Steven Waldman

Steven Waldman


Bristol Palin & Levi Johnston Break Up — “It Kind of Just Happened”

posted by swaldman

“It kind of just happened,” a source close to the couple told PEOPLE. “I thought they would stick it out. But I think they can work together to raise Tripp.”
When Sarah Palin announced the pregnancy of her daughter, she made a point of mentioning in the same breath that they would be married. “Bristol and the young man she will marry are going to realize very quickly the difficulties of raising a child, which is why they will have the love and support of our entire family.” They had Levi Johnston attend the Republican convention to show how they were going to make a real family of it.
In October, Levi declared, “We both want to marry each other. And that’s what we are going to do.” He talked about a Summer wedding. The McCain campaign apparently was rooting for a pre-election day wedding. “It would be fantastic,” a “McCain insider told the Times of London. “You would have every TV camera there. The entire country would be watching. It would shut down the race for a week.”
In February, Bristol told Greta Van Sustern they were looking forward to getting married.
And yet here we are just few months later, and they’re splitting up.
Levi’s sister explained, “Levi tries to visit Tripp every single day, but Bristol makes it nearly impossible for him. She tells him he can’t take the baby to our house because she doesn’t want him around ‘white trash.'”
So many questions. Of course I’m interested to see how religious conservatives who have focused so hard on the sanctity of marriage will handle this.
But I hope this triggers a debate about a few other questions:
1) What is the obligation of a couple to try to make a marriage or a relationship work? I’m dying to know: did Sarah Palin require that they get marriage counseling before breaking up?
2) If a mother chooses to carry a baby to term, under what circumstances should she consider putting him up for adoption?



Advertisement
Comments read comments(70)
post a comment
sheesh already

posted March 12, 2009 at 10:21 am


Ah yes, the “sanctity of marriage” models. The “traditional” marriage models. The “abstinence only” models. The “rel America” models.
Puke-making hypoocrites.



report abuse
 

Susan

posted March 12, 2009 at 10:27 am


The “white trash” comment attributed to Levi’s sister, appeared in an article written by tabloid, The Star. People Magazine is now using The Star as their source of information, as it appears are other MSM outlets. Levi has already commented that the article is “inaccurate.” Please don’t quote from tabloid articles.



report abuse
 

Mack

posted March 12, 2009 at 11:01 am


I hope this article is not a subtle way of bashing Sarah Palin. The media has had her under a microscope which is ok. I only hope that all our leaders could be under that same microscope. As a parent I’m sure she would hope that the kids would be married, raise the child, and live happily ever after. But we who have raised kids know that they will make thier own decisions. May God bless Sarah Palin! May God bless the USA!



report abuse
 

Charles Cosimano

posted March 12, 2009 at 11:17 am


In a decent family Bristol Palin would have an abortion and the matter would have been forgotten. This is more drama from the trailer park.



report abuse
 

jestrfyl

posted March 12, 2009 at 11:24 am


Just looking at his face and posture during the political convention told me this was inevitable. It is like the foreshadowing in a soap opera – it may take months, but you KNOW what is going to happen. Now I wonder how far he will have to go to avoid his helicopter ridin’ wolf-shootin’ almost-mother-in-law. Do they need pipeline workers in Tasmania or Botswana?



report abuse
 

LutheranChik

posted March 12, 2009 at 1:06 pm


“We now come to the end of another pisode of ‘Trailer Park Theater.'”
Can this entire extended (and almost extended) family now please go AWAY? Please? AWAY. Please.



report abuse
 

Nobody

posted March 12, 2009 at 1:24 pm


I just want to know if they ever intended to get married or whether either or both of them were pressured into pretending that they did for the purposes of the McCain/Palin campaign. I hope that the latter is not true. Even someone as anti-Republican as me would be very disappointed in the GOP has stooped so very low. Let us hope that they manage to have some sort of relationship that will be good for the well-being of their child.



report abuse
 

Robert

posted March 12, 2009 at 1:56 pm


Like. Why should the dude have to marry his old lady, like. Just cuz she had a baby. Like, it’s way cool not to have a ball and chain, like my granddad used to say. Sarah Palin 2012!!!!!!



report abuse
 

pagansister

posted March 12, 2009 at 4:27 pm


This is really no surprise. Just because Bristol was pregnant is not the basis for a marriage. At least she has a family to help support her, which is more than some teens have. She really might have been better off not continuing the pregnancy.



report abuse
 

Gerard Nadal

posted March 12, 2009 at 4:40 pm


Sign of the times:
“In a decent family Bristol Palin would have an abortion and the matter would have been forgotten.”
Butcher the baby and forget about it. That’s the decent thing to do? The Palin’s are no more perfect than any other family, but at least they haven’t joined in defining deviancy down.
I’m with LutheranChik. Please make this saga go away. It doesn’t require killing babies to do so.



report abuse
 

Joyce Becker

posted March 12, 2009 at 4:42 pm


There should be more sex education in our schools to prevent these situations from happening.



report abuse
 

Steven Waldman

posted March 12, 2009 at 5:01 pm


the debate on this thread has to some extent assume that the options were being a teen mother and having an abortion.
One of the other options for her to have put the baby up for adoption. If they really were serious about creating a family I wouldn’t say that but if, as looks likely in hindsight, this was never likely to have been a real family, shouldn’t more thought have been given to putting the baby up for adoption?



report abuse
 

Gerard Nadal

posted March 12, 2009 at 5:21 pm


Steven,
The Palins are an intact intergenerational family of some means who welcome their newest member. It does not seem that there is any reason for Todd and Sarah to want to give away their first grandchild. They have education, money, a large home, relatives and friends to help the young mother. Adoption is not necessary. I suppose that if they did attempt to do so, then you would be chortling about their hypocrisy on family values. Is that what you are angling for on this thread? A trap for conservatives?
Using your standard, what would you advocate for the 70% of African American babies born today? That 70% are born to young (mostly teen) mothers with 1/4 of Bristol’s literacy and none of her financial or familial resources. There is no realistic option for marriage and family life for these girls either. If you are advocating adoption for Bristol’s child, what do you have to say to the African American community? Bring back the orphanages?



report abuse
 

Serginho

posted March 12, 2009 at 5:25 pm


Only one problem, Lutheranchik, and Gerard.
How can we miss Sarah Palin & brood, if they won’t go away?
She is still going to run for Prez in 2012. And hopefully get buried, since the only thing scarier than listening to her prattle on about family values is to know that she knows the launch codes.



report abuse
 

Steven Waldman

posted March 12, 2009 at 5:34 pm


Gerard,
Yes, this thread is “a trap” for conservatives! I can’t believe you found me out!
Seriously, I don’t know WHEN adoption is the right approach. But it seems that a decent argument can be made that when you have someone who is a) unmarried and b) a teenager, that those would the circumstances in which putting a child up for adoption ought to be considered. So yes, I would ask the same question about African American unwed teen mothers, too.
Your argument is that it’s ok in this case because of the extended family. I admit that’s a mitigating circumstance. It’s hard to imagine Trigg is going to starve. But that’s the justification I hear for many African American teen moms too — that they have the strength of the grandparents. It’s also the argument the Murphy Brown advocates made for her having a baby out of wedlock — that she was an affluent career woman, well able to take care of a baby on her own. I dunno. I was with Dan Quayle on that one.



report abuse
 

clasqm

posted March 12, 2009 at 5:44 pm


Adoption sounds like a great idea (I’m an adoptive father myself BTW). But giving up Governor Palin’s grandchild for adoption? The poor kid would be a prime target for every sleazy reporter in the country for years to come. No matter how the adoption agency might try to keep things confidential, the identity of the adoptive parents would be winkled out and spread all over the tabloids in the name of the public’s “righ to know”. Sorry, not feasible in this case.



report abuse
 

Lawntawndra Jankins

posted March 12, 2009 at 9:20 pm


That young man just wanted to knock a young girl up. Is he going to pay child support? Or will the family get Foster Care Kinship? Funny how people who are serious about Marriage cant get married..but acouple of Trampy teenagers only in it for the sex can and wont. Saras family is trashy enough as it is but that boys family is even worse. Look in the Websters for Trash and youll find their name. All the Evangelicals are just rounding around Sara..knowing she was a little Tramp too…Those Palin women just cant keep their legs together..



report abuse
 

Husband

posted March 12, 2009 at 10:28 pm


Yes, let those gay couples who actually want to get married do so. Palin isn’t mature enough to marry. She certainly doesn’t seem to take it seriously.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted March 13, 2009 at 12:18 am


==… let those gay couples who actually want to get married do so.==
They already may.
A man who claims to be homosexual may marry a woman who claims to be homosexual.



report abuse
 

RayY

posted March 13, 2009 at 9:38 am


Question 1 is stupid. “Did Sarah Palin require . . . ” Who is she, God? (and I’m not a “Conservative”)
This “relationship” is the responsibility of the two people involved, as is the child. I did not care for Sarah P. trying to capitalize on it & use it politically, but won’t hold it against her now. Except to say that, c’mon–we knew where this was going, just like WMD in Iraq.



report abuse
 

panthera

posted March 13, 2009 at 1:45 pm


I think the person who matters here most – their baby – is being least considered.
Personally, I find the whole episode distasteful.
Clearly, there is a disconnect between what Republicans preach and what they actually do.
If a small child were not involved, I’d use this to raise some very salient points about christianists and their hypocrisy towards gay marriage. For today, it is enough to note that nothing, absolutely nothing is capable of shaking the enamored desire of the Republicans for Caribu Barbie.
Oh, and regarding the adoption not being kept secret nonsense, sorry – my immediate family sponsors adoptions regularly (just one of those silly things true Christians do instead of just pretending to be pro-life). In no single instance over the last 24 years has the seal been breached. Not once. And, in the part of the country where my brother lives, the family is quite well known and very newsworthy, unfortunately. So that consideration is just a typical conservative red herring.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted March 14, 2009 at 1:33 pm


==…christianists…==
No such word.
==… and their hypocrisy towards gay marriage.==
Those sho self-id as “homosexual” may marry:
Men who claim to be homosexual may marry women who claim to be homosexual. There is no requirement that anyone be heterosexual. There is no discrimination in the law that defines ” marriage” as the union of a man, as husband, and a woman, as his wife. After all, everybody is either man/male, or woman/female. Unless, of course, you claim that members of a third sex are left out.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted March 14, 2009 at 1:35 pm


Those sho —->>>> Those who



report abuse
 

Mordred08

posted March 14, 2009 at 2:04 pm


Mr. Incredible
=Men who claim to be homosexual may marry women who claim to be homosexual.=
Thus creating yet another Ted Haggard situation that the hetero-supremacists would use to their full advantage, again, by trying to “cure” the “afflicted” gays.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted March 14, 2009 at 2:13 pm


==Mr. Incredible
=Men who claim to be homosexual may marry women who claim to be homosexual.=
Thus creating yet another Ted Haggard situation that the hetero-supremacists would use to their full advantage, again, by trying to “cure” the “afflicted” gays.==
We can’t cure those who claim to be homosexual. Only God can do that. For THAT healing to take place, those who claim to be homosexual would have to have a change of heart. Until then, they remain afflicted and separated from God.



report abuse
 

Mordred08

posted March 14, 2009 at 2:26 pm


Mr. Incredible
=We can’t cure those who claim to be homosexual. Only God can do that. For THAT healing to take place, those who claim to be homosexual would have to have a change of heart. Until then, they remain afflicted and separated from God.=
So if homosexuals who are Christians (why anyone gay person would want to be a Christian is beyond me) are not “healed” of their “affliction”, it’s their fault because they didn’t pray hard enough?



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted March 14, 2009 at 3:05 pm


==So if homosexuals who are Christians…==
To be Christian is to be born again. To be born again is to love God through Christ. To love Christ is to follow Him. To follow Him outta love is not to do things that God finds distastful, things like what we now call, “homosexuality.”
==… (why anyone gay person would want to be a Christian is beyond me)…==
Yes, it IS beyond you, and beyond them.
==…are not “healed” of their “affliction”, it’s their fault because they didn’t pray hard enough?==
Those who are not born again cannot pray “hard enough” to “win” Grace.



report abuse
 

panthera

posted March 14, 2009 at 3:12 pm


Mordred08,
I have a suggestion to make – one I intend to follow (not easy) and think others might want to, too.
Be really happy to have your or any other ideas on it.
My suggestion is, let us stop commenting at all on anything Mr. Incredible says.
He can and does regularly exploit our comments to ruin threads, especially here on Steven’s site.
It is just a suggestion, but I think it might help. He can and no doubt will continue to interject his commentary, but with no response he might just leave off. Worth a try?



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted March 14, 2009 at 3:25 pm


==Mordred08,
My suggestion is, let us stop commenting at all on anything Mr. Incredible says.==
Ok with me.
==He can and does regularly exploit our comments to ruin threads…==
I comment. You comment. He comments. Everybody comments. Nobody has more chance to comment than anybody else. There are enough electrons for everybody.
==… especially here on Steven’s site.==
I merely answer comments, just like everybody. It’s just that you don’t like what I write. That’s ok.
==He can and no doubt will continue to interject his commentary, but with no response he might just leave off.==
Not a chance.
== Worth a try?==
Sure. It doesn’t impact the invite we ALL have to post comments.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted March 14, 2009 at 3:28 pm


==He can and does regularly exploit our comments to ruin threads…==
Translation: “He messes with our flow by not agreeing with us and picking apart our ideas. We want warm and fuzzy and agreeable comments so we can feel good.”



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted March 14, 2009 at 3:31 pm


==He can and does regularly exploit our comments…==
What’s the difference between “exploiting” your comments and answering them?



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted March 14, 2009 at 3:41 pm


==He can and does regularly exploit our comments…==
Uhhh, isn’t THAT what debate is all about???
==…to ruin threads…==
Soooo, intense rebuttal ruins threads???? Free Speech DOESN’T invite dispute???
Ohhh, I see. Dispute is what you DON’T want. Except that this blog invites dispute, not fuzzy wuzzies.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted March 14, 2009 at 3:54 pm


==…with no response he might just leave off.==
The world thinks that we are just like it cuz those of the world would “leave off.”
However, those who are born again are not of this world, rather of the world of God, through Christ. So, what we write burns their eyes, and you’re seeing that reaction here.



report abuse
 

Mordred08

posted March 14, 2009 at 5:44 pm


“My suggestion is, let us stop commenting at all on anything Mr. Incredible says.
He can and does regularly exploit our comments to ruin threads, especially here on Steven’s site.”
The whole “ignore him and he’ll go away” thing sounds a tad naive to me. Didn’t work in high school, so why should it start working now? Maybe if people stopped commenting altogether, or stopped making blogs, then people like him would have to find better things to do, but that would be stupid.
I must admit, I’m impressed by his amazing ability to generate 5 separate whining posts based around breaking down one sentence.



report abuse
 

Marian

posted March 14, 2009 at 9:08 pm


Breakups don’t “just happen.” Divorce doesn’t kill marriage (and, a fortiori, gay marriage doesn’t kill marriage), PEOPLE kill marriage, by deciding to put something else ahead of the relationship in which their children have a right to be nurtured to majority. I’m a divorce lawyer, but I don’t really believe in divorce except for one of the “big A’s”–abandonment, abuse, addiction, and adultery. Doesn’t sound like Tripp’s parents had any of those problems, so why weren’t they educated in how to stay together and behave decently toward each other and the kid?



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted March 14, 2009 at 11:32 pm


==The whole “ignore him and he’ll go away” thing sounds a tad naive to me.==
Me, too, but that’s the world for’ya.
== Didn’t work in high school, so why should it start working now?==
You’re correct. It won’t.
== Maybe if people stopped commenting altogether, or stopped making blogs, then people like him would have to find better things to do, but that would be stupid.==
No kiddin’.
==I must admit, I’m impressed by his amazing ability to generate 5 separate whining posts based around breaking down one sentence.==
Just whining, huh?



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted March 14, 2009 at 11:35 pm


==…he runs out of steam after eight entries (per one comment from me) or so.==
No, I just wait until the posts build up so I respond to many, not just one at a time. Fewer trips. More economical.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted March 14, 2009 at 11:37 pm


==so why weren’t they educated in how to stay together and behave decently toward each other and the kid?==
Who says that they weren’t and STILL chose to separate?



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted March 14, 2009 at 11:41 pm


==…gay marriage doesn’t kill marriage…==
However, it damages it by damaging the cultural and societal thinking about it. Its value is diminished.
Nobody stops those who claim to be homosexual from marrying. Men who claim to be homosexual may marry women who claim to be homosexual, and VICE versa.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted March 14, 2009 at 11:43 pm


==I must admit, I’m impressed by his amazing ability to generate 5 separate whining posts based around breaking down one sentence.==
My mind is an active place, and it’s a terrible thing to waste.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted March 14, 2009 at 11:49 pm


==He can and no doubt will continue to interject his commentary, but with no response he might just leave off.==
How’s it workin’ so far?



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted March 15, 2009 at 9:50 am


cell phones should come as no great shock. Contraception is not 100% (unless you’re using abortion as contraception).
Any consenting adult should be allowed to have a ‘Civil Union’ – the term ‘Marriage’ is a religious term and should be reserved for use as it has been, by churches, up to this point. If you go to a Justice of the Peace you shouldn’t get a marriage certificate – it should be a Civil Union. In either case the tax and insurance benefits should be the same, but then NO class of tax payers should receive tax benifits over any other class. The Constitution should be used to preserve everyones INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS, not just the desires of the majority. We are a Republic not a Democracy.



report abuse
 

Kellygirl

posted March 15, 2009 at 10:12 am


First of all Steven, it’s none of your damn business and second of all, if Bristol doesn’t want to marry him, better to realize that now than a year into an awful marriage. Finally, the only man who had any say in any of this is Levi. The rest of you need to butt out and worry about your own miserable lives.



report abuse
 

theod

posted March 15, 2009 at 10:37 am


The Palin Family was a useful election prop for the Republican Party in its thirst for Power and some sort of monopoly on Family Values. A fiction was created for the benefit of Mrs. Palin’s candidacy. When the election season ended, reality intervened and this is approximately what we see now. Commentators like Mr. Waldman are simply angry that Bristol Palin’s story contradicts all of the ideological blather that gives him his small slice of power. We discover that Republican families don’t believe in their trope either, especially when it’s inconvenient. We see that heterosexuals are disrupting the Sanctity of Marriage more than homosexuals do. And on and on.



report abuse
 

Nano

posted March 15, 2009 at 11:01 am


Hi Steve!
When did you decide you were better qualified to make life choices than the people who actually have to live those lives? Do see any problem for making these decisions when you have absolutely personal stake in the lives you would run?
When did religion columnists become busybodies who were one step below gossip mongers?
Does the irony of any of this escape you?
Do you not care that your contempt for women is painfully obvious to anyone who reads your musings?



report abuse
 

jjcomet

posted March 15, 2009 at 11:08 am


Let’s look at the evidence that Levi intended to marry Bristol:
“When Sarah Palin announced the pregnancy of her daughter, she made a point of mentioning in the same breath that they would be married.”
“In October, Levi declared, “We both want to marry each other. And that’s what we are going to do.” He talked about a Summer wedding. The McCain campaign apparently was rooting for a pre-election day wedding. “It would be fantastic,” a “McCain insider told the Times of London.”
“In February, Bristol told Greta Van Sustern they were looking forward to getting married.”
The one significant common factor between all three comments is that they were made very publicly to the media. That alone should cast considerable doubts on any of the claims that these kids really thought hard about whether they were going to marry. The Palins made a media circus of this from the very beginning, choosing to push their unfortunate daughter and her boyfriend into the spotlight for political purposes and then keeping them there as long as possible to squeeze as much mileage as they could out of the story. No one who is serious about making the best decision for their kids in such a situation would willingly choose to air their dirty laundry in the glare of the media eye. It’s far more likely that, up until now, Bristol and Levi had no say whatsoever in the decision. Once the Palins were no longer the focus of media attention, the kids announced what they likely had decided upon all along.
As for the suggestion that Sarah Palin should have required the kids to go to marriage counseling, I can only say WTF? First of all, marriage counseling is for people who are – you know – married, and wish to find out how they might preserve the marriage. If any kind of counseling is in order, it would be premarital counseling to determine whether they want to get married in the first place. Since they seem not to have needed much help making the decision, I doubt that the counseling would have had much affect on it. More importantly, however, no counseling – marital or otherwise – has a prayer of success if the parties need to forced into it.
Here’s a little tip – when a couple is really serious about their relationship, an unnamed reporter for People magazine is rarely their main confidant.



report abuse
 

rochrist

posted March 15, 2009 at 2:28 pm


Perhaps you could clear something up for me….
How is this any business of yours whatsoever?



report abuse
 

Nix

posted March 15, 2009 at 4:15 pm


So forcing a man to marry a woman that hates him is still on the table? Thank goodness you are focusing on the woman here, we would not want to explore any type of responsibility from the man in this situation. Perhaps is these teens had been educated in the use of contraception this would have been a different story, but that is not the case. So should men only sleep with women that they are ready to marry or are married? If this is your platform get ready for it to shrink… LOL



report abuse
 

Patrick

posted March 15, 2009 at 8:22 pm


Hey Stevie,
Your two questions are absurd. None of this is any of your goddamn business. Take your christianista crap and hide under a rock because the next round of elections are going to be even worse for you.



report abuse
 

dan robinson

posted March 15, 2009 at 10:29 pm


There’s a lot of hostility here, for reasons I don’t really understand. That’s my problem, it would seem.
One comment said:
The one significant common factor between all three comments is that they were made very publicly to the media. That alone should cast considerable doubts on any of the claims that these kids really thought hard about whether they were going to marry.
While that isn’t hostile, but I found it sadly ironic that the idea that public figures would lie to the media for short term political gain to be par for the course. It as if, “Yes, Gov. Palen lied to the public via the media, that is what she is supposed to do.” is a very reasonable thing to do. She is a fundie Christian, and my expectation is that people would expect her to tell the truth.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted March 16, 2009 at 1:30 am


I have a difficult enough time running my life. I must confess i’m jealous of those who can micromanage the lives of others.
I taught in an inner city school for a few years, and the ignorance regarding birth control was awe inspiring. The students had heard from educators how to use birth control and why it was wise, but had been told by others that it was ineffective at stopping disease and pregnancy. While it’s true that birth control is not 100% effective, it is more effective than hoping for the best. We found that the most religious parents tended to see their kids getting pregnant. it wasn’t that those kids had sex more often that caused it, but rather that they had taken the time to explain to their children that birth control was a mistake. So thye didn’t bother. It’s not the parent’s fault the kid had sex and got pregnant, but they may have contributed.
Regarding gay marriage, my faith allows it, but my government doesn’t. what other theological questions should we involve the government in?



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted March 16, 2009 at 4:00 am


==Regarding gay marriage, my faith allows it…==
All faiths allow it:
A man who claims to be homosexual may marry a woman who claims to be homosexual.
==… but my government doesn’t.==
Yes, it does. There is no requirement that the man be heterosexual. There is no requirement that the woman be heterosexual. they both may claim to be homosexual.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted March 16, 2009 at 5:25 am


==Regarding gay marriage, my faith allows it…==
How long did it take you to find a faith that allows you to do what you want to do anyway, and adjusts itself to YOUR wishes? That’s a pretty convenient faith, isn’t it?



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted March 16, 2009 at 9:19 am


==…my faith …==
Does your faith inform you, or do you inform it?



report abuse
 

panthera

posted March 16, 2009 at 9:35 am


dan robinson,
One may expect many things, but fundamentalist/evangelical/literalistic…the list is endless, let’s just call them christianists…and, of course, the Mormons…
all consider the sin of ‘bearing false witness’ to not be a sin when it suits their purposes. They lie through their teeth to achieve their goals.
Of course, the more we find out about the lies and purposeful misdirection of Bush#43 & Co. I guess the same can be said about Republicans.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted March 16, 2009 at 10:14 am


==all consider the sin of ‘bearing false witness’ to not be a sin when it suits their purposes. They lie through their teeth to achieve their goals.==
What to scoffers know about what they reject?



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted March 16, 2009 at 10:16 am


What to scoffers know about what they reject? —> What do scoffers know about what they reject?



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted March 16, 2009 at 2:20 pm


Despite your pushy theistic insistence to the contrary, couples don’t have any “obligation” to make a relationship work. If they don’t want to be together, they are not obliged to be together. FOR THE CHILDREN!! is not a “reason.” Parents who are no longer in a committed relationship with one another should be able to work out child-raising details with one another.
As for adoption vs. abortion vs. keeping the kid…um, you see, Stevie, women are adults with agency. That means they don’t need the rest of society, especially men, to tell them how to conduct their affairs. What a woman decides to do with a pregnancy is her business. Not yours, not ours.
Despite your calling yourself a “liberal,” you seem to have a remarkable interest in sticking your nose into other people’s, especially women’s, personal matters. Have you ever met Amy Sullivan? I think the two of you should get a hotel room, unless of course you think that would be sinful or something.



report abuse
 

Baby-Killing Liberal Feminist Atheist

posted March 16, 2009 at 2:21 pm


Despite your pushy theistic insistence to the contrary, couples don’t have any “obligation” to make a relationship work. If they don’t want to be together, they are not obliged to be together. FOR THE CHILDREN!! is not a “reason.” Parents who are no longer in a committed relationship with one another should be able to work out child-raising details with one another.
As for adoption vs. abortion vs. keeping the kid…um, you see, Stevie, women are adults with agency. That means they don’t need the rest of society, especially men, to tell them how to conduct their affairs. What a woman decides to do with a pregnancy is her business. Not yours, not ours.
You call yourself a progressive, but you seem to have a remarkable interest in sticking your nose into other people’s, especially women’s, personal matters. Have you ever met Amy Sullivan? I think the two of you should get a hotel room, unless of course you think that would be sinful or something.



report abuse
 

My name

posted March 16, 2009 at 6:20 pm


or ours? If anything, this demonstrates the need for an adult, literate, wise policy on contraception on the part of both sexes and a woman’s right to choose to have a safe, legal abortion. There are three lives here that are immediately effected and yours and mine are not among those three. As neither your nor I have any skin in this game, a respectful silence on both our parts is required.
It is so tiresome to hear men think themselves qualified to impose judgment on situations like this. And the bad guy is always the woman. Perhaps it is time for women to judge the appropriateness of allowing the continued legality and presumed safety of Viagra. Oh, I forgot – that’s a “public health issue”. It also costs us complete strangers, however unwillingly, to subsidize your prescription for same either through the spread-the-risk private health insurance avenue or the public subsidy of Medicaid/Medicare.
How is it that a woman who has sex without benefit of marriage is a slut but the man who does so is not only not a slut but a “stud” and the subject of locker room raucous “you dawg” congratulations? Have some misogyny with that double standard?
I don’t give a damn what Levi’s sister says. I don’t give a damn what Sarah thinks. All I know is that Levi gets to walk away if he wants. Bristol doesn’t. Oh, that’s right, it’s your right to preach adoption to her, isn’t it?



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted March 17, 2009 at 12:06 am


==… and a woman’s right to choose to have a safe, legal abortion.==
Where is this “Right” stipulated?
Roe V. Wade, outta privacy, it is said, approves abortion. It doesn’t a sure anything more.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted March 17, 2009 at 12:07 am


a sure —-> assure



report abuse
 

Steven Waldman

posted March 17, 2009 at 3:44 pm


Mr. Incredible,
I very much welcome your comments and perspective. The sheer number of your posts is disruptive, though. I would appreciate it if you could consolidate your comments into smaller number of individual posts. You should be able to make all your points, without making others feel like this is the Mr. Incredible Show (though that does have a catchy ring to it)
Thanks very much



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted March 18, 2009 at 1:02 pm


==The sheer number of your posts is disruptive, though.==
How? In what way does the number of posts disrupt any more than ANY number of posts disrupts? I really would like to know how the number of my posts is stopping anyone from posting?
If fifteen individuals post one post each, how is THAT differennt from my posting fifteen times and ACTUALLy answering posts??? It’s still fifteen posts, and nobody has been hindered.
The point is that I, of course, got something to say. Then, after posting, I think of something else, and so on. It’s not as though I discourage anybody from posting.
==I would appreciate it if you could consolidate your comments into smaller number of individual posts. You should be able to make all your points, without making others feel…==
Steve, I didn’t know that I have the ower to MAKE people feel anything. When, then, can’t I MAKE them fee sorry for me and say, “Awww, gee, let’im post”? Why doesn’t it work then?
However, if you think that posting a long one is better, we’ll try THAT; but I’ll bet that that won’t satisfy the critics cuz THAT’s not what they’re after.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted March 18, 2009 at 1:10 pm


As I say, Steve, if you think that posting a long one is better, we’ll try THAT; but I’ll bet that that won’t satisfy the critics cuz THAT’s not what they’re after.
The number of posts is not their problem as much as they don’t like the number of posts saying what I say. They can’t get me to change what I say, and, so, they think that, if they can beat me down to fewer posts, they will beat down the expression of the content. Dey don’t know me vewy wew do dey? So, what then, when the content doesn’t change?
You would think that they would respond to the challenge, not the challenger. But apparenlty not.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted March 18, 2009 at 9:48 pm


==I very much welcome your comments and perspective.==
They come very naturally to me, thank you.
== The sheer number of your posts is disruptive, though.==
As you know, Steve, Free Speech invites dispute. Dispute is not necessarily disruptive, however, though there are those whose “conscience” is overtaxed by posts that are a little too close to the truth for their own comfort would like to characterize those posts as “disruptive” for their own purposes, those purposes being the elimination of opposition that gets it right and correct.



report abuse
 

Father

posted March 19, 2009 at 8:18 am


A child is equally a father’s as it is a mother’s.
If a mother can’t handle the child, the first one she should turn to is his father.
This notion that this is the mother’s choice alone is non-sense. If the father was not worthy to be a father, then why in this feminized and liberated age did the mother choose to conceive the child with him?



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted March 22, 2009 at 2:04 pm


==A child is equally a father’s as it is a mother’s.==
Half the stuff that goes into making the baby is the father’s.
==If a mother can’t handle the child, the first one she should turn to is his father.==
Part of what makes a marriage strong.
==This notion that this is the mother’s choice alone is non-sense.==
Right on, bro!
== If the father was not worthy to be a father, then why in this feminized and liberated age did the mother choose to conceive the child with him?==
Cuz she was too stupid to put the guy through his paces beforehand.



report abuse
 

Marian

posted March 23, 2009 at 11:59 am


“So should men only sleep with women that they are ready to marry or are married?”
Well, no, but maybe any man who has ever slept with a woman he wasn’t ready to marry should just shut up about abortion. See John 8:7



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted March 23, 2009 at 2:57 pm


==…any man who has ever slept with a woman he wasn’t ready to marry should just shut up about abortion.==
Half the stuff that goes into making the baby belongs to the man. That is, unless women believe that the man, in all cases, loses his say-so over his property and all responsibility.
== See John 8:7==
Okay.
(Joh 8:7) So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.
So, in YOUR world, we oughta, for instance, get rid of the jury system because the jurors have all sinned.
The fact of the matter is that, when Jesus said that, He was talking to the unrighteous, not the Righteous. He tells the Righteous, “judge Righteously” — that is, according to the Word of God, not according to one’s own word. The Righteous are able to do this because of
(Joh 15:3) Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you.
Now, why may the unrighteous NOT judge? Romans 2:1, 3 says that it’s cuz the unrighteous inevitably do the things for which they judge others. They do the same things because the unrighteous do not receive Him:
(Joh 1:10) He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.
(Joh 1:11) He came unto his own, and his own received him not.
(Joh 1:12) But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
(Joh 1:13) Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.



report abuse
 

Post a Comment

By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.



Previous Posts

More Blogs To Enjoy!
Thank you for visiting this page. This blog is no longer being updated. Please enjoy the archives. Here are some other blogs you may also enjoy: Top Religious News Most Recent Inspiration Post Happy Reading!

posted 6:00:22pm Apr. 20, 2012 | read full post »

Good Bye
Today is my last day at Beliefnet (which I co-founded in 1999). The swirling emotions: sadness, relief, love, humility, pride, anxiety. But mostly deep, deep gratitude. How many people get to come up with an idea and have rich people invest money to make it a reality? How many people get to create

posted 8:37:24am Nov. 20, 2009 | read full post »

"Steven Waldman Named To Lead Commission Effort on Future of Media In a Changing Technological Landscape" (FCC Press Release)
STEVEN WALDMAN NAMED TO LEAD COMMISSION EFFORT ON FUTURE OF MEDIA IN A CHANGING TECHNOLOGICAL LANDSCAPE FCC chairman Julius Genachowski announced today the appointment of Steven Waldman, a highly respected internet entrepreneur and journalist, to lead an agency-wide initiative to assess the state o

posted 11:46:42am Oct. 29, 2009 | read full post »

My Big News
Dear Readers, This is the most difficult (and surreal) post I've had to write. I'm leaving Beliefnet, the company I co-founded in 1999. In mid November, I'll be stepping down as President and Editor in Chief to lead a project on the future of the media for the Federal Communications Commission, the

posted 1:10:11pm Oct. 28, 2009 | read full post »

"Beliefnet Co-Founder and Editor-in-Chief Steps Down to Lead FCC Future of the Media Initiative" (Beliefnet Press Release)
October 28, 2009 BELIEFNET CO-FOUNDER AND EDITOR-IN-CHIEF STEPS DOWN TO LEAD FCC FUTURE OF THE MEDIA INITIATIVE New York, NY - October 28, 2009 - Beliefnet, the leading online community for inspiration and faith, announced today that Steven Waldman, co-founder, president and editor-in-chief, will re

posted 1:05:43pm Oct. 28, 2009 | read full post »




Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.