examiner.com— There are a lot of moral issues that spark controversy in America, (polygamy, cloning, divorce, suicide, the death penalty, cheating, abortion, etc.) but these are the four that nobody can seem to agree on.
Aug 8, 2010View in Crawl 4
Who cares how many issues or what they are. It is all about keeping us divided and at odds with each other. As long as we are in conflict with each other, we are far too busy to band together in a united voice to question and control government. The more issues that can be created, the more unrest and suspicion will result.
We are far more divided than we have ever been. Government has far more control than was ever intended.
I don't think we're more divided than ever. If you look back through history, human beings have been fighting over stupid s**t since we first jumped down from the trees and started hitting each other with sticks. In the last few centuries, in fact, we've come a long way in terms of shrinking our divisions. Racial and gender inequalities, whilst still present, are less divided than they used to be, as are different religions, or even sects of the one religion (400 years ago Catholics and Protestants were in open warfare, for example).
Most of the divisions mentioned in the article ultimately come down to Conservatism against Progressiveness, and it's really a product of the way society has changed over the last couple of generations and whether it should be slowed down or continued. I don't think that there's a secret push by the Government to try and divide us up so that we're easy to control. I don't deny that parties will stir up issues as a way of securing votes, but they're just trying to get/keep power from the opposing party, so they can bring in policies which they genuinely believe will improve the life of people in this country (regardless of whether or not they actually do). They're not really trying to divide us up just for the sake of keeping us dumb and in our place.
Things are far from perfect today, but in reality the average person is more informed and freer than in any other point in history, and as a species we're less separated than other. The Government really hasn't got that many unfair restrictions on our day to day lives and they don't have a massive conspiracy to keep us from rising up. Stop being so cynical.
Agreed. If anything I think that youth today are much more open an tolerant towards everyone which is cause for optimism.
If you look at the age demographics for all of these moral issues I would be surprised if most of the "intolerance" votes are the older generations. Most young people I talk to are in the get the government out of making moral choices camp.
That doesn't mean they all agree on other things, but on morality that is definitely my personal experience.
We need less Government. USA Patriot Act, Net Neutrality, Videotaping of Police Officers, countless other issues. This has been happening since the '30s and the ejection of Common Law from society. You are not as free as you think you are. Try moving more than $10,000 out of the country.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
"they're just trying to get/keep power from the opposing party, so they can bring in policies which they genuinely believe will improve the life of people in this country"
Nice try, Junior Citizen. Most of them just want the power and more importantly, the money that comes with it - having very little concern for the peasants they represent.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
@trollbane: I agree with what you said with one exception...the mid 90's to 2003. Well, I can only speak of the US but I'm sure much applies to the rest of the world.
During the Clinton presidency we saw no wars, a great economy and progress on many civil rights. A great economy always helps to keep both sides relatively in control regarding attacks.
When Bush became president, the country became a little more divided but not as bad it was in the Reagan era or before. We were mostly caught up on the election results more than a conservative vs progressive agenda. Then the 'best' thing to happen to Bush happened less than a year into his presidency...September 11. this united the country and the world more than ever before. But it all came crumbling as Bush pushed towards an unjustified Iraq war and began pushing conservative agendas, most notably in his presidency before the Iraq war was the issues of embryonic stem cell research and gay marriage. This country has been more divisive than at any period on more issues since probably the 60's when civil rights and Vietnam were dividing this country.
@daimposter: No wars? Somalia and Bosnia don't count? Your right about everything else, but I would have to dispute that the military-industrial complex has always had somethign to keep the money flowing.
The government does not create the controversy around these topics, the government does not control the media. Business creates the controversy and keeps us divided around social issues so they can dominate the government's economic and foreign policy. It is an important distinction.
a bit too much 'conspiracy' but there is a lot of truth in your statement. but government does create controversy in order to win votes. most notably, the 'scare the whiter person from ___' card.
@daimposter - It isn't really a conspiracy, it is a straightforward result of the pressures places on the media institutions. Media is driven by corporate advertising and a need to appeal to affluent consumers. Corporations and affluent professionals have a vested interest in encouraging a stable political spectrum centered around the needs of business. The problem is, what is good for corporations and what is good for the middle class are often at odds, so their is a natural tendency for the media to shy away from topics that are likely to cause instability for the business-focused status quo. This often leads to habits of drawing in audiences by playing up controversy around issues that don't matter to business. That is the stuff advertisers like, audiences without causing waves among the people that matter.
Of course politicians do play on people's fears, but these fear campaigns are usually designed by public relations firms that have used are advised that similar tactics be used in the private sector. Also, politicians most guilty of creating controversy are usually the ones with agendas most at odds with the interests of the public.
its not terrible in my experience, just inconvenient. worst part was that i would always lose things lugging them between my parents houses, or forget them at the other house when i needed them.
so you would like to force 2 people that might not be a good match to get married and have marital problems and always fighting in front of the kids and to only get a divorce and then not only will the kids have seperated parents, but the parents probably wont like each other very much or not even be on speaking terms....
marriage should never be forced on someone.... also, who is to say that the people having kids wont stay together for a long time.... more and more couples are choosing to not get married simply because it creates a lot of unneeded and unwanted problems and is not needed in our society now.
when people think of marriage, they think of church.... but in reality, marriage is a state controlled unity... which is why you dont have to get married by any religious figure and divorce takes place at the courthouse and not in the church....
Kids with divorced parents is not a 'positive' but it's a little harsh to call it 'one of the worst'. Nobody wishes to grow up in a divorced family but many manage just well when it happens. As long as the parents learn to work with each other and think of the kids first, the kids will be alright.
WTF why am I dugg down for wanting a family together? Damn we got some screwed up people in America. I get it not every mommy and daddy can get along but I couldn't not see my childhood with my parents separated but I guess alot of people don't get that chance to be in a a family that is one unit. Not broken into 2 units.
Actually I prefer it the way I grew up. My father is a complete idiot when it comes to social skills and homelife...f**king genius when it comes to chemistry though.
So you'd rather have a family unit where a child would be exposed constant fighting an bickering? Yea that's real healthy. I'd MUCH rather a child (including mine) to be raised in a stable household where at least one parent has their s**t together.
You also seem to have a VERY old school and traditional view of a nuclear family. Things have changed and kids adjust quite well so long as the household is stable. Having a mom and dad do not constitute a stable, conducive environment for children.
Funny how the "no children out of wedlock" people are likely the "abstinence only" people, and of course wind up with the children outside of wedlock. Bristol Palin anyone?
When I told my parents my girlfriend and I were having a baby the first thing they asked was when we were getting married. When I informed them we wouldn't be, they gave me the same, "That makes your daughter a bastard" speech and told me I robbed them of all joy of having a grandchild. I told them they'd come around and should hold their tongue before saying things they'd regret.
And you know what? About 4 weeks later, they were calling me apologizing. About 3 months later they wanted to be all involved. And now that my daughter is 7 months old, they can't get enough of her.
We're still not married and have no intention of being so. But that doesn't change our love for our baby, or the commitment we have to raising her in our loving home. While they're still not happy about it, my parents - to their credit - are beginning to see that.
I suppose this is what your parents get for spoiling you. You never learned to play by the rules or to consider the feelings of others in your actions. Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
"Of the top 16 moral behaviors that spark controversy in America, doctor-assisted suicide, same-sex relations, abortion, and having a baby outside of wedlock divide the country the most."
1. Let the individuals choose for themselves
2. Let the individuals choose for themselves
3. Let the individuals choose for themselves
4. Let the individuals choose for themselves
The religious right have so taken over the republican party that the word conservative today has more to do with social issues then financial ones. Self proclaimed "true" conservatives that are most interested in reducing our debt, deficits, and taxes need to come up with a new name to separate themselves from their fellow republicans that are most concerned with god, abortion, and gay marriage.
I think the appropriate comparison is in theocracies like Saudi Arabia, Iran or in fascism with industrial propaganda machines ala Nasty Germany and if no other then in the intolerance, hate and religion as excuses for assh**es to lie you found behind the door of most every white church in the south in the days of segregation.
Hey right trash social conservative 'c'hristian retards, this is real America talking to real bigoted church stupid america...
You keep your god damn perversion of religion and Christ's words in the hell holes of ignorance you call church and out of politics or you loudmouthed jackasses can start paying taxes like PAC's are supposed to. You understand that you damn fools?
Keep your right trash ignorance off of government, keep your massively stupid bible thumping bulls**t like creationism out of schools and take your 'c'hristian nation and shove it up your useless ignorant ass alongside the social 'c'onservative version of the bible
You assh**es demanding and fighting a culture war against the rest of the country all these many years, this is the other side getting pissed off...
Correction: 4 issues that the mainstream media pushes to cover the real issues of government corruption, incompetence, and 2 parties in collaboration to f**k America.
For my debating class this year, we had to do an improv day where someone from the audience (the rest of the class) could shout out a topic and we would have to debate it, with one side taking the affirmative and the other the negative. Somehow, I managed to call the coin toss wrong and I got the side arguing that racism is *good*. I talked about how it created a sense of community between areas that were more or less segregated and preserved cultures that (if mixed) would lose their individuality if they were totally blended with other cultures. My opponent of course got the side arguing that racism was bad, which seems like a much easier/better side to have. Somehow, I managed to win the debate by a class vote. I don't know whether I just presented my case better, or if I actually convinced 30 people that racism was a good thing.
as a Black Man w/ knowledge of America's History (via public school) and Black History (self taught and college). Malcolm X (before he became Malik El Hajj Shabazz) was for segregation in the Black Community. For the very reasons you mentioned and it also encouraged Blacks to start and maintain their own businesses that catered to their community. Instead of travelling outside your area to spend money or to work. Wouldn't have to worry about a white business denying you service if you had the same business in your own community. If theres a need for something that is else where(places your money is not welcomed) you can be the first to provide that service/goods in your community. I don't agree with Rand Paul, but hey if a business denied me service because I'm black, f**k'em I'll go to their competitor who will serve me.
The only problem is the national & international suppliers, distributors and manufacturers can't be racist otherwise they could pick and choose who they do business with and that can affect whole communities/nations (e.g. Cuba & Haiti).
The problem we face now is you have businesses that veil their racism/religious beliefs just to make a buck off of you. (e.g. Muslim owned Deli selling Ham Sandwiches, Jewish discount store selling christmas decorations).
Yeah there is a large and very confused segment of the population that believes that racism ended in the 60's and the real problem today is reverse racism. I am surprised this didn't make the list. Probably because the media and politicians avoid the issue whenever possible because it is just too controversial.
I would think that the reason it didn't make it on the list is that the vast majority of people wouldn't consider themselves racist or that they support racist agendas even though we likely could find that a large majority of the population holds some manner of a racist views even if it is just an aspect of a stereo-type.
Come to think of it really instead of the issue being racism as a central divide I would instead say that tolerance/acceptance would be a bigger issue since we could expanded it to include all fascist of society beyond race such as gender, sexual orientation, religious views etc.
I worked for a foreign company and one of my "white-American" co-workers asked me if I wanted to get in on a "reverse-racism" claim. I laughed at the word then and I still question it whenever I see it. Please clarify that "reverse-racism" does not exist or is there a definition I am missing.
Racism has been one of those things that lurks quietly just beneath the surface for a really long time. It seems it's making a comeback lately. I don't think many people will admit that racism is "OK", but I feel like a lot of people justify their racist feelings by projecting racism on others (like on Obama for instance).
Since racism "ended" as a result of the civil rights movement in the 60s, no one talks about it as if it were still a problem. I live in South Carolina on the Georgia border, and racism is very much alive and well. :/
I definitely agree with you there. Born and raised in S. Carolina myself and racism is alive and VERY well in many parts (see Williamsburg County). People there have just gotten creative (and some not so much) in how they hide it.
Racism is alive and well, and not just in the South. In California, we arrest black people four times more often for pot possession than whites even though they use pot less. And that's a "liberal" state (that voted against gay marriage, granted...)
No, because anyone that disagrees with me is stupid, crazy, wrong, and quite possibly evil and therefore must be opposed at all times in the strongest possible manner.
I think mostly because polygamy in the past has been about multiple women kind of being forced to have one husband by cultural or religious pressures. It wasn't simply one big free loving mutual agreement.
A lot of these statistics are quite alarming. 32% of Americans think stem cell research, 40% think having a baby outside of marriage and 88% think the cloning of humans is "morally wrong".
It's as if many of these people get their morals from a 2000 year old game of broken telephone rather than modern philosophy or ethics
Title is wrong...it' not 4 issues, it's 4 'moral' issues.
Also, without age sub-categories, the data is interesting, but useless. These is a very great difference in the options of old folks like myself on some of the moral issues and those of the younger generations, say those in the 40 and 50's, and the youth in their 20's+30's.
The character of the country changes as time goes on.
How about just being a logical, compassionate and objective person and doing what's best for everyone?
One rule: Do unto others as you would have others do unto you. [Matthew 7:12] For you god-fearing folk.
Have to go further back than that. Where did the notion of property come from? Granted I am not fully read on the subject, but from what I can understand it started with religion.
People just have trouble following this rule because they cannot (or refuse not to) put themselves in someone elses' shoes.
Joe Hillbilly from West Virginia cannot see himself in love with another man (openly) and therefore does what his pastor tells him and pickets gay weddings.
It's not putting yourself in someone else's shoes. It's putting someone else in your shoes. Treating someone else how you want to be treated.
A subtle but important difference and actually a surprisingly selfish mindset. You're only being asked to think about what you would want.
As badly as I want to see pot legalized, I don't think it is a major issue in most people’s minds. If they only knew how much we spend yearly on pursuit, prosecution, and incarceration over a naturally occurring plant, not to mention the array of connected crimes and violence........
"It's safe to say abortion and same-sex marriage will be the two defining issues in upcoming political elections."
No, no it isn't. Just because people disagree on them does not make them important issues in this, or any other race in particular... They probably are going to be mostly ignored this race because nobody on either side really thinks that talking about abortion of same sex marriage is getting anywhere.
The numbers to which they refer were apparently talking about gay sex rather than gay marriage btw, which aren't exactly equivalent questions.
Unfortunately, for the conservative Christian right, those 2 topics are a litmus test.
I heard many interviews during the Presidential Election where people who really didn't like McCain were going to vote for him on the issue of abortion alone.
No other topic mattered.
I agree (for now) on same sex marriage because it's usually not brought up, so most people don't know how the candidates they are choosing between feel on the subject. Abortion on the other hand is a make or break position for a lot of voters on either side and it would only take a few seconds to find out how a candidate felt on the subject if it was a voting issue for them.
I would lump those all together under intolerance -- intolerance of race, religion, and orientation. Immigration is bad if it's Mexicans, but fine if it's Canadians or Europeans. Gay marriage is just a way to openly be intolerant of homosexuals in general. Hatred of Islam is "justifiable" since we were attacked by people claiming to be Muslim, but it's really just intolerance of non-Christian religion at the heart of it.
It seems like the attitude is that America is a melting pot, but only if I like all the ingredients.
It is all ignorance that is the problem, not just religious ignorance. There are plenty of athiests that are f**king retarded, too. The religiously ignorant just happen to use their religion as a way to try and justify their stupidity.
@fuhgetabotit: Religious ignorance plays into it, but it's more. As quade said, few people here object to immigration from Europe, unlike from Mexico. And that's even though Europeans are more likely to be atheists than Mexicans.
That said, Asian chicks are hot and we need more of them here!
FTA:
"Almost half the country says that doctor-assisted suicide is morally acceptable, on the flipside, half the country also says it's morally wrong. It's a sharp contrast to unassisted suicide, where 77% of the country agree that it's morally wrong."
I will never understand this. If someone decides to end their lives who are we to tell them they have to keep on living a life they deem unbearable? As long as they don't hurt other when they take themselves out I see no problem with it. Most of the arguments against this are emotional and selfish ones which but the emotional needs of other before the person who has decided life is no longer worth living.
There are usually underlying mental problems when an otherwise healthy person decides they don't want to live anymore. In those cases, I would consider intervention appropriate.
Now, if they are cured or otherwise found to be of sound mind and they still want to die, they should be allowed to drop a quarter into the nearest suicide booth and choose evisceration if that is their wish.
I am obviously not talking about the people who have obvious mental issues. I'm talking about people like you and I who are of sound mind. The mentally ill should be protected from themselves obviously.
I like how the 4 top issues that divide the US, and likely many other countries, are the issues that no one, not even the government, has any right to control. All of those issues should be up to the individual (or individuals in the case of same sex marriage). I don't presume to have any right to tell someone when/if they are allowed to die, have an abortion, get married or bump uglies without protection before getting married.
I foresee in the next decade that politics in the US will slowly shift to those who are religious vs those who are not. We are close already but those of the religious continue to attempt denial that religion is the basis for their claims. This is very problematic fo the US for the very ideas on which it was founded which attempted to keep secularity and politics very distant.
Lines will be drawn. The people will separate. Blood may be spilled. This is a very dark period I the US. Either you can choose to reason with logic and consideration for the betterment of all or you can let this country fall to the ignorants that choose to rule on faith of their own and betterment of those who 'believe.'
This s**t isn't about politics anymore. It isn't up to any single person to make the decision which way this country goes either. However, if you want a US that was founded for people of all nationalities that have come together as one to live in hardship or in prosperity for the betterment of the country as a whole, you can't choose to to rule with religion. You can't choose to deny some people rights because they don't agree with your beliefs. Fairness is a requirement, not a hope!
Some of the new rolls are so big that I have to have my roll hang from the back (they all hang "over," btw). By hanging it from the back, when pulled upon the roll rotates out and away from the wall.
Is it just me or are these "issues" just diversions from the real problems we are facing? How many straight people would be affected adversley by same sex marriages?
But... but... you don't understand! Those queers would ruin society with their evil fouling of my holy marriage! And also I fear for their eternal souls that will burn in hell!
I think most people against gays are not worried that a gay person would do something to them personally. But rather they worry about their impressionable children being told that gayness is ok. Most parents are sticklers about wanting to have control over their children and know that some other influence isn't undercutting them as parents.
I can understand the abortion argument. If you actually beleive that as person is alive as soon as the egg is fertilized then I can see why you would be against abortion. However the other three are none of your business. They do not affect you. If I want to have a child out of wedlock, marry someone of the same sex, and have a Euthanize myself as long as I am of sound mind I should be able too.
It should be titled "Issues that should not be issues"
These issues are personal issues. They should not divide anyone because they only impact the people with the issue. Anything else and your simply sticking your nose in someone else business rather than dealing with your own issues.
Assume: exercising my rights does not harm another directly. The only issue that matters is whether you can abrogate my rights. If the answer is "depends," then we have a problem.
The other three I can understand, but no one with a functioning brain thinks unmarried women having babies is a good idea. If you can find anyone who thinks it's a good idea, I'll guarantee you they're an idiot.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Why isn't it a good idea? Maybe its a couple who doesn't believe in marriage, maybe its a self reliant single woman that wants a child, but doesn't want to find a guy to get married to right now. There are tons of good reasons that a child might be born out of wedlock, that aren't bad reasons.
Now there is the problem of teenage pregnancy, and women having babies before they are ready, but this is NOT a problem for the government to figure out, nor should there be any rules against it. This is an issue for the person thats dealing with it, or their parents depending on how old they are.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
I do not think it is that bad as long as there is a father are in there lifes. Being a single parent be it a father or a mother is going to be much harder than having both parents there. However marriage is not needed. Some people are fine living with one another with out the title of marriage.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
There's a difference between something "not being a good idea" and something being "morally wrong". While I agree that in *most* circumstances, having a child out of wedlock may not be the best idea, I see no reason why it is morally wrong.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
The fact of the matter is that it being a good idea or not is up to the INDIVIDUAL to decide. If a person feels they are ready to have a child, married or no, no one else has ANY right to tell them they shouldn't, or even worse pass laws preventing them from doing so.
Your morals or mine? My morals tell me to keep my nose out of peoples business unless it affects me. People not getting married before or even after having a kid has absolutely no affect on my life. And before you make the argument that people having kids out of wedlock could become a strain on social security or welfare, let me point out the fact that married couples are on welfare and pumping out kids for the sole purpose of gaming the system.
It's almost funny how these four things are intertwined.
A baby, obviously conceived to a non gay couple, requests assisted suicide (abortion) because he doesn't want to grow up a bastard of un married parents
It's almost funny how these four things are intertwined.
A baby, obviously conceived to a non gay couple, requests assisted suicide (abortion) because he doesn't want to grow up a bastard of un married parents
Those topics don't bother me at all. What bothers me and what is truly dividing the nation is bats**t crazy right wingers who drum up hyper-emotionalism over serious topics for their own selfish purposes. Once we get right of those Digg-Patrioting douchebags, the country won't feel so divided anymore.
People keep saying if you keep religion out of politics it will solve these issues, but what that basically means is keep the people with different moral values out of politics. Everyone has their own moral code to live be, whether you attain that from religion or make up your own it doesn't matter. But society must agree on what is right and what is wrong. The person who gets their morals from religion is not less worthy of political opinion than the person who came up with their own.
Global warming is dividing the country? the opinions about global warming are dividing the country? Or the rising sea water is gonna travel up the Mississippi river valley and literally divide the country in two?
bille3Aug 8, 2010
Who cares how many issues or what they are. It is all about keeping us divided and at odds with each other. As long as we are in conflict with each other, we are far too busy to band together in a united voice to question and control government. The more issues that can be created, the more unrest and suspicion will result.
We are far more divided than we have ever been. Government has far more control than was ever intended.
trollbaneAug 9, 2010
I don't think we're more divided than ever. If you look back through history, human beings have been fighting over stupid s**t since we first jumped down from the trees and started hitting each other with sticks. In the last few centuries, in fact, we've come a long way in terms of shrinking our divisions. Racial and gender inequalities, whilst still present, are less divided than they used to be, as are different religions, or even sects of the one religion (400 years ago Catholics and Protestants were in open warfare, for example).
Most of the divisions mentioned in the article ultimately come down to Conservatism against Progressiveness, and it's really a product of the way society has changed over the last couple of generations and whether it should be slowed down or continued. I don't think that there's a secret push by the Government to try and divide us up so that we're easy to control. I don't deny that parties will stir up issues as a way of securing votes, but they're just trying to get/keep power from the opposing party, so they can bring in policies which they genuinely believe will improve the life of people in this country (regardless of whether or not they actually do). They're not really trying to divide us up just for the sake of keeping us dumb and in our place.
Things are far from perfect today, but in reality the average person is more informed and freer than in any other point in history, and as a species we're less separated than other. The Government really hasn't got that many unfair restrictions on our day to day lives and they don't have a massive conspiracy to keep us from rising up. Stop being so cynical.
matelesAug 9, 2010
"...since we first jumped down from the trees..."
Blasphemy!
jb4062Aug 9, 2010
Agreed. If anything I think that youth today are much more open an tolerant towards everyone which is cause for optimism.
If you look at the age demographics for all of these moral issues I would be surprised if most of the "intolerance" votes are the older generations. Most young people I talk to are in the get the government out of making moral choices camp.
That doesn't mean they all agree on other things, but on morality that is definitely my personal experience.
ironmindAug 9, 2010
No.
We need less Government. USA Patriot Act, Net Neutrality, Videotaping of Police Officers, countless other issues. This has been happening since the '30s and the ejection of Common Law from society. You are not as free as you think you are. Try moving more than $10,000 out of the country.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
furburgerhelperAug 9, 2010
"they're just trying to get/keep power from the opposing party, so they can bring in policies which they genuinely believe will improve the life of people in this country"
Nice try, Junior Citizen. Most of them just want the power and more importantly, the money that comes with it - having very little concern for the peasants they represent.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
daimposterAug 9, 2010
@trollbane: I agree with what you said with one exception...the mid 90's to 2003. Well, I can only speak of the US but I'm sure much applies to the rest of the world.
During the Clinton presidency we saw no wars, a great economy and progress on many civil rights. A great economy always helps to keep both sides relatively in control regarding attacks.
When Bush became president, the country became a little more divided but not as bad it was in the Reagan era or before. We were mostly caught up on the election results more than a conservative vs progressive agenda. Then the 'best' thing to happen to Bush happened less than a year into his presidency...September 11. this united the country and the world more than ever before. But it all came crumbling as Bush pushed towards an unjustified Iraq war and began pushing conservative agendas, most notably in his presidency before the Iraq war was the issues of embryonic stem cell research and gay marriage. This country has been more divisive than at any period on more issues since probably the 60's when civil rights and Vietnam were dividing this country.
h8f8kesAug 11, 2010
@daimposter: No wars? Somalia and Bosnia don't count? Your right about everything else, but I would have to dispute that the military-industrial complex has always had somethign to keep the money flowing.
quarandoAug 9, 2010
The government does not create the controversy around these topics, the government does not control the media. Business creates the controversy and keeps us divided around social issues so they can dominate the government's economic and foreign policy. It is an important distinction.
daimposterAug 9, 2010
a bit too much 'conspiracy' but there is a lot of truth in your statement. but government does create controversy in order to win votes. most notably, the 'scare the whiter person from ___' card.
quarandoAug 9, 2010
@daimposter - It isn't really a conspiracy, it is a straightforward result of the pressures places on the media institutions. Media is driven by corporate advertising and a need to appeal to affluent consumers. Corporations and affluent professionals have a vested interest in encouraging a stable political spectrum centered around the needs of business. The problem is, what is good for corporations and what is good for the middle class are often at odds, so their is a natural tendency for the media to shy away from topics that are likely to cause instability for the business-focused status quo. This often leads to habits of drawing in audiences by playing up controversy around issues that don't matter to business. That is the stuff advertisers like, audiences without causing waves among the people that matter.
Of course politicians do play on people's fears, but these fear campaigns are usually designed by public relations firms that have used are advised that similar tactics be used in the private sector. Also, politicians most guilty of creating controversy are usually the ones with agendas most at odds with the interests of the public.
fremontgroupAug 10, 2010
Money controls government.
wonderchemistAug 9, 2010
FTA: having a baby outside of wedlock...
Really? That made the top four list?
rumbeefAug 9, 2010
Members of my conservative family said, "do you really want your baby to be a bastard?"
Needless to say, I bucked to the fiance...
spinningheadAug 9, 2010
Ironically, conservative Christians are much more likely to get pregnant out of wedlock.
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/11/03/081103fa_fact_talbot
kent1146Aug 9, 2010
By "ironcally", do you mean "hypocritally"?
kahrahtayAug 9, 2010
If he doesn't mean that, maybe he means "hypocritically"
Closed AccountAug 9, 2010
SpinningHead used the term Ironically correctly.....putting hypocritically instead makes no sense unless you remove the comma after it
magus_melchiorAug 9, 2010
For all their talk of upholding Biblical values, they also don't talk about divorce very much...
spinningheadAug 9, 2010
You say tomato. I say tomatillo.
obsidian743Aug 9, 2010
That you find it surprising is, ironically, part of why it's on that list.
markglAug 9, 2010
I'd say it's one of the worst. Children growing up with one parent or having to go back and forth between 2 homes. That is terrible.
apokalyps2547Aug 9, 2010
As someone who went back & forth (post-divorce) as a child, I can safely say it's not always bad. In my case, not bad at all.
bdog2g2Aug 9, 2010
As the product of a single mother having to go back-n-forth, it wasn't that bad and in many ways I'm better for it.
My father's an idiot with a succubus for a wife, I'm glad they didn't have a hand raising me otherwise I'd be like is other 3 dumb ass kids, in juve.
markglAug 9, 2010
Ok. But I'd rather be a family unit under one roof then separate.
thisismissAug 9, 2010
its not terrible in my experience, just inconvenient. worst part was that i would always lose things lugging them between my parents houses, or forget them at the other house when i needed them.
Closed AccountAug 9, 2010
so you would like to force 2 people that might not be a good match to get married and have marital problems and always fighting in front of the kids and to only get a divorce and then not only will the kids have seperated parents, but the parents probably wont like each other very much or not even be on speaking terms....
marriage should never be forced on someone.... also, who is to say that the people having kids wont stay together for a long time.... more and more couples are choosing to not get married simply because it creates a lot of unneeded and unwanted problems and is not needed in our society now.
when people think of marriage, they think of church.... but in reality, marriage is a state controlled unity... which is why you dont have to get married by any religious figure and divorce takes place at the courthouse and not in the church....
daimposterAug 9, 2010
Kids with divorced parents is not a 'positive' but it's a little harsh to call it 'one of the worst'. Nobody wishes to grow up in a divorced family but many manage just well when it happens. As long as the parents learn to work with each other and think of the kids first, the kids will be alright.
markglAug 9, 2010
WTF why am I dugg down for wanting a family together? Damn we got some screwed up people in America. I get it not every mommy and daddy can get along but I couldn't not see my childhood with my parents separated but I guess alot of people don't get that chance to be in a a family that is one unit. Not broken into 2 units.
bdog2g2Aug 10, 2010
@mark
Actually I prefer it the way I grew up. My father is a complete idiot when it comes to social skills and homelife...f**king genius when it comes to chemistry though.
So you'd rather have a family unit where a child would be exposed constant fighting an bickering? Yea that's real healthy. I'd MUCH rather a child (including mine) to be raised in a stable household where at least one parent has their s**t together.
You also seem to have a VERY old school and traditional view of a nuclear family. Things have changed and kids adjust quite well so long as the household is stable. Having a mom and dad do not constitute a stable, conducive environment for children.
theungodAug 9, 2010
Funny how the "no children out of wedlock" people are likely the "abstinence only" people, and of course wind up with the children outside of wedlock. Bristol Palin anyone?
sindexAug 9, 2010
When I told my parents my girlfriend and I were having a baby the first thing they asked was when we were getting married. When I informed them we wouldn't be, they gave me the same, "That makes your daughter a bastard" speech and told me I robbed them of all joy of having a grandchild. I told them they'd come around and should hold their tongue before saying things they'd regret.
And you know what? About 4 weeks later, they were calling me apologizing. About 3 months later they wanted to be all involved. And now that my daughter is 7 months old, they can't get enough of her.
We're still not married and have no intention of being so. But that doesn't change our love for our baby, or the commitment we have to raising her in our loving home. While they're still not happy about it, my parents - to their credit - are beginning to see that.
CSA4everAug 9, 2010
I suppose this is what your parents get for spoiling you. You never learned to play by the rules or to consider the feelings of others in your actions. Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
bdog2g2Aug 9, 2010
^^
Like throwing rocks in a glass house do we?
oninboninAug 9, 2010
look at Palin's little slut daughter and her ahole loser boyfriend.
thehofstetterAug 9, 2010
What about Team Edward vs. Team Jacob? Or Twilight Fans vs. People Who Can Read?
theinformerAug 9, 2010
Tastes great! Less filling!
richmomzAug 9, 2010
I vote for Team Literacy.
Jordan117Aug 9, 2010
"Of the top 16 moral behaviors that spark controversy in America, doctor-assisted suicide, same-sex relations, abortion, and having a baby outside of wedlock divide the country the most."
1. Kill 'em, already.
2. Marry 'em, already.
3. Kill 'em, already.
4. Marry 'em, already.
(Assuming it's what the adults involved want.)
tarantulusAug 9, 2010
^this^
fuhgetabotitAug 9, 2010
lol, sheesh, so to sum it up your position is...
kill, marry, kill, marry? And do it fast?
7eedAug 9, 2010
I like this
Closed AccountAug 9, 2010
1. Let the individuals choose for themselves
2. Let the individuals choose for themselves
3. Let the individuals choose for themselves
4. Let the individuals choose for themselves
Legislating morality never works
joychan21Aug 9, 2010
Doesn't it seem like it boils down to religion and politics?
eh123Aug 9, 2010
doesn't everything boil down to religion or politics?
nevermiss1Aug 9, 2010Submitter
Pretty much
fuhgetabotitAug 9, 2010
Now if they would just keep their religion out of politics we could all get back to work...
acknotswAug 9, 2010
The religious right have so taken over the republican party that the word conservative today has more to do with social issues then financial ones. Self proclaimed "true" conservatives that are most interested in reducing our debt, deficits, and taxes need to come up with a new name to separate themselves from their fellow republicans that are most concerned with god, abortion, and gay marriage.
CSA4everAug 9, 2010
Stalin did a great job of keeping religion out of politics. Somehow, he just doesn't get much praise for it.
fuhgetabotitAug 9, 2010
Stalin?
I think the appropriate comparison is in theocracies like Saudi Arabia, Iran or in fascism with industrial propaganda machines ala Nasty Germany and if no other then in the intolerance, hate and religion as excuses for assh**es to lie you found behind the door of most every white church in the south in the days of segregation.
Hey right trash social conservative 'c'hristian retards, this is real America talking to real bigoted church stupid america...
You keep your god damn perversion of religion and Christ's words in the hell holes of ignorance you call church and out of politics or you loudmouthed jackasses can start paying taxes like PAC's are supposed to. You understand that you damn fools?
Keep your right trash ignorance off of government, keep your massively stupid bible thumping bulls**t like creationism out of schools and take your 'c'hristian nation and shove it up your useless ignorant ass alongside the social 'c'onservative version of the bible
You assh**es demanding and fighting a culture war against the rest of the country all these many years, this is the other side getting pissed off...
Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
vectorbAug 9, 2010
These seem to just boil down to religion. Or more accurately, the religious of the country forcing their opinion on those who are not.
pathouston22Aug 9, 2010
Correction: 4 issues that the mainstream media pushes to cover the real issues of government corruption, incompetence, and 2 parties in collaboration to f**k America.
gustodiggAug 9, 2010
Absolutely. I can't agree with this more.
hu99Aug 9, 2010
Where's racism? I would put that first.
tarantulusAug 9, 2010
I think only a minority would admit they think racism is ok.
alexbarnes94Aug 9, 2010
(inb4 "cool story bro")
For my debating class this year, we had to do an improv day where someone from the audience (the rest of the class) could shout out a topic and we would have to debate it, with one side taking the affirmative and the other the negative. Somehow, I managed to call the coin toss wrong and I got the side arguing that racism is *good*. I talked about how it created a sense of community between areas that were more or less segregated and preserved cultures that (if mixed) would lose their individuality if they were totally blended with other cultures. My opponent of course got the side arguing that racism was bad, which seems like a much easier/better side to have. Somehow, I managed to win the debate by a class vote. I don't know whether I just presented my case better, or if I actually convinced 30 people that racism was a good thing.
selfarchitectAug 9, 2010
@AlexBarnes94
as a Black Man w/ knowledge of America's History (via public school) and Black History (self taught and college). Malcolm X (before he became Malik El Hajj Shabazz) was for segregation in the Black Community. For the very reasons you mentioned and it also encouraged Blacks to start and maintain their own businesses that catered to their community. Instead of travelling outside your area to spend money or to work. Wouldn't have to worry about a white business denying you service if you had the same business in your own community. If theres a need for something that is else where(places your money is not welcomed) you can be the first to provide that service/goods in your community. I don't agree with Rand Paul, but hey if a business denied me service because I'm black, f**k'em I'll go to their competitor who will serve me.
The only problem is the national & international suppliers, distributors and manufacturers can't be racist otherwise they could pick and choose who they do business with and that can affect whole communities/nations (e.g. Cuba & Haiti).
The problem we face now is you have businesses that veil their racism/religious beliefs just to make a buck off of you. (e.g. Muslim owned Deli selling Ham Sandwiches, Jewish discount store selling christmas decorations).
quarandoAug 9, 2010
Yeah there is a large and very confused segment of the population that believes that racism ended in the 60's and the real problem today is reverse racism. I am surprised this didn't make the list. Probably because the media and politicians avoid the issue whenever possible because it is just too controversial.
roddackAug 9, 2010
I would think that the reason it didn't make it on the list is that the vast majority of people wouldn't consider themselves racist or that they support racist agendas even though we likely could find that a large majority of the population holds some manner of a racist views even if it is just an aspect of a stereo-type.
Come to think of it really instead of the issue being racism as a central divide I would instead say that tolerance/acceptance would be a bigger issue since we could expanded it to include all fascist of society beyond race such as gender, sexual orientation, religious views etc.
iatethecrayonAug 9, 2010
LOL @ "reverse racism".
IT'S JUST CALLED RACISM.
torrangeAug 9, 2010
I worked for a foreign company and one of my "white-American" co-workers asked me if I wanted to get in on a "reverse-racism" claim. I laughed at the word then and I still question it whenever I see it. Please clarify that "reverse-racism" does not exist or is there a definition I am missing.
fremontgroupAug 10, 2010
Reverse racism: http://www.amptoons.com/blog/images/concise.jpg
quadeAug 9, 2010
Racism has been one of those things that lurks quietly just beneath the surface for a really long time. It seems it's making a comeback lately. I don't think many people will admit that racism is "OK", but I feel like a lot of people justify their racist feelings by projecting racism on others (like on Obama for instance).
Since racism "ended" as a result of the civil rights movement in the 60s, no one talks about it as if it were still a problem. I live in South Carolina on the Georgia border, and racism is very much alive and well. :/
bdog2g2Aug 9, 2010
I definitely agree with you there. Born and raised in S. Carolina myself and racism is alive and VERY well in many parts (see Williamsburg County). People there have just gotten creative (and some not so much) in how they hide it.
That was one of the reasons I left.
zenmojoAug 9, 2010
Racism is still holding people back.
Makes it harder to get a job.
http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2008/08/09/study-black-man-and-white-felon-same-chances-for-hire/
Gets people harassed by the police. Puts people in prison longer. Hell, puts them in prison more often.
http://www.louisianaweekly.com/news.php?viewStory=3122
And kills them once they get there.
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/death-penalty-black-and-white-who-lives-who-dies-who-decides#TheRawData
Racism is alive and well, and not just in the South. In California, we arrest black people four times more often for pot possession than whites even though they use pot less. And that's a "liberal" state (that voted against gay marriage, granted...)
mikborAug 9, 2010
can't we all just get along?
fuhgetabotitAug 9, 2010
fuhg you...
;)
acknotswAug 9, 2010
No, because anyone that disagrees with me is stupid, crazy, wrong, and quite possibly evil and therefore must be opposed at all times in the strongest possible manner.
joemanmanAug 9, 2010
<3
topicalityAug 9, 2010
Here the data from Gallup;
http://www.gallup.com/poll/137357/Four-Moral-Issues-Sharply-Divide-Americans.aspx
johnfluxAug 9, 2010
Interestingly, 90% of people think that polygamy is morally wrong.
Can anyone give me a proper justification for this? Why is polygamy so bad? It doesn't even have to be sexist - make it equal opportunity polygamy.
acknotswAug 9, 2010
I never got that either, but then, I've never cared who or what someone else marries. It could create some pretty insane divorce cases though.
dushAug 9, 2010
I think mostly because polygamy in the past has been about multiple women kind of being forced to have one husband by cultural or religious pressures. It wasn't simply one big free loving mutual agreement.
7jbdwAug 9, 2010
A lot of these statistics are quite alarming. 32% of Americans think stem cell research, 40% think having a baby outside of marriage and 88% think the cloning of humans is "morally wrong".
It's as if many of these people get their morals from a 2000 year old game of broken telephone rather than modern philosophy or ethics
kahrahtayAug 9, 2010
i see what u did thar
zippy757Aug 9, 2010
Title is wrong...it' not 4 issues, it's 4 'moral' issues.
Also, without age sub-categories, the data is interesting, but useless. These is a very great difference in the options of old folks like myself on some of the moral issues and those of the younger generations, say those in the 40 and 50's, and the youth in their 20's+30's.
The character of the country changes as time goes on.
princeamorAug 9, 2010
If you were 50 I would have told you to get off digg... but since your 83, That's awesome!!!
benroyAug 9, 2010
How about just being a logical, compassionate and objective person and doing what's best for everyone?
One rule: Do unto others as you would have others do unto you. [Matthew 7:12] For you god-fearing folk.
hipmanAug 9, 2010
Would you have a baby out of wedlock?.
Closed AccountAug 9, 2010
Do you see that as better or worse alternative than an abortion?
paranor01Aug 9, 2010
My mother did, and didn't regret it.
And I am who I am, bastard and all. Children & wedlock have always been a religious issue, not a human one.
fuhgetabotitAug 9, 2010
lol, like for the most part people choose to do that, people have sex and s**t happens...
acknotswAug 9, 2010
Actually Paranor01, I think it is more rooted in laws around inheritence and in the case of nobility, rights to titles.
paranor01Aug 9, 2010
Have to go further back than that. Where did the notion of property come from? Granted I am not fully read on the subject, but from what I can understand it started with religion.
johnfluxAug 9, 2010
> One rule: Do unto others as you would have others do unto you.
Mmm, is this pretty much a justification for being gay? :-D
benroyAug 9, 2010
Shut the f**k up.
Idiot.
kageryuAug 9, 2010
God? Who is this "God?" Is he/she some kind of dictator? Oh? Maybe you mean, the Godfather? The Italian Mafia is taking over the U.S.?
7jbdwAug 9, 2010
People just have trouble following this rule because they cannot (or refuse not to) put themselves in someone elses' shoes.
Joe Hillbilly from West Virginia cannot see himself in love with another man (openly) and therefore does what his pastor tells him and pickets gay weddings.
dushAug 9, 2010
It's not putting yourself in someone else's shoes. It's putting someone else in your shoes. Treating someone else how you want to be treated.
A subtle but important difference and actually a surprisingly selfish mindset. You're only being asked to think about what you would want.
7jbdwAug 9, 2010
Oh, I wasn't saying that particular (or any) bible verse was good, I was just saying people don't follow their own rule
impsethAug 9, 2010
I haven't read the article yet, but I call Pot begin one of those issues.
acknotswAug 9, 2010
As badly as I want to see pot legalized, I don't think it is a major issue in most people’s minds. If they only knew how much we spend yearly on pursuit, prosecution, and incarceration over a naturally occurring plant, not to mention the array of connected crimes and violence........
tiakAug 9, 2010
"It's safe to say abortion and same-sex marriage will be the two defining issues in upcoming political elections."
No, no it isn't. Just because people disagree on them does not make them important issues in this, or any other race in particular... They probably are going to be mostly ignored this race because nobody on either side really thinks that talking about abortion of same sex marriage is getting anywhere.
The numbers to which they refer were apparently talking about gay sex rather than gay marriage btw, which aren't exactly equivalent questions.
entropyfanAug 9, 2010
Unfortunately, for the conservative Christian right, those 2 topics are a litmus test.
I heard many interviews during the Presidential Election where people who really didn't like McCain were going to vote for him on the issue of abortion alone.
No other topic mattered.
acknotswAug 9, 2010
I agree (for now) on same sex marriage because it's usually not brought up, so most people don't know how the candidates they are choosing between feel on the subject. Abortion on the other hand is a make or break position for a lot of voters on either side and it would only take a few seconds to find out how a candidate felt on the subject if it was a voting issue for them.
zenmojoAug 9, 2010
People don't know how cloning works.
dushAug 9, 2010
The defining issue will always be money.
yellowsnowconeAug 9, 2010
If Digg is any barometer, I would say these are the top divisive issues:
1. Immigration
2. Gay marriage
3. Hatred of Islam
Interestingly, all touch upon Equal Protection under the law, while the Islamic issue touches upon both Equal Protection and religious freedom.
quadeAug 9, 2010
I would lump those all together under intolerance -- intolerance of race, religion, and orientation. Immigration is bad if it's Mexicans, but fine if it's Canadians or Europeans. Gay marriage is just a way to openly be intolerant of homosexuals in general. Hatred of Islam is "justifiable" since we were attacked by people claiming to be Muslim, but it's really just intolerance of non-Christian religion at the heart of it.
It seems like the attitude is that America is a melting pot, but only if I like all the ingredients.
hipmanAug 9, 2010
You don't have to like it support those things.
fuhgetabotitAug 9, 2010
All with one great sub issue underlying them...
Religious Ignorance.
Stop that and all of it fixes itself.
kent1146Aug 9, 2010
It is all ignorance that is the problem, not just religious ignorance. There are plenty of athiests that are f**king retarded, too. The religiously ignorant just happen to use their religion as a way to try and justify their stupidity.
strfxAug 9, 2010
@fuhgetabotit: Religious ignorance plays into it, but it's more. As quade said, few people here object to immigration from Europe, unlike from Mexico. And that's even though Europeans are more likely to be atheists than Mexicans.
That said, Asian chicks are hot and we need more of them here!
norman619Aug 9, 2010
FTA:
"Almost half the country says that doctor-assisted suicide is morally acceptable, on the flipside, half the country also says it's morally wrong. It's a sharp contrast to unassisted suicide, where 77% of the country agree that it's morally wrong."
I will never understand this. If someone decides to end their lives who are we to tell them they have to keep on living a life they deem unbearable? As long as they don't hurt other when they take themselves out I see no problem with it. Most of the arguments against this are emotional and selfish ones which but the emotional needs of other before the person who has decided life is no longer worth living.
acknotswAug 9, 2010
There are usually underlying mental problems when an otherwise healthy person decides they don't want to live anymore. In those cases, I would consider intervention appropriate.
Now, if they are cured or otherwise found to be of sound mind and they still want to die, they should be allowed to drop a quarter into the nearest suicide booth and choose evisceration if that is their wish.
norman619Aug 9, 2010
I am obviously not talking about the people who have obvious mental issues. I'm talking about people like you and I who are of sound mind. The mentally ill should be protected from themselves obviously.
acknotswAug 9, 2010
Obviously, I didn't find it obvious at all.
temmAug 9, 2010
I like how the 4 top issues that divide the US, and likely many other countries, are the issues that no one, not even the government, has any right to control. All of those issues should be up to the individual (or individuals in the case of same sex marriage). I don't presume to have any right to tell someone when/if they are allowed to die, have an abortion, get married or bump uglies without protection before getting married.
Closed AccountAug 9, 2010
I foresee in the next decade that politics in the US will slowly shift to those who are religious vs those who are not. We are close already but those of the religious continue to attempt denial that religion is the basis for their claims. This is very problematic fo the US for the very ideas on which it was founded which attempted to keep secularity and politics very distant.
Lines will be drawn. The people will separate. Blood may be spilled. This is a very dark period I the US. Either you can choose to reason with logic and consideration for the betterment of all or you can let this country fall to the ignorants that choose to rule on faith of their own and betterment of those who 'believe.'
This s**t isn't about politics anymore. It isn't up to any single person to make the decision which way this country goes either. However, if you want a US that was founded for people of all nationalities that have come together as one to live in hardship or in prosperity for the betterment of the country as a whole, you can't choose to to rule with religion. You can't choose to deny some people rights because they don't agree with your beliefs. Fairness is a requirement, not a hope!
marlboromobAug 9, 2010
All four of these "issues" pale in comparison to the battle over how toilet paper should hang on the roller.
(spoiler: the correct answer is "hanging over")
emjayseaAug 9, 2010
Some of the new rolls are so big that I have to have my roll hang from the back (they all hang "over," btw). By hanging it from the back, when pulled upon the roll rotates out and away from the wall.
iatethecrayonAug 9, 2010
it should drape over the top and HANG DOWN otherwise its just a f**king mess...
marlboromobAug 9, 2010
There is no other option, as far as I'm concerned.
iatethecrayonAug 9, 2010
who the hell would digg me down? Are those people insane???
emjayseaAug 9, 2010
Is it just me or are these "issues" just diversions from the real problems we are facing? How many straight people would be affected adversley by same sex marriages?
askantikAug 9, 2010
But... but... you don't understand! Those queers would ruin society with their evil fouling of my holy marriage! And also I fear for their eternal souls that will burn in hell!
... /s
dushAug 9, 2010
I think most people against gays are not worried that a gay person would do something to them personally. But rather they worry about their impressionable children being told that gayness is ok. Most parents are sticklers about wanting to have control over their children and know that some other influence isn't undercutting them as parents.
emjayseaAug 10, 2010
Well they're not ok. Except the ones I know personally. Those ones seem alright.
;)
phelyxAug 9, 2010
Seems there's really only one:
1) Religion
hetmanAug 9, 2010
I can understand the abortion argument. If you actually beleive that as person is alive as soon as the egg is fertilized then I can see why you would be against abortion. However the other three are none of your business. They do not affect you. If I want to have a child out of wedlock, marry someone of the same sex, and have a Euthanize myself as long as I am of sound mind I should be able too.
richmomzAug 9, 2010
All of these issues have one thing in common though: the federal government has no Constitutional authority over any of them.
buzzfriendlyAug 9, 2010
It should be titled "Issues that should not be issues"
These issues are personal issues. They should not divide anyone because they only impact the people with the issue. Anything else and your simply sticking your nose in someone else business rather than dealing with your own issues.
lamadave222Aug 9, 2010
Assume: exercising my rights does not harm another directly. The only issue that matters is whether you can abrogate my rights. If the answer is "depends," then we have a problem.
Closed AccountAug 9, 2010
"having a baby outside of wedlock" ... ??????
The other three I can understand, but no one with a functioning brain thinks unmarried women having babies is a good idea. If you can find anyone who thinks it's a good idea, I'll guarantee you they're an idiot.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
temmAug 9, 2010
Why isn't it a good idea? Maybe its a couple who doesn't believe in marriage, maybe its a self reliant single woman that wants a child, but doesn't want to find a guy to get married to right now. There are tons of good reasons that a child might be born out of wedlock, that aren't bad reasons.
Now there is the problem of teenage pregnancy, and women having babies before they are ready, but this is NOT a problem for the government to figure out, nor should there be any rules against it. This is an issue for the person thats dealing with it, or their parents depending on how old they are.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
hetmanAug 9, 2010
I do not think it is that bad as long as there is a father are in there lifes. Being a single parent be it a father or a mother is going to be much harder than having both parents there. However marriage is not needed. Some people are fine living with one another with out the title of marriage.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
rwhittak3Aug 9, 2010
There's a difference between something "not being a good idea" and something being "morally wrong". While I agree that in *most* circumstances, having a child out of wedlock may not be the best idea, I see no reason why it is morally wrong.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Closed AccountAug 9, 2010
...of course you don't.
rwhittak3Aug 9, 2010
Says the guy who doesn't know the difference between "stupid" and "immoral".
temmAug 9, 2010
The fact of the matter is that it being a good idea or not is up to the INDIVIDUAL to decide. If a person feels they are ready to have a child, married or no, no one else has ANY right to tell them they shouldn't, or even worse pass laws preventing them from doing so.
Closed AccountAug 9, 2010
...they didn't teach critical thinking skills in your school Sparky? So what's it like going through life in a moral fog?
temmAug 9, 2010
Your morals or mine? My morals tell me to keep my nose out of peoples business unless it affects me. People not getting married before or even after having a kid has absolutely no affect on my life. And before you make the argument that people having kids out of wedlock could become a strain on social security or welfare, let me point out the fact that married couples are on welfare and pumping out kids for the sole purpose of gaming the system.
Closed AccountAug 9, 2010
It's almost funny how these four things are intertwined.
A baby, obviously conceived to a non gay couple, requests assisted suicide (abortion) because he doesn't want to grow up a bastard of un married parents
Closed AccountAug 9, 2010
It's almost funny how these four things are intertwined.
A baby, obviously conceived to a non gay couple, requests assisted suicide (abortion) because he doesn't want to grow up a bastard of un married parents
volfie99Aug 9, 2010
Those topics don't bother me at all. What bothers me and what is truly dividing the nation is bats**t crazy right wingers who drum up hyper-emotionalism over serious topics for their own selfish purposes. Once we get right of those Digg-Patrioting douchebags, the country won't feel so divided anymore.
nickymouseAug 9, 2010
Like global warming
shoesh1neAug 9, 2010
And all four are issues people should deal with on their own (or with other people involved).
These topics shouldn't affect politics.
Closed AccountAug 9, 2010
People keep saying if you keep religion out of politics it will solve these issues, but what that basically means is keep the people with different moral values out of politics. Everyone has their own moral code to live be, whether you attain that from religion or make up your own it doesn't matter. But society must agree on what is right and what is wrong. The person who gets their morals from religion is not less worthy of political opinion than the person who came up with their own.
oninboninAug 9, 2010
Knock knock.
Who's there?
None ya.
None ya who?
None ya f**kin business is what these issues are to me.
busybusyAug 9, 2010
The girl on the left needs to reevaluate her shoe size. Your heel and toes shouldn't hang over.
volfie99Aug 10, 2010
Global warming is dividing the country? the opinions about global warming are dividing the country? Or the rising sea water is gonna travel up the Mississippi river valley and literally divide the country in two?
gerrykAug 10, 2010
More people believe that the death penalty is morally OK than believe that people should wear fur? WTF?