Home > liberal hypocrisy, liberalism, liberals, marriage > Study: Children of Unmarried Parents Worse Off Claim Researchers

Study: Children of Unmarried Parents Worse Off Claim Researchers

From NPR
8/16/2011

As more and more U.S. couples decide to have children without first getting married, a group of 18 family scholars is sounding an alarm about the impact this may have on those children.

In a new report out on Tuesday, they say research shows the children of cohabiting parents are at risk for a broad range of problems, from trouble in school to psychological stress, physical abuse and poverty.

The study is put out by the National Marriage Project and the Institute for American Values, groups whose missions include strengthening marriage and family life. It suggests a shift in focus is needed away from the children of divorce, which has long been a preoccupying concern for such scholars.

Brad Wilcox, a report co-author and head of the National Marriage Project, says divorce rates have steadily dropped since their peak in 1979-80, while rates of out-of-wedlock childbearing have soared. Forty-one percent of all births are now to unwed mothers, many of them living with — but not married to — the child’s father. – Continued here with audio

So once again, the Bible is proved true, including where it commands rapists to marry a virgin they rape. Can you figure out why now? And for you who say, “AWWW OOOOOH OH MY GOD WHAT ABOUT THE WOMAN’S RIGHTS!?” You’re forgetting the study just mentioned, forgetting that such a law would be to the benefit of the child, especially in the culture of the world at that time (especially if the rapist learned his lesson by not running away, or just paying some small fine or some other inadequate compensation or God letting him be free to decide, “I’ll just kill her or the baby to get away with what I did.” During those times (and still among many Orthodox Jews and many millions of Muslims), women were discriminated against if they were thought to be adulterous and that the Israelites were in a barren desert, and were going to wander there for 40 years. And how many men today would want to marry a woman with a child not there own or from a racist? So it’s in favor of the woman. And as for “rights”, what “rights”? The concept of human rights developed from ancient Greek Sophists (ever heard of “sophistry”?) who claimed that all humans were equal, which is a false statement. Physically, they are not equal: women are at a disadvantage because of their strength and are not as aggressive as men in general, and in my opinion, it’s apparent that they are not as innovative, at least not in the same way men are. The lesser innovation ability is due to the way God programs female minds and how he programmed their DNA in my opinion, or God programmed them in general to me innovative at other things, like weaving, cleaning and visual design. For those who argue, “So God lets you rape virgins and you don’t have to pay for it?” I’d say you didn’t study the link or listen to the law if you read it and didn’t read or forgot the points I just made: Deuteronomy says he must be fined and stay with her for life as her husband. And how many times do you think anyone can get away with rape if they keep having to pay fines? The law also suggests that the rape victim has the full right to accuse the one who raped her of having raped her without penalty, unlike in the Quran, or Muslim law, or Muslim tradition, in which it’s a heavy and dangerous burden for a woman to accuse anyone of anything. And God, as Bible-haters know, who’ve bothered to study the Bible in general well, records every evil (and good) act a person does, and if a person isn’t forgiven of their sins – if Jesus hasn’t suffered and died for their past and future sins – they will pay the penalty of eternal pain, limited movement and limited company, forever, for every rape they committed, besides all their other sins.

Some idiotic and simpleton replies to the article I found, no doubt from liberals, were:

“No preconceived notions or bias, I’m sure.”

I thought someone would say that. So then is a homosexual automatically biased if he or she says, “Homosexuality is good” or finds that gay marriage is good or when they say that gay marriage is equal to straight marriage, or when a father of a raped 13 year old demands she kill the baby “so you can feel better”? Is it biased when a mainstream scientist, liberals who trust in them or atheists make claims in favor of the Big Bang, abiogenesis, Darwinian evolution, or anything in such a way that it says or implies that the Bible is false, that creationism is false, that intelligent design is false or that Christians are wrong for believing whatever Christ says, or anything at all, or that he even existed? It’s as dumb as saying that if a Counsel on Single Life did the study and found marriage was less beneficial than being single that they were biased too. The idiot is just speculating and it’s poor speculation since he’s merely judging by the name of the group that did the study.

Another liberal poop reply was, “I’m sure More proof that gay marriage would be beneficial to the same sex parented families.”

That’s as stupid as saying that if someone found “eating salmon raw is beneficial” that therefore eating Puffer fish/fugu raw was good too”. The moron liberal took the research out of context. It was on straight couples, not gay. And why did he capitalize “more”? Weird.

Related Information:

National Marriage Project Study Information
Are Married Parents Really Better for Children?
Rape in the Bible
A correlation between homosexuality and violence

Advertisements
  1. No comments yet.
  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: