two income family faults

It’s shown that children like to learn from someone who has been there. They want structure from someone who they can understand. Once upon a time a boy learned side by side with his father. It was a sence of family, belonging, attention, and acceptance; that all children strive for in school. It’s just that children will do childish things to achieve this.

A father has a sence of logic and sterness to instill in children. I think this comes from thinking in action. While passivist thinkers plan ahead. Both types have to instill strict order into children so they can do it right without suffering the concequences of messing up.

A mother has perdominatly passivist thinker that has a sence of nerturing and human compassion. This comes from estrogin. When the world of mother and father colide, they are forced to compramise through tough decisions. Hence a role model of love that children have to reflect toward their own relationships.

Single parents have lost statistically in raising their kids. Two income families take second. A stay at home parent allows constant concious awareness in the development of the child. As we get more educated, this concious awareness does to. Yet the biggest problem is the lack of constructive motivation in children. They prefer temporary instant gratification with destructive long term side effects. Getting children involved in anything is imporatant. All you are is what you do in life. Hobbies and interrests just give you more to talk about in oyur social life.

Love & joy. the two most important spiritual fruits according to Jesus. Love = attention and acceptance. Being apart of the crowd. Or. being apart of a life in action. Being accepted for strengths. Finding self acceptance through a sence of accomplishment. This is the cure for drug problems and promiscuity used as just another drug.

***Don’t bring up the homosexuality complaints,… I’m sick of debunking the bias science that promotes it on faith of the unknown. It’s more likely unrealistic science then fact.

Your post is so full of generalities and assumptions I don’t even know where to start debunking your idiotic claims. I do find it funny how you give a disclaimer about biased science when you use the bible to back up your claims. Dunno if you’ve heard, but the bible is not science. It’s not even close.

The entire idea that “the father” is logical and active and that “the mother” is passive and emotional smacks of primitive Freudianism. But since you’re obviously unintelligent, I’ll stop here, in case the words I’ve been using have upset your mind. (That was an insult, btw.)

a bolsterous claim.

The bible has no proof? I’m not using the bible as proof. But I’m saying that any other lifestyle then what is biblical has a level of neglect that will lead to a down fall. Now I can prove this. So whitch biblical “belief” do you hate the most???

I can only answer you if you say something with substance. Lets assume your time is valuable and your mind would have to think to write out your ideology. But humor me, and maybe you can use what you write to copy and paste to all us ignorant Christians.

They have proven that men will have brains like women after taking estrogine pills and testosterone blockers. This will change the sections of the brain in order to make them bigger or smaller. This allows biasness toward gender spacifics allowing them to be a dirrectional force. Thus men and women are different by nature. Love between the sexes forces us to look beyond our bodily differences. Yet CBS news picks the scientists that are willing to say that it’s normal for homosexuals to be bias toward a sexual difference. They even said that homosexuals will come from mothers who have more then one son. That the younger son is exposed to a chemical that gives them antibodies to testosterone. Yet identical twins will have one be gay and one not. To them this means that they don’t yet understand why. Yet… no proof of an antibody haveing this cause and effect in people. And no proof of a selective chemical bathh that would effect one twin or another.

How is this science having bias assumptions. Psychology. Homosexuals are right brain dominate people. Thus their imagination side is dominate. Thus when they grow up, they define themselves in comparison to their older brothers. If their brother is an agressive personality, and they are passive agressive or agressive passive, they will imediatly feel different. Now the mother is more likely a passive personality, thus the child will bond differently with the mother then the brother. Thus they will be emasculated from birth.

Now what cause and effect will homosexual science blame to cause emasculation?.. Well it’s noted that as right brain dominate people they are less likely to be lawyers or mathmatical scientists. They will be theoretical scienists,… witch means they start with an assumption and try to prove it with parrellel facts. So they have noted that homosexuals will have an enlarged audio section of the brain. Well, As right brain dominate people they are likely to have an enlarged auditory section of the brain. Through conditioning, they may develope a photographic like audio memory. It is shown that dislexia is a visual memory that gives them problems with none visual things (math reading). So they probably have an enlarged visual section of the brain. Yet this wasn’t parrelleled to the gay thing because it wasn’t convienant. And just because you like music, it doesn’t mean your gay. So cause and effect isn’t forced by DNA or a chemical bath. It isn’t a choice. It’s a biasness of lifestyle. If you love someone you’d learn to love doing things for them. If you identify yourself with someone, you’ll be sypathetic to them, and be open to doing the things they do. You’d accept them and live bicariously through them. You’d use your imagination to hear them tell stories.

They did a study showing homosexuals react to same sex pharamones. Yet they omited bisexuals from this study. Bisexuals would have shown you can react to both pharamones equally. Yet this would mean a controlled cause and effect. Well did DNA cause your brain to biochemically react to pharamones? Or did you learn to associate pharamones with sex, and release endorphines at that memory. No one knows.

They even noted that homosexual males have extra physical memories in the sexion of the brain that has to do with ?sex? Yet I’m sure this is 100% conditioned. Yet that was never even mentioned. Your willing to admit that the mother can become conditioned to having male children (I’m sure it helps ease the child bearring tolls),… but your unwilling to admit that homosexuals can become conditioned to being homosexual. If you fill your section of the brain with only one kind of memory, then every time you have a sexual impulse, your brain will bring up these memories. Witch brings to subject, homosexuals are more likely to be child molestors then straights (by percent). Witch shows that all it takes is trying it to learn to like it.

it’s always a gay thing. Can’t just admit that their are benifits to being a woman or man. Homosexuals are some kind of unasex liberator. BS

already wrote a book to contradict the bible and never had proof the bible was wrong,… just theories from a person with an agenda. And they call it science.

First off, learn how to spell, please. It’s estrogen, not estrogine; biasness is not even a word; specifics, not spacifics, etc.

Second, cite me a single reputable scientific study backing your claims.

I guess I made it all up!

Or maybe scientists don’t report negative results. It just seeps out when the are talking about other things.


I hope you’re a socialist then.

I agree that there needs to be a parent home with the children.


Statistics show so.

Because the current system is creating poverty, forcing people to work more which leads to two-income families.

Additionally, the consumer-driven culture leads to the devaluation of institutions (like family) at the expense of ephemeral things (like that SUV you just have to have).

Like anything else, the corrolation isn’t just between two income families, but also between poverty. Both problems need to be addressed and it is in capitalism’s best interest for neither of them to be.

Hence, why (if you are serious about wanting to end two-income families) you should be a socialist. Or at least backing social welfare that allows for the family to exist despite the pressures placed on them by capitalism that rend them apart.

It’s the lifesytyle you buy into. Buying quality over quantity might be able to allow you to save money in the long run. So then you’d have to work less. Family and friends over entertainment can save you money.

No I believe that small buisness should make the demands from corperations. They get educated on the product and buy what is best for their customer. Like a consumer reports but better. Instead of buying the whole line of sony’s they should pick and choose what is good and long lasting.

Agreed, but it is difficult to do that when there is such a huge degree of saturation suggesting that 1) it is better do buy buy buy and 2) that you won’t have friends (and hence, a family) unless you do buy buy buy. Gotta keep up with the Joneses.

That’s all well and good . . . but how do you propose to impliment that without having the government actively support those smaller businesses? And, if the government is busy helping business, why not ask why the government doesn’t help people? It is a government by the people and for the people, not a government by the businesses and for the businesses. People both in and out of power seem to have forgotten that important fact.

You seem to want to have both the little people (who have been largely disempowered) as well as the men of the middling sort (who are dependent upon larger groups, or at least surviving by their whim) to use a power structure designed to benefit the wealthy and the powerful.

Seems silly to me.

I work out the kinks latter. I believe in it.

They used to say to save 1/4th of your money for rent. Now they say half. Cost of living has gone up all over. Something has to change.

I would agree completely that cost of living has gone up.

Wanna know why? Because raises aren’t keeping up with inflation. Another big problem. Affordable housing is a BIG deal.

I’m not looking to create a worker’s paradise here, I just think that the government has given too much help to big business at the expense of the average citizen and I would like to see that imbalance corrected.

I agree. Furthermore, wage and salary stagnation, job loss, and under-employment plus suspicion of foreigners due to fear of terrorism stoked by the Bush administration are fueling the growing anti-immigrant hysteria in this country.

Not just the anti-immigrant hysteria, but also widening the gap between rich and poor. And everybody knows that when that happens, social unrest increases. Which is OK, because we have an enemy built in, right?

If history has taught us anything: nothing could possibly go wrong with this model. Right?

“If a nation is centered in the Tao,
if it nourishes its own people
and doesn’t meddle in the affairs of others,
it will be a light to all nations in the world.”

The least I could do is return the favour – you are Christian, yes?

Pro 10:15. The rich man’s wealth [is] his strong city: the destruction of the poor [is] their poverty.

Or, in a slightly more verbose fashion:

    The Final Judgment

    31 "When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. 32 Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 And he will place the sheep on his right, but the goats on the left. 34 Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, 36 I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.' 37 Then the righteous will answer him, saying, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? 38 And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? 39 And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?' 40 And the King will answer them, [b]'Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.'[/b] 41 "Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.' 44 Then they also will answer, saying, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to you?' 45 Then he will answer them, saying, 'Truly, I say to you, as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.' 46 And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."