harmony wrote:Darth J wrote:
I'm trying to figure out how Romney is wrong?
Harmony, as a single dad raising two kids, my response to your attempt to figure out how Romney is wrong is as follows:
Go f*** yourself.
harmony wrote: That doesn't explain how Romney is wrong.
I wasn't attempting to explain how Romney is wrong, as I mistakenly believed that where is he wrong would be self-evident to rational people. I was commenting on why you were wrong to accept his hysteria about single parenthood.
Romney's comment was that children in single-parent homes are less likely to finish high school or college. The premise of the statement is that single parents cannot raise children competently like dual-parent families can. But the relative success in life of kids who grow up in single-parent homes involves many other factors than the simple fact that only one parent is raising the children. Romney also throws out that assertion about "40% of children being born out of wedlock" as if that is equivalent to those children only being raised by one parent. Romney omits any mention of how many of these children do have two parents in the home even if those parents have not married each other. Nor does this statistic (the source of which he does not cite) account for children born to unwed parents who decide to marry after the baby is born.
He doesn't mention single parents who adopt, either. In Utah, for example, a single adult can adopt a child, but two unmarried adults who are cohabitating cannot. If the deck is so stacked against single parents and things are so much better for dual-parent homes, I wonder why Utah law would allow this (hint: it's to try preventing gay people from adopting children).
As the shamelessly venal political prostitute that he is, Romney is pandering to the socially conservative "Think of the children!" crowd by pitting single-parenthood as a threat to society, versus the implicit solution of "traditional marriage." Someone besides me has observed that someone coming from a Mormon background lecturing people about traditional marriage is like being lectured about loitering by a crack whore. But besides that, Romney is conflating single-parenthood with irresponsible parenting. There are many reasons why parents end up single. Not everyone who ends up divorced wanted to get divorced, for one thing. Sometimes widows or widowers are left with kids, too. Then there are people who find out a baby is on the way who want to marry the other parent to raise the child together, but that other parent is not willing to do so. And all of this is before we even delve into what it really means to be a "single" parent, since there are many divorced people who are still very involved with, and important in, their children's lives.
All of this is irrelevant to the presidency, anyway. There is nothing in Article II of the Constitution that entails the president defining or interpreting what marriage is, nor giving the president any authority to do anything about the alleged threat to our society about single parenthood. And although Charles Blow was not wise to phrase his response the way he did, Romney opened the door to it. Romney's remark was pure demagoguery to the religious right. When you are trying to persuade people to vote for you on the basis of your touted traditional religious values, you put your religious beliefs at issue. But then look at this richly hypocritical
response Romney gave about Blow's comment:
"I think it's going to wear very badly and the American people are not going to line up for that kind of, if you will, divisiveness and demonization of their fellow Americans." Oh, you mean like those fellow Americans who are probably going to abuse their kids and set them up for failure because the other parent is not around.
I really hope, though, that Romney's belief in the amalgam of Wicca, Scientology, and Protestantism to which he subscribes is not the basis for voters rejecting him. I would like to believe that the American people would aspire to a higher standard, and instead reject him for his utter dis ingenuousness and personal loathsomeness.