blank'/> Liberally Lean From The Land Of Dairy Queen: Illegitimacy Is The New Norm

2.27.2012

Illegitimacy Is The New Norm


I've been seeing references to a recent New York Times article about the current trend of births in the U.S. to women out of wedlock. Wow, now I know why: "More than half of births to American women under 30 occur outside marriage."


From a racial background, 73 percent of black children are born outside marriage, compared with 53 percent of Latinos and 29 percent of whites.


I learned about that NYT article today at lunch while skimming through the new Time.  Since we're talking about changing trends, look at this graphic about interracial marriage. 




It ain't Leave It To Beaver anymore. 


48 comments:

Anonymous said...

Man, that is a lot of sex in mixed flavors! I blame it on texting school teachers.

My Other Brother Darryl

wordkyle said...

"Researchers have identified the rise in single-parent families (especially mother-child families) as a major factor driving the long-term increase in child poverty in the United States." Source.

The Democrats' "Great Society" experiment of the last 50 years is really showing results, isn't it?

Anonymous said...

Does the left see this as a problem or are you bragging?

BigTex said...

Is there really any wonder why this country is in such bad shape?



Filthy liberals.

Anonymous said...

It's "Leave It To Buh-wheat" society.

DF Stimey

Anonymous said...

Well, look on the bright side, the demand for tanning salons should decrease dramatically in the near future.

Anonymous said...

A major reason for the increase in poverty.

Three things you can do to avoid living in poverty:

1. Graduate High School
2. Don't have children until you are 20 or older.
3. Don't have children before you're married.

Anonymous said...

Imagine that.

The truth will get you called a racist.

Anonymous said...

The unmarried women with two kids from two different dads are the best. Talk about not learning a lesson. You can't fix stupid.

Anonymous said...

And those unwed mothers are the ones that burden the welfare system and our uninsured medical system the most. Ridiculous. Can you imagine the positive impact that eliminating all the unwed mothers and "baby-daddies" would have on those systems?

Triple Fake... said...

the little basterdz!

About half of all marriages end in dee-vorce anyway, right? The good news is lots of those kids don't come from broken homes

Anonymous said...

wordkyle, you think people just started being born out of wedlock in the last 50 years?

BigTex, you have to be a parody, or just trolling. Otherwise, it sure would be fun to beat the shit out of a pissant like you.

I think I'll forward your profile and a few quotes to a few Army buddies of mine. If you're really the guy in the picture and really are a contractor, you won't be for long.

Rage

Katy Anders said...

The "out of wedlock" part, without more, does not say much. I mean, the children could be born to unmarried couples who still comprise a household or something.

My suspicion (and I'm sure there's a study somewhere that would show this) is that those kids are being born to pretty darn young, low income girls and dad's not really part of the scene.

And the interracial stats... that just says something about assimilation. Seems like intermarriage would be a fairly good indicator of assimilation...

So... good and bad, I guess.

Anonymous said...

This is simple biology. Humans will produce children at the same ages they have produced children for thousands of years. The drive to pass on their genes is more powerful than laws or society's pressures. It will happen with or without marriage. People used to proposed marriage when they got horny, now that is not necessary. Just kill the baby through abortion or have it outside marriage. Yank it out except for the head and stick sissors in it's brain. Can we have another teacher today? Please Berry.

Anonymous said...

I think it's more like "leave it IN the beaver!"

Anonymous said...

11:56. That is good!!
'leave it I'm the beaver'. Funny! Haha

Anonymous said...

Rage has Army buddies, yeah right!!!!

Remote Controller said...

The Republicans had plenty of chances to repeal the "Great Society" from Johnson's era.

This was an inevitable turn for the U.S., It has been slowly going this way ever since the early 1900's with the greatest boon after the Great Depression.

We will continue to see this happen as long as people allow the Federal Government to decide on things that should be the local government's/ Church's/Not-For-Profit's decision.

Anonymous said...

I am not white, I am Cock Asian!!!

Old Timer said...

Good try, Wordkyle, but the article doesn't tie anything to the Democrats. Nothing has changed under the Republican control, like always, you just make baseless statements without anything to back them up. Nice try but it doesn't wash.

wordkyle said...

OT - You're right. It's the Democrat Party that instantly comes to mind when someone mentions family values, sex within the marriage, and two-parent households. (Sarcasm alert.) As Reagan said, "The Federal Government declared war on poverty, and poverty won." The Democrats today rail about poverty and racial injustice, yet that's what the Democrat programs implemented in the 1960s, and championed ever since, were designed to eliminate. Instead they created a class of government-dependent Americans and foster racial divisiveness and resentment. The experiment has failed.

Anonymous said...

Hey Rage,

That's not a photo of BigTex on his profile. Its a pic of Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom. Google their names. Still do not understand his motive for the use of that pic.

BigTex said...

Rage, I am a ghost. Some of your buddies have already murdered me. Filthy liberals.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ix1ZNe4Zrxw

Anonymous said...

Its those damned gays! Think what will happed if they get the right to marry!

Anonymous said...

The surest way to avoid poverty is buy an alarm clock and use it.

Anonymous said...

LMAO Wordkyle

Team Wordkyle here.

Don't waste your breath. THEY ARE SO VERY CLUELESS.

Anonymous said...

I think most are thinking why get married it will only end with a divorce. Not unusual to see people these days married 3 to 4 times and kids with multiple fathers & mothers...absolute stupidity and horrible morals...and drugs/alcohol! It is all in the devil's plan...many are headed to hell!

Anonymous said...

To know all you need to know about the United States of America, tune in to Maury and Judge Judy...

Anonymous said...

Rage,

Threats such as yours are illegal in public forums. In any case, I'm your daisy. I'll look forward to it.

Anonymous said...

First we take your jobs! And now we're taking your women!



Fake Sancho Villa!

Anonymous said...

Oldtimer - WORDY can't help himself. No originality in that guy - just his sources.

zzzzzzzzz

Anonymous said...

democrats best constituant is a person who cant read, and gets a government check, if your a dem the great society was a raging success.

Anonymous said...

It is clear that we have too many children born out of marriage and from broken marriages. Why, then, the resistance to providing and encouraging the use of contraceptives? Seems that might at least reduce the number of unwanted, poorly cared for and innocent children.

Anonymous said...

it has less to do with cantraceptives and more to do with the government programs paying to have more kids without a father

Anonymous said...

8:29;

Some people believe that contraception is immoral and antithetic to God's teachings. No one has ever suggested making them illegal.

At the same time, the President does have limitations on his power. He does not have the right to dictate to a private company what product they're going to provide for free.

Furthermore, neither the President nor the Congress have the right to tell a religious organization that they must subvert their own beliefs and mores.

Someone has the ability to purchase contraceptives any time they want to. Even if it's only a condom that costs $1. Buy them yourself.

wordkyle said...

829 - My "resistance" is not to contraceptives in and of themselves. It's to the Left's emphasis on contraceptives as some sort of solution. This bypasses the real question that screams to be asked, Should this person be having sex at all? Contraceptives are sold by the Left as a way to avoid the consequences of poor decisions. I believe that much more emphasis should be placed on teaching people how to make better decisions.

Katy Anders said...

@8:29: Actually, Rick Santorum HAS suggested that they be banned.

He made three rather incongruous statements in the same interview a few months back. It gets a lot of play these days in the media:

1. He wants to see Griswold v. Connecticut overturned (contraception case from 1968) specifically so that the states can determine whether they want to ban contraception.

2. He is not saying states SHOULD ban contraception, merely that they ought to be allowed to do so.

3. As a matter of faith, of course, he says he'd like to see contraception banned, but that's not why he wants to give the power to states to do so[?]. As president, he would also tell Americans how bad contraception is and advocate anti-contraception policies.

Is that advocating contraception bans? Well... yeah, pretty much. But I am still not convinced he's ever going to get the chance.

bordandstroked said...

Huh huh...you said beaver...huh huh

wordkyle said...

Katy - It's a leap to go from Santorum's personal opposition to contraceptives, and his belief that there should be no Constitutional right to them, to say he advocates their ban. To the contrary, he's repeatedly supported women's right to have contraception, just not a Constitutional right. He touts his vote (Title X) to subsidize them. From a Santorum CNN interview: "My position is birth control can and should be available." These are his actual stated positions, not the imaginary version spun by the Left.

Silly claims misstating Santorum's stance on birth control distracts from issues that ought to matter.

Katy Anders said...

I dunno, wordkyle. I think it's trying to have things both ways when he says that he both is personally opposed to their use and supportive of policies that would (incidentally) allow them to be banned.

It doesn't pass the smell test.

It DOES distract from other issues, but Santorum appears to be leaping into tangential issues and to be benefiting from it.

It's the old Ann Coulter tactic: Say something that is completely outrageous to get attention, and then when you get the attention, make it sound as though you really only intended to say something innocuous.

wordkyle said...

Katy - Nowhere does Santorum say he supports "policies" that would allow birth control to be banned. His consistent point has been that birth control is not in the Constitution, and is not a constitutional right. States would have the "right" to ban birth control, (similar to Justice Stewart's dissenting opinion in Griswold v Connecticut: such a law would be "an uncommonly silly law" but constitutional) but Santorum never advocates such a move. He explicitly states that birth control should be available to women. It's not "both ways;" he's been consistent.

Santorum's a politician. He knows that unless he fights the disinformation spread about his views that he'll get clobbered.

Katy Anders said...

wordkyle: needless to say, i'm not going to be voting for Santorum under any circumstances.

But the suggestion that his faith, his politics, and his personal interpretation of the Constitution all lead to the same result - even though he doesn't intend any of the three to affect the other two - is simply not believable.

There are lots of convincing individuals in the GOP. Some brilliant guys who can make a moon base sound reasonable. Santorum isn't one of them.

Anonymous said...

Thanks, Katy, for responding civilly to WK's myopic and slanted interpretations of his impotent (politically) candidate. Santorum has no general election chance. Romney only a marginal chance. The Republicans have made this bed, now they'll have to sleep in it (without contraception).

wordkyle said...

Katy - My point was not to convince anyone to vote for Santorum. It was to correct blatant mischaracterization of his position on birth control. Santorum's consistent points, which he's repeated: a) He's personally against using birth control; b) The states have the constitutional power to ban contraception,but shouldn't; c) Women should have access to birth control, which he is on record as voting for. To warp his on-the-record actions to try to demonize him is simply executing an agenda.

wordkyle said...

"slanted interpretations"? All I did was cite Santorum's quotes and votes. When you try to spin what's on the record to claim the exact opposite, that seems a little slanty itself, wouldn't you say? It's the Jay Carney school of debate - "You gonna believe me, or your lyin' eyes?"

Katy Anders said...

wordkyle: C'mon. You're demonstrating the very definition of a blind partisan. You're ignoring the plain meaning of the words a candidate says because it's uncomfortable. The candidate says that blue is green, so by gum, you're going to convince yourself it is so.

I actually prefer Santorum to Romney - who a few corporate billionaires chose before voting began and are now trying to pawn off on skeptical Republican rank and file.

As an aside, I don't know what my agenda is on Catholicism or contraception... Hmm...

Anonymous said...

Santorum is an unfortunate joke (on the Republicans). As Romney says, he's a business lightweight. He's also an intellectual micro-weight. Further discussion of his pandering positions is useless.

wordkyle said...

Katy, you're way smarter than me. When a candidate has voted to subsidize birth control, says women have a right to access birth control, and that birth control should be available -- well, I just have trouble believing he wants to ban birth control.

You, however, are smart enough to ignore a person's specific words and voting history to determine that he will do the exact opposite of what he's done in the past.

As I said, that's way smarter than I care to be.