation of insecurity in Kipp about their current life-position, in which case being more confrontational by pointing this out to them directly would have been closer to "being rude." Posted by AusTux, Monday, 13 January 2014 9:52:16 AM
| |
Me thinks Aus Tex has an obsession with Kipp, apart from Aus Tex gooky postings.
Posted by Kipp, Monday, 13 January 2014 11:34:35 AM
| |
Perhaps Paul Sheehan has been reading Online Opinion? His article in the Sydney Morning Herald points out the hypocrisy in those who are attacking Senator Cory Bernardi in his article called "So ready to throw book at Bernardi without reading It." Definitely worth the read.
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/comment/so-ready-to-throw-book-at-bernardi-without-reading-it-20140112-30okv.html#ixzz2qFNZpmpA ."We know the statistics - that children who grow up without a father are five times more likely to live in poverty and commit crime, nine times more likely to drop out of schools and 20 times more likely to end up in prison. They are more likely to have behavioural problems, or run away from home, or become teenage parents themselves. And the foundations of our community are weaker because of it.'' - President Barack Obama, Father's Day speech, 2008. Yes, we do know the statistics. But that hasn't stopped an avalanche of hate - and I use the word advisedly - being unleashed against Cory Bernardi for quoting and echoing the sentiments of Obama in his book The Conservative Revolution (Connor Court 2013). Read More: http://www.smh.com.au/comment/so-ready-to-throw-book-at-bernardi-without-reading-it-20140112-30okv.html Posted by Warwick Marsh, Monday, 13 January 2014 1:55:02 PM
|