I'd be interested to know how many of those near-million girls actually used protection of some kind...

Alec Baldwin looks like a dumbass here. The welfare remark, while troubling, was irrelevant to the discussion. I'm also not sure about why he kept on bringing up gay marraige when again that had nothing to do with the discussion.

I think marraige is important because it carries some gravity. Being married has symbolic meaning, it carries obligations and it creates barriers to exit. These barrier make it more likely to keep a couple together, which is ultimately beneficial to their children. Encouraging marraige before having children is not a bad thing.

All in all, that discussion went nowhere. Kingston insisted on returning to his particular context box regardless of Bill's tearing it down, while Baldwin went on his own tear, though somewhat irrelevant to the discussion.

But I gotta say - just for the sake of ranting - that people like Kingston piss me off to no end. A good friend of mine, aged 21, has a 3-year old daughter and is attending university in Australia. For the first 18-19 months, the father was there for her, but that fell through. What makes the little girl any less deserving than those of us who have two parents that stuck around? ... I mean, aside from what the magic book tells us.

Encouraging marriage is a good thing, sure, but that's not to say that being unmarried is automatically bad. That's what that politician seemed to have trouble grasping when he kept regurgitating that statistic.

Eugene, Baldwin's comments were in the context of a whole discussion of which this is the latter part.

Context is important, try not to forget that when you're being presented with a single fragment of a whole.

Also it's a panel discussion and he can say whatever he likes and for the record his comment is spot on and goes to further highlight the hypocrisy of this administration.

Plus the whole marriage thing being good for kids is somewhat less important than a loving couple who choose to raise kids in a stable and committed relationship rergardless of gender or state sanctioned bits of paper.

Is a marriage that ends in divorce somehow better for kids than a stable and committed defacto relationship that lasts for life?

This Kingston guy is absolutely retarded.

He first says that the 900,000 children were born out of wedlock, then at the end of the clip he seems to be saying that they're children 'without father figures'.

The fact that a child is born out of wedlock does not mean that the child doesn't have a father figure or a stable 'family'.

I dont understand why Republicans are so keen on linking a strong family with marriage between a man and a woman. The fact that they're married doesn't magicaly make it a healthy relationship or a good environment to raise a child. The divorce rate in the US ought to underline that point too.

It's so ignorant for people to keep repeating this bullshit that a family with "a mom and a dad" is better. What the fuck does 'better' mean, anyway? I dont understand why they think they have any right to say that one type of family situation is better than any other. The statistics certainly don't back these positions up.

A child with heterosexual parents isn't immediatly going to be better off than a kid in a homosexual relationship, that just isn't how things work.

A child needs a stable home environment and lots of love. Period.

Marriage, same sex or otherwise, doesn't immediatly guarantee stability and a healthy relationship. Period.

It's all dependant on the people in the situation. Either they can make it work, or they cant. Their sexual orientation has nothing to do with it.

Marriages and healthy family has become more of a fairy tale. In changing times and circumstances, the ethic watchdogs have failed to evolve and address to changing circumstances.

Noticeable point that Bill made was, why the relationship has to be endorsed by a government to make it a 'happy married' couple will then be produce happy and healthy children of the future society?

Marriages and healthy family has become more of a fairy tale. In changing times and circumstances, the ethic watchdogs have failed to evolve and address to changing circumstances.

Noticeable point that Bill made was, why the relationship has to be endorsed by a government to make it a 'happy married' couple will then be produce happy and healthy children of the future society?

"It's just better that way"??

As long as Kingston and his colleagues have such a shoddy response and can't come up with a substantial reason for married, hetero families as the only ones with rights to raise children, I won't listen to (or at least continue to ridicule) his argument (or lack thereof). He could have at least been honest and said what he really thought: "Because God says so."

Eugene: Alec Baldwin is indeed a dumbass but his welfare remark and gay marriage comments were quite relevant to the discussion. Balwin mentioned a population that is being purposefully overlooked by the Republican congress, largely through laws requiring marriage, and they were discussing families with kids who may be unwed by choice (i.e. Maher's argument) or by law (i.e. the 2004 (and continuing) gay marriage "amendments"). Cutting welfare to unwed moms and dads is the Republicans' way of saying "fuck you" to that big population in need. Besides socially disrespecting them, now they're able to disrespect them by hiding behind law? Pathetic.

I agree, encouraging marriage is not a bad thing. Marriage does have symbolic meaning, but so does love in any relationship. Anyone, married or not, has huge obligations once a child becomes a part of his or her life, and certainly has natural barriers to exit regardless of marriage status. I'm pretty certain that walking out on your children is stepping over an enormous exit barrier.

And keeping a couple together? What about the fact that one in two marriages in the US ends in divorce (ref.), not including annulments? Tell me that doesn't do a number to a child.

I agree that Alec Baldwin bought gay marriage up out of no where, that wasn't even what the discussion was about. Still Jack Kingston is a jack ass who can't seem to comprehend people living together in a loving monogamous relationship without having gone through a state approved ceremony... But because I want to shout out my opinion I'll say this, the real issue about gay marriage is the legal rights that come with it. The family of a gay person could keep their partner away from them on their deathbed as the partner would have no legal standing to get in there because the state or whatever won't recognize their relationship.

Eugene, Baldwin's remark about welfare was spot on IMHO. It seems that Repugs love life so much that they cry "think about the 900K Children" over, and over, and over. It is just funny than when they have to put their money where their mouth is, i.e. helping those 900K children get a decent start in life (call it welfare, call it social support network).. well when that time comes, Repugs are really not that interested in helping those 900K by giving up a bit of their tax cuts.

Marriage does not "enforce" anything, the fact that almost half of marriages in this country fail makes that very clear. And even more telling that states with liberal positions regarding gay marriage (i.e. Mass) have lower divorce rates than red states, esp in the bible belt which some of them have over 10 points larger rates of divorce even though those are the states more concerned with the "sanctity" of the marriage.

The marriage is a non-issue, because I'd rather have a kid growing up in a loving environment whether it is hetero or homosexual sets of parents involved, vs. having the kid either in a troubled, abusive hetero home, or having him/her jumping from foster to foster home.

But, I guess the repug motto is "we care a hell of a lot about you before you get born and before you are about to die, in the meanwhile you are on your own." And since a lot of these so-called conservatives advocate for small government, I would like the gov to stay out of the bedroom and people should have equal rights regarding their race, background and sexual orientation. If gays are not going to get the same level of rights from the government, then they should pay a reduced tax rate since they are getting less back of their country.

A child needs a stable home environment and lots of love. Period.

Marriage, same sex or otherwise, doesn't immediatly guarantee stability and a healthy relationship. Period.

Well said, Valkesh.

Kingston: "We've got birth control everywhere you turn; that's not working."

Dude, it's not having birth control everywhere that's not working. It's not using it. If condoms are everywhere but on your penis then there's your problem. Who is telling people not to use birth control; that birth control doesn't work? Say, why don't we blame those dumbasses?

What's not working is telling people never to have sex unless they're already shopping for preschools. That's never worked, and it never will.

Seconding Gelf - I was more disturbed by Kingston's assertion that birth control doesn't work (I expected the family "val - use" rhetoric). Study after study, statistic upon statistic supports the use of condoms in the preventino of both venereal diseases and in preventing unwanted pregnancies. Birth control is not 100% effective, but it beats the hell out of abstinence preaching.

The idea that sex outside of marriage is unnatural (a Catholic invention) is entirely backward. Sex outside of marriage is natural by the very fact that nature created it. Marriage is man invented; it does not come from nature, and therefore it is unnatural by the very meaning of the word. Not that's it's wrong, mind you, just unnatural.

Were you guys aware that marriage between two people is not the natural state of human beings? Humans throughout history have a far more polygamist nature. Human societies have fostered all kinds of multiple relationships and marriage between two people is rather recent in history. Moreover, two-paired marriages have not proven very successful since only about 50% of married couples remain married. Marriage is spread through culture, especially religious culture, not biology.

The belief that sex outside of marriage is a sin condemns women who have sex out side of marriage.

alright i think some people missed this. everyone at the table made an ass out of themselves to varying degrees except for the one who didnt say anything. kingston was attempting to state a point but we never get to actually hear it because he's either cut off by baldwin or maher.

baldwin was easily ignored because he wasnt even on the same topic. maher however just stopped him mid-sentance every time he tried to explain his reasoning. in my opinion maher made a complete ass out of himself. he seemed to have it in his head that all of those kids born to unmarried couples were born into a household with two yuppie liberal parents just not hip with marriage.

in reality what maher was mentioning exist in maybe 1 of the cases discussed. he seems to think that all of those kids born out of wedlock still will have father figures.

i'm really avoiding going off on the irratating left so i'm just going to stop.

I was horribly disturbed by the implication that 900,000+ children were without fathers, as though somehow all of those unwed mothers kept the children from daddy. What about the unwed fathers?! Kingston left the subtle message that women are at fault, much like poor Adam when Eve tantalized him so with the apple....it was all her fault too (she said sarcastically). Come on.

GAO says “Abstinence Only” Sex Ed Must Change By: Nicole Belle on Tuesday, October 24th, 2006 at 7:48 AM - PDT

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/10/24/gao-says-abstinence-only-sex-ed-must-change/

MotherJones:

The GAO released a legal opinion yesterday affirming that abstinence-only education materials must include accurate information on sexually transmitted infections and the effectiveness of condoms. To date, HHS had insisted that materials produced by abstinence grantees do not fall under the jurisdiction of the Public Health Service Act, which mandates as much. HHS has instead maintained that:

"Grantees may address issues related to [STIs] in communicating the importance of abstinence, they are to address these issues only within the broader context of abstinence education."

The GAO's legal review came at the request of Congressional dems including the ever-muckraking Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.). Remember, it was Waxman's 2004 report on abstinence-only sex education curricula that found rampant inaccuracies. Read on…

Advocates for Youth.org calls 'abstinence-only' sex ed "dangerous, ineffective, and inaccurate."

Among their findings:

The Society for Adolescent Medicine recently declared that "abstinence-only programs threaten fundamental human rights to health, information, and life."[8,11]

According to Columbia University researchers, virginity pledge programs increase pledge-takers' risk for STIs and pregnancy. The study concluded that 88 percent of pledge-takers initiated sex prior to marriage even though some delayed sex for a while. Rates of STIs among pledge-takers and non-pledgers were similar, even though pledge-takers initiated sex later. Pledge-takers were less likely to seek STI testing and less likely to use contraception when they did have sex.[20,21] Evaluations of the effectiveness of state-funded abstinence-only-until-marriage programs found no delay in first sex. In fact, of six evaluations that assessed short-term changes in behavior, three found no changes, two found increased sexual activity from pre- to post-test, and one showed mixed results. Five evaluations looked for but found no long-term impact in reducing teens' sexual activity.[9] Analysis of data from Youth Risk Behavior surveys found that sexual activity among high school youth declined significantly from 1991 to 1997, prior to large-scale funding of abstinence-only-until-marriage programs, but changed little from 1999 to 2003 with federal funding of such programs.[22] Analysis of federally funded abstinence-only curricula found that over 80 percent of curricula supported by the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services contained false, misleading, or distorted information about reproductive health. Specifically, they conveyed: False information about the effectiveness of contraceptives; False information about the risks of abortion; Religious beliefs as scientific fact; Stereotypes about boys and girls as scientific fact; and Medical and scientific errors of fact.[23]