Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Sex and Relationships

Contraception Saves Money and Marriages

By Cristina Page, TomPaine.com. Posted December 21, 2006.


Family planning has led to seismic change in our society, but not the kind of change the religious right would have you believe.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

Listen to the apocalyptic rhetoric of the religious right and you'll find an important theme emerge: The introduction of contraception, which permits people to have sex for fun, is bound up with all of society's ills, from the imagined breakdown of the family to an undocumented surge in crimes against children. It's a cornerstone of right-wing thinking. And, no doubt, it's also the reason that not one pro-life group in the U.S. supports the use of contraception even though it's the only proven way to prevent abortion.

Sadly, most Americans seem afflicted by some strain of this prejudice. If they credit the pro-choice, birth control movement for anything, it's for the dubious honor of protecting vice. Planned Parenthood has never been tagged as a pro-family values group. A greater oversight has never been made.

The religious right is right in this: Birth control is the source of seismic change. Family planning has led to a transformation of our society so rapid we've only recently had the occasion to take stock. For example, the past century has actually witnessed a steep decline in extramarital affairs as a result, it would seem, of the very changes that drive the pro-lifers wild: The more lengthy and thoughtful trying-out of marriage partners in combination with greater candor about sexual desires within marriage.

Studies conducted in 1948 and 1953, found that 26 percent of women and a whopping 50 percent of men had an extramarital sexual experience. But today, in our sex- and sin-saturated culture, the number of married people who have had an extramarital affair has plummeted to 6 percent of women and 10 percent of men, according to (conservative) Ben Wattenberg in his book The First Measured Century. (Editor's note: Statistics show a wide variation in the percentage of extramarital affairs, as high as 55 percent of women and 60 percent of men.)

Preaching about faithfulness didn't lead to this family value upgrade. Rather, the uptick in fidelity today is the result of a society that accepts our sexual urges as natural and couples that can look within marriage for fulfillment of desires once branded indecent. (It is also this belief system that supports gay marriage and the children that result from it. To us, family is so important we believe everyone has a right to make one.)

Another truth is that when the birth control revolution got underway, women waited to marry and start a family. In 1970, the average age of a new mother was 21 years old. By 2000, the average age was 28. Harvard researchers recently reported that legalization of contraception is directly linked to the spike in the number of women becoming more highly educated and entering the "career" professions. In 1970, 5 percent of all lawyers and judges were women; today there are six times that. In 1970, one in 10 physicians was female, today it's one in three. Similar patterns are true for women architects, dentists, veterinarians, economists and women in most of the engineering fields.

Few women today would trade places with the typical 1950s woman and mother, the one fervently idealized by so-called "pro-family" groups. In the 1950s, women didn't approach parity with men in education and, guess what, their housework time was constant -- despite having new "time-saving" technologies. This was the era in which birth rates soared and doubled the time devoted to child care. And with women assigned to endless tasks of the home, men shouldered the full responsibility of supporting the family economically. One dire consequence was that one in four Americans in the mid-1950s lived in poverty. By the end of the 1950s, one in three American children lived in poverty.

Not surprisingly, researchers in the '50s found that less than one in three married couples reported being happy or very happy with their relationship. Compare that to today, when 61 percent of married Americans report themselves to be "very happy" in their marriage. Part of the sour spouse problem of the '50s was that many couples didn't really want to be married to each other. Often, they were trapped into marriage by unintended pregnancy. With no sex-ed, no birth control, no legal abortion -- the exact legislative agenda of today's pro-life movement! -- teen birth rates soared, reaching highs that have not been equaled since: there were twice as many teen mothers in the '50s than today.

Postponing or planning marriage and children have allowed women to get a foothold in the workforce. And this has led to important benefits: They have made their families wealthier. Today, the rate of poverty is half what it was in the 1950s. In fact, now if a husband is the sole breadwinner the family is four times more likely to be poor than one in which the wife brings home an income too. Dual income homes earn nearly two-thirds more than that of families in which the husband alone works. Consequently, the percentage of children living in poverty has decreased 50 percent since 1959. Money may not be everything. But it's something.

Today, more husbands count on their wives to bring home a significant share of the family wealth; nearly one in four women now earn more than their husbands. With this, men have options to leave a negative work environment, change careers, take more career risks and be more involved, indeed better, fathers than ever before. You'd never know this if you listened to the so-called pro-family groups set on convincing us that the way we live now is tearing our country apart. Because of the pro-choice movement's efforts, we now have a true Family Man, the very one the right wing seems to still be looking for.

Men have as much at stake as women (if not more) with the religious right's intensifying attacks against family planning. A University of Michigan study found that children's time with their fathers increased significantly only in families in which the mother worked outside the home. Fathers today spend much more time with their children than '50s fathers -- a difference of more than one hour each day. And most, by the way, are aware of this difference. Eighty-four percent report that they spend more time with their kids and get more joy out of fatherhood than their fathers did.

So much joy that the vast majority of men, 72 percent, say they would sacrifice pay and job opportunities for more time with their families. Dads today are even more affectionate with their children: 60 percent hug their school-aged kids every day and 79 percent of fathers tell their children they love them several times a week. States James Levine, who heads the Fatherhood Project. "Children whose fathers are involved with them show better education achievement, fewer problems in school, and they're better off socially."

So much for the break-up of the family caused by sexual liberation and pro-choice, pro-birth control movement. Just the opposite is true. The family is more financially secure, and more enjoyed than ever before. And what better family value is there than valuing the family?


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: abortion, family planning, birth control

Cristina Page is the author of, How the Pro-Choice Movement Saved America (Perseus Books, 2006) and a spokesperson for Birth Control Watch.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Sex and Relationships! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
ghost
Posted by: rsaxto on Dec 21, 2006 1:23 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The religious right is the ghost of Stupidity Past and the destroyer of Environment Future. The more people think for themselves the less they will believe propaganda and the more they will believe truth which is the real creator of decency.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: ghost Posted by: willymack
Why no mention of overpopulation?
Posted by: colinmeister on Dec 21, 2006 4:15 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Contraception is essential to prevent the human species from running out of food and other natural resources due to overpopulation.

The only reason I can see for the American right to want unchecked population expansion is to generate a ready supply of cannon fodder to attempt to impose the will of a fundamentalist christian United States upon every other country on earth.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

at last...
Posted by: xenacat on Dec 21, 2006 5:02 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
an article that strips away the fabulous fifties fantasy about family life and marriage. The right wing religious fanatics actually care nothing about family - never have and never will. It is all about consolidation of earthy power in the hands of a few old alpha males. The signs are encouraging that the religous fanatics reign of terror just might be drawing to a close. I certianly hope so...we can't be so stupid as to allow it to continue and we can't allow ourselves into being fooled about progressives having the minority view on free access to birth control, etc. anymore.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: at last... Posted by: VannaLaRoche
» The way it REALLY was Posted by: mirimac
» RE: The way it REALLY was Posted by: hagwind
Why have kids?
Posted by: danielgeery on Dec 21, 2006 5:23 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Anyone pondering this topic might be interested in an article I recently wrote,
Why have kids?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I'm not sure about some of these stats...
Posted by: Jasonix on Dec 21, 2006 5:38 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This article mentions that fewer people live in "poverty" than in the past, but that's just statistical slight-of-hand. The wage-level considered "poverty" hasn't been updated in years - we have plenty of people who aren't "in poverty" who are making $7.50 per hour and pulling out their teeth with pliers because they can't afford to go to a dentist. That makes me wonder about the rest of the author's "statistics."

I agree totally with the author's point. But let's be careful with some of these "statistics."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Not only... Posted by: Leman
Ray Teurfs
Posted by: Raybo on Dec 21, 2006 6:17 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It seems AIDS must have something to do with the statistics on extramarital affairs. Where's this in the analysis? Hey, I'm liberal, but rational, too.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Variety of reasons Posted by: Leman
Planned Parenthood history?
Posted by: wichi on Dec 21, 2006 6:38 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I remember seeing a poster exhibit that talked about how Planned Parenthood in the 1940s began promoting itself as a family organization --- that its services helped all members of the family. On the group's Web site, I couldn't find anything except that in 1942 it adopted Planned Parenthood Federation of America as its name, after being called the Birth Control Federation of America. The poster on the timeline is similar to the ones I remember --- Mom, Dad and three kids standing under the new name. A little farther down on the timeline there's a note that The Sanger Bureau established a fertility service in 1945.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

sex for fun for who?
Posted by: ifyousayso on Dec 21, 2006 7:17 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Fundamentalists don't have a problem with men having sexual fun and pleasure. It's women's sexual pleasure/desire that scares them. The uterus is THE means of production, and should be controlled, not only for each man's turf, but for every man's group turf (honor killings, national/ ethnic pride, "religious" adherence).
I saw a great documentary on how movies are rated and who does the rating. Turns out it's Focus-on-the-Family types who are NOT representative, and the censorship of women's pleasure is the #1 effect. You can see grotesque violence or a guy's a** pumping away, a still get a R rating, but throw in shots of a woman's face during orgasm or the sounds she makes and the X rating is a given. Or her side of the pleasure is cut out (FGM, anyone?). This is artistic and economic blackmail for the filmmaker, and brainwashing for the public. It de-naturalizes women's pleasure, the better to define/control it commercially. Fundamentalists of all stripes are afraid of women's sexuality and characterize it as storms, floods, wild horses, devilish, you name it. Perhaps what they really fear is their natural need for mutual connection in opposition to their "worthiness" paradigm of hierachy and control.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: sex for fun for who? Posted by: bouyant
» RE: sex for fun for who? Posted by: Ocean tides
bring on birth control!
Posted by: Julia Cat on Dec 21, 2006 7:36 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Cristina Page has it so right. The days of shotgun marriages and huge families are over. Yet the Bush Administration keeps throwing money away on abstinence-only sex ed and cutting budgets for family planning. Thanks, alternet, for running this story.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Apples and oranges
Posted by: MartianBachelor on Dec 21, 2006 7:51 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm not sure about those stats saying affairs are way down, but one thing is sure: nowadays people tend to get divorced rather than have affairs.

If contraception is such a Good Thing (like higher wages, free daycare, etc) shouldn't it be mandatory?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Apples and oranges Posted by: Ocean tides
» Mandatory Posted by: Leman
» RE: Apples and oranges Posted by: morticia
A Very Confused Writer
Posted by: faultroy on Dec 21, 2006 8:06 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This writer makes the most absurd comments and draws ludicrous conclusions. Let me enumerate...
Her thesis is that the Religious Right has it all wrong. Their (the Right) position on Birth Control is actually contrary to the best interests in society.
1) She begins by citing a comparison of 1950's era stats on extra marital affairs indicating that we have less extra marital affairs and then citing studies which show more extra marital affairs!!!??? and then cites birth control as the reason that people are allowed to "try one another out?" There is no documentation to support such a bizarre theory. 2) Even the 1950s were very hard on families. The average man worked about 60-70 hours and the majority of men had very physical jobs. In those days, men and family were looked upon in different ways. Therefore I don't doubt only one in three people interviewed said that they were either happy or very happy. However the fact that they did or did not make this statement can in no way be attributed to birth control--this is absurd and certainly unscientific.
3) "The Teen Birth Rate Soared... 2X as many teen mothers as today,"...well yes, but that is because in those days women got married and had kids!!! For tens of thousands of years, that is what all societies have done. It had nothing to do with birth control. Another factor was the servicemen coming out of World War Two created the Baby Boomers. There is no way one can compare the societal mores of those times with today's--it was a different mindset.
The teens of the 50's were almost all married, while the teens of today are single with no significant means of support other than society (welfare/ADC). 4) Society has gotten richer since the 50's...rate of poverty today 1/2 of what it was in the 1950s...well, this is probably true, but one has to remember that life was more rural while today it is more urban. True, people had less, but that is not to say that they starved. . Today, the average person owes $7.000 in credit card debt. Some economists would argue when you compare the amount of debt the average American has one could easily say that we are not as wealthy as we think. And, should someone loose their job, it is not at all unusual for them to loose everything they have.
5) Today if a husband is the sole breadwinner, he is 4x as likely to be poor as someone that has his wife working... Yes, it is true that a single income is competing with a dual income, but that would be an argument against the author's thesis. Today, the crime rate has increased a staggering amount since the 50's, they did not have latch key kids, the obesity, divorces,drugs, 3 million abortions a year, and many fathers do not live with their biological children. Women run single family households and without the government many would be destitute. We have more people in prison than any other country in the world. Psychobabalists say this is because of the breakup of the family and the lack of a Father figure in the household--so how does this support the author's thesis?
The conclusions of this author are totally and inexorably not only invalid but inane.
For many of us in this country, we agree with the Religious Right--even if we are not religious.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: A Very Confused Writer Posted by: goatini
» RE: A Very Confused Writer Posted by: bouyant
» RE: A Very Confused Writer Posted by: morticia
» RE: A Very Confused Writer Posted by: off-the-radar 2
The Catholic Church, Along With The "Religious Right," Opposes Contraception!!
Posted by: Douglas on Dec 21, 2006 8:33 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
But one would not know it from reading Christina Page's piece. Her focus seems to be exclusively on the situation in the US. However, on a global scale, it is the Catholic Church's opposition to birth contral, not the American"religious right," that is primarily responsible for overpopulation and the resultant massive malnutrition and starvation of infants in third world Roman Catholic countries. Failure to acknowledge this amounts to refusing to deal with the major cause of the problem. An interesting piece overall, though, despite these reservations.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The "Good old days" were terrible!
Posted by: CrystalD on Dec 21, 2006 9:14 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yes indeed, the "good old days" were not very good after all. Cristina Page's article points out why. Page doesn't mention it but many of her points were first made by Stephanie Coontz in "The Way We Never Were." Leave It To Beaver was always a myth.

One reason why adultery rates have gone down is that wives are now in a position to demand fidelity. Back in the "good old days" when men worked and women were dependent on their husband's income, and the only jobs they could get were nurse, teacher, or secretary - women HAD to put up with treatment they'd never put up with today. Men felt entitled to have a little bit of skirt on the side and wifey could do nothing about it. Today, wives with their own money and outside options have the credibility to say "Cheat on me and you're outta here, buster" and the pull to make it stick.

Another thing that Page doesn't mention is the sharp decline in spousal homicide and women's suicide rates. Why? Because of no-fault divorce and the growth of women's shelters. The oh-so-wonderful fifties didn't HAVE any women's shelters! A battered wife was told "what did you do to provoke him" or else was a "masochist." The only way out was to commit suicide or murder one's husband in a Burning Bed type killing.

Nowadays, thanks to unilateral divorce and the safety net of women's shelters, battered wives don't need to kill themselves or their husbands - so murder and suicide rates have fallen like a stone. Source: Betsey Stevenson and Justin Wolfers (2000): "Til Death Do Us Part: Effect of Divorce Laws on Suicide, Domestic Violence and Spousal Murder."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» The terrible fifties Posted by: zooeyhall
The Pope's Prophylactics
Posted by: cognitorex on Dec 21, 2006 9:41 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have this vision of acolytes preparing the Pope's food in the Vatican kitchens.
In this day and age they are appropriately wearing latex sheaths on their hands. Each finger is covered; ten little condoms for the Pope's oral hygiene.
But when it comes to genitalia..icky, icky...Pius and Paul...forswear protection in Christ's name...you'all.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

SusanQue
Posted by: Susan Quaintance on Dec 21, 2006 9:42 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's been clear to me for several years that the goal of fundamentalists in the US and worldwide is to keep women in barefeet, and pregnant - an old image from the 50's, at least. As one of those young women in 1960 who was pregnant and married (in that order), my life was changed by the advent of adequate birth control that I had control of - the pill in 1963 and the IUD in 1964. Three children was fine; 6 like my mother or 10 like my mother-in-law would have too, too many. I fear for my daughters and my granddaughters if the fundamentalists are successful in denying women appropriate and effective birth control.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Knowledge = growth; "old-tyme religion" = repression.
Posted by: monkeywrench on Dec 21, 2006 9:46 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Access to knowledge is the foundation for all human development; beware of any person or organization who tries to limit that access for the sake of any ideology or religion.

For example, long ago, Arabs gave the world some astounding intellectual gifts: the development of algebra, the concept of zero, astronomy, the ability to sail against the wind, which greatly expanded trade. However, today, intellectual and scientific development there is stalled, in part, by a reliance on fundamentalist religion and its bastard step-child, a draconian social order. Where else can you have your hand cut off for stealing a pack of gum? Or, if you are a woman, be beaten for simply not covering your head?

And a similar type of repressive order is what our own particular brand of religious right wants for us, mainly because they do not know how to handle their own impulses, and so they believe that no one else knows how either and thus, must be controlled. (Is it merely coincidence that the sexually-repressed Catholic church and the right wing of Congress have recently turned up so many pediphiles?)

The danger posed by religious fundamentalism goes 'way beyond the reproductive rights of women, to the question of what kind of society we want: one that continues to learn and grow and works toward perfecting the gift of our intelligence – or one that sinks to slavish obedience to the unworkable ideas of an obsolete and destructive ideology forced upon us by a powerful few.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Please use contraceptives
Posted by: dikaiosyne on Dec 21, 2006 10:09 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I sort of hope all you "progressives" continue to use contraceptives. Since you won't propagate enough "chillen" to replace yourselves as you grow and die off there will be less of your kind to deal with in the future. On the other hand people of faith will continue to "be fruitful and multiply" meaning more citizens growing up with better moral underpinings and therefore making better citizens. The one thing you left wing dipsticks should remember is that the "turd world" especially in Muslim nations continue to have large numbers of children who eventually would displace the secular and Christian west. Maybe you'd like to rethink your views on contraceptives in favor of having families? If nothing more than for the survival of the West and the Judeo-Christian ethic. Probably not since you're mostly committed to the cult of suicide.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Please use contraceptives Posted by: wheresarah
» Ah, another clueless bigot. Posted by: Lord Ichmael
» RE: Please use contraceptives Posted by: jdylarid
Of course.
Posted by: janvdb on Dec 21, 2006 12:09 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The fact that there are still people breathing who oppose contraception (like The Pope) is proof of just crazy and delusional the human brain can be.

What is wrong with people?

Here we are, at 6 bn plus, well past any sustainable population load the planet will support indefinitely at a "European" or "Japanese" (not the extravagant American) standard of living, responsibly estimated at 2 to 4 bn, and we still have blindered nutcases opposing the limitation of our numbers.

And one of them is the "leader" of the largest Christian denomination.

Lemmings have nothing on us.

Jan VanDenBerg

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Ah, another clueless bigot.
Posted by: Lord Ichmael on Dec 21, 2006 3:21 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Did you read the article? Infidelity is down, families are better off, and marriages are more inclined to work as a result of what you probably consider the Evil and Satanic contraceptives. It's funny. The Religious Right preaches a God that is a tyrannical dictator who's vindictive, bigoted, sadistic and gets murderously enraged when we do not devote our lives to hopelessly worshipping him and praying. And yes, I'm an infidel; the result of my blasphemous and Satanic unwillingless to believe anything that hasn't a shred of evidence backing it up, going to a Catholic primary school, and being forced to go to church every Sunday until I was about 10.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Yeah, that's right. Posted by: Lord Ichmael
» RE: Yeah, that's right. Posted by: yellow
SUCH HATE OVER THIS ISSUE?
Posted by: poppop_schell on Dec 26, 2006 8:29 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Perhaps the GREATEST gift that the TRUE God gave to mankind was to share with Him in the bringing up/nuturing of His spirit children. By husband and wife giving them physical bodies and helping us to learn the qualities of being a good parent. It is a scared calling to have and raise children unto our Heavenly Father. I am one who says DON"T have children if you aren't willing to sacrifice for another person(s) but wnat all the "good things" of life in abundance.

That said, the Mormon Church does NOT oppose contraceptives as a form of birth control. The number of children parents should sire is totally between them and God. The problem of choosing NOT to have children (as many as emotional, financial, etc constraints allow), is that one tends to put his/her life almost exclusively on obtaining material things rather than learning to give and sacrifice for the better of others. I.e a choice between selfishness vs selflessness. Jesus NEVER was selfish but was always serving others.

I find it interesting that many folks who don't want to bring children into this world (or to be socailly acceptable and limit themselves to two children) give much less in terms of their time and money to help others than do the horrible, backward Christians who place family and fidelity as important values. BTW, this latter comment is supported by solid research.

The Mormon Church does teach that sex outside the marriage bond is displeasing to God. Perhaps this is old fashioned concept to many on this list but I frankly find that "free sex" attitudes haven't improved our society... again is Free sex self centered behavior or are such acts done truly to please the other person emotionally and spiritually? Oh yes, it certainly does please physically. BUT IMO, the physical exclusively leads to great disastisfaction in the longer term.

So, can't we talk to each other rather then SCREAMING at each other?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: SUCH HATE OVER THIS ISSUE? Posted by: poppop_schell
dikaiosyne
Posted by: planet doomed on Dec 27, 2006 2:18 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
On the other hand people of faith will continue to "be fruitful and multiply" meaning more citizens growing up with better moral underpinings and therefore making better citizens.

Is it is only the church keeping you "more moral" and "better" than everyone else, don't you have any ethics of your own? The paedophile pit otherwise known as the church is not exactly a paragon of virture. Hypocrite much?

turd world

I thought jeeshus commanded you to love everybody. Don't you follow his teachings?

Maybe you'd like to rethink your views on contraceptives in favor of having families? If nothing more than for the survival of the West and the Judeo-Christian ethic.

You think white people are superior? But you've already demonstrated you're mean, stupid and evil.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: dikaiosyne Posted by: planet doomed
Religous Junk
Posted by: jmooney on Dec 28, 2006 4:24 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I can't see why we give so much weight to dogmatic religious people. What gives them the right to have so much input into what we as a society do? Oh, yeah, their sacred texts? But who says they are sacred? Oh, yeah, the texts do.

Poppycock!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Not enough
Posted by: undercover on Feb 3, 2007 11:57 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Dual income homes earn nearly two-thirds more than that of families in which the husband alone works."

If the parents are both working, shouldn't they be earning TWICE as much as single-income families? They would be if we had equal wages for men and women, living wages, and flexible working hours that allowed men and women to hold down good jobs and still spend some time with their kids. A lot has improved since the 1950s, but we still have a lot to work on before we can say we truly have a "pro-family" society.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement