Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 37
  1. #21
    boognish's Avatar
    boognish is offline Coordinator
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    701

    Re: Town won't let unmarried parents live together

    "Bowchee" wrote:
    With things like this going on, what's next? They'll tell you that can't have your weed. Or worse yet, they'll make you go to work!!! What is this country coming too??!!!

    This is a little out of balance, but no more unbalanced than rewarding a single mother for having yet another child with yet another father. It's a "living" for some.
    First off, you're comparing apples and oranges with your drug law reference.

    You also seem to have a problem with single moms getting money for their kids, but you support a law that keeps the parents of that kid from living together? That doesn't make a lot of sense to me. :???:

    We should be encouraging family units in this country, married or not, gay or straight.
    I am a dipshit!!!

  2. #22
    NodakPaul's Avatar
    NodakPaul is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    West Fargo, ND
    Posts
    17,601
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Town won't let unmarried parents live together

    "boognish" wrote:
    "tarkenton10" wrote:
    This law is unconstitutuional and if they were too evict anyone this case would never stand up. They will just end up paying the plaitiffs a good sum of money. The people running this town have to have no legal council whatsoever.
    I don't agree with this law, but I'm not sure it's unconstitutional. It's a criminal statute, but no criminal charge is being threatened in this case. If the state were to send out officers to enforce this law, then there would be grounds to potentially take it to the Supreme Court.

    Of course, one might make the argument that the 2003 U.S. Supreme Court ruling striking down a Texas anti-sodomy law undermines the basis for cohabitation laws. However, as far as I know, it hasn't been tried yet.
    Heck, they still have anti-sodomy laws on the books in a lot of states. I guess if you're not a "normal" nuclear family you're scum in the eyes of these "tolerant" Christian leaders.

    If you have more information and/or a good argument for it's unconstitutionality, please pass it on.
    I don't agree with the law, but it isn't unconstitutional.

    A city government can zone property for different types of use. A single residential property is zoned to be exactly that, a single residential property. Laws like this one, which prevent three or more unrelated people from living in a single residence, are designed to keep residential neighborhoods, well, residential (as opposed to renting all the houses out to ,say, college kids, who change every year). It protects the porperty value of the surrounding residences. The same type of law would apply if someone bought up land in a commerical zone, or an industrial zone, and wanted to live there. Families like the one mentioned are the exception, not the rule. And the article didn't say that the family would be evicted.

    Also, there is nothing in the article that said that this is the work of any type of Christian group, so the remark about being skum in the eyes of tolerant Christian leaders is really out of context.
    Zeus wrote:
    When are you going to realize that picking out the 20 bad throws this year and ignoring the 300 good ones does not make your point?

    =Z=

  3. #23
    tarkenton10's Avatar
    tarkenton10 is offline Star Spokesman
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    2,200

    Re: Town won't let unmarried parents live together

    So because they are Stalinesque you would lower yourself to their level. So you now become the scum you so abhore!! Good line of thinking Badbois!

    There s only two things stopping you - fear and common sense!! The Truth you CAN"T HANDLE THE TRUTH!!!!!!!!

  4. #24
    tarkenton10's Avatar
    tarkenton10 is offline Star Spokesman
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    2,200

    Re: Town won't let unmarried parents live together

    You are right Boognish we should encourage nuclear families to stay together. However, I am still not too sure about paying mothers to have more babies. You may use the typical liberal assertion that these babies need care but the practical application is ruined by the actual mothers.

    Many, not all, abuse the system and know if they have one more child they will get four or five hundred more dollars to spend each month. Plus they get more food stamps. It is easy to see why a mother who may have financial issues may turn to having another baby. We have to take away the money and substitute something else for these mothers. Maybe a solution is to require anyone who has three or more children on welfare to enroll in school and get career counciling. If they refuse to get an education you can cut off the funding. I know you can't do that to the children and there will be many reasons why you can't do this. But the main thing is we can't reward these mothers for spitting out a baby every year or two.

    We as a country want to decrease the amount of unwanted babies not increase them and therefor we have to find a solution to this recurring nightmare. Throwing more money at it has not worked in the past and won't work in the future.

    There s only two things stopping you - fear and common sense!! The Truth you CAN"T HANDLE THE TRUTH!!!!!!!!

  5. #25
    Json is offline GM
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    1,109

    Re: Town won't let unmarried parents live together

    Now a days society has made it near impossible for people to afford living on there own with or without children. This law is redicoulous in the sense that your going to force more couples to get married which in return will bring in a higher divorce rate. What good does this law do for anyone? It turns the neighbor hood into a more "residental area"? When people start getting divoreced it won't matter. It's just another way for the politicians to pass there beleifs into laws to affect regular people just getting by. STOP HOLDING DOWN THE POOR!

  6. #26
    Json is offline GM
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    1,109

    Re: Town won't let unmarried parents live together

    As for the STOP HOLDING DOWN THE POOR comment i just made. I know many of you will say that this has nothing to do with the poor but if you really think about it, it really does because it's the people just trying to get by (aka poor) that usually have to succumb to these living arrangements to make ends meet.

  7. #27
    JDogg926's Avatar
    JDogg926 is offline Star Spokesman
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    1,786

    Re: Town won't let unmarried parents live together

    I'm not poor, but I do have a son with a woman that I'm not, nor was ever married to. We don't live together, nor did we ever. We're still good friends, as I watch my son at her apt 2 nights/week, and keep him about 9 out of every 10 weekends.

    But this law is the biggest load of bullbutter.
    542cbf305f333b0554e8ffa937f852d6

  8. #28
    boognish's Avatar
    boognish is offline Coordinator
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    701

    Re: Town won't let unmarried parents live together

    "tarkenton10" wrote:
    You are right Boognish we should encourage nuclear families to stay together. However, I am still not too sure about paying mothers to have more babies. You may use the typical liberal assertion that these babies need care but the practical application is ruined by the actual mothers.

    Many, not all, abuse the system and know if they have one more child they will get four or five hundred more dollars to spend each month. Plus they get more food stamps. It is easy to see why a mother who may have financial issues may turn to having another baby. We have to take away the money and substitute something else for these mothers. Maybe a solution is to require anyone who has three or more children on welfare to enroll in school and get career counciling. If they refuse to get an education you can cut off the funding. I know you can't do that to the children and there will be many reasons why you can't do this. But the main thing is we can't reward these mothers for spitting out a baby every year or two.

    We as a country want to decrease the amount of unwanted babies not increase them and therefor we have to find a solution to this recurring nightmare. Throwing more money at it has not worked in the past and won't work in the future.
    Right, you encourage and educate young women so they don't get in those situations to begin with. Once the kids are born, we need to help them so they don't perpetuate the cycle of poverty and early childbirth.

    In the grand scheme of gov't subsidies, welfare to single moms with children is pretty damned insignificant. I work with both farmers and loggers in my line of work and I hear them b!tch all the time about the "welfare mamas", then they crawl into their brand new tax writeoff pickup and go take care of their heavily subsidized crops, or in the case of the loggers, take the winter off and draw unemployment. Don't even get me started with corporate subsidies; the oil industry alone is soaking up billions of dollars in tax breaks, government funding, and indirect subsidies.

    It's easy to pick on the poor, because they often don't have a voice to represent them, but if my tax dollars are going to subsidize any group I would certainly rather see it spent on the poor people who really need it, not some fat-cat executive.
    I am a dipshit!!!

  9. #29
    DarrinNelsonguy's Avatar
    DarrinNelsonguy is offline Team Alumni
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    3,118

    Re: Town won't let unmarried parents live together

    Foolish idea and I want to know how they are going to efficiently enforce it.
    "Hard work beats talent, when talent doesn t work hard."

  10. #30
    tarkenton10's Avatar
    tarkenton10 is offline Star Spokesman
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    2,200

    Re: Town won't let unmarried parents live together

    We were not talking about other susbsidies we were discussing this issue. and though you have some points, if you really care about children don't give irresponsible people incentives to have children they do not want nor take care of. The govt. is not resopnsible to take care of their children. You are really doing a disservice to your cause. Isn't it funny no one wants the govt to tell them what they can or can not do but sure know how to use it when THEIR cause seems righteous. I always find that a little funny. Big long articles written about how the govt. is intruding in our lives but if it helps your cause at all well, then we have to use our resources to save this or that. Those people who want Govt out of your life make sure it is completely out, no wlefare, no unemployment, no taxes for roads, no taxes for schools, and no taxes for abortions!

    Now you will hear how we need govt. but only for certain things, so now comes the hard question - what things? Everyone has their opinion so before I hear about a foolish idea, lets hear some ideas about how you would solve the problems. It's easy to say that idea won't work especially when you don't have a solution of your own.

    There s only two things stopping you - fear and common sense!! The Truth you CAN"T HANDLE THE TRUTH!!!!!!!!

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Parents Arrested for Scaring Daughter
    By BadlandsVikings in forum The Clubhouse
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 04-01-2011, 08:13 AM
  2. D.A.R.E. turns kid against parents
    By BadlandsVikings in forum The Clubhouse
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 10-19-2010, 09:27 PM
  3. Parents protest H.S. sex newspaper
    By BadlandsVikings in forum The Clubhouse
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 03-30-2007, 09:16 PM
  4. Parents: Please Pay Attention to Your Children
    By BadlandsVikings in forum The Clubhouse
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 11-09-2006, 05:07 PM
  5. Ever think your parents were old??
    By BadlandsVikings in forum The Clubhouse
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 07-09-2006, 08:27 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •