It certainly doesn't help but if two people that are delusional stay together and raise their children and they grow up to be as Fed up as the parents that doesn't help much.
There is also a higher potential that they will continue to be dysfunctional.
Cause and effect get pretty muddy because isolating social occurrences is impossible to evaluate with any validity.
We have had the same issues since the dawn of time. Man against man. Man against nature. Lack of empathy, all have been with us a long while.
"The world moves on." - So what? Does 'the world' always get it right?
Just having parents is not enough. Everyone has parents, even orphans have parents. Whether the parents are in the home, engaged in the process of being a parent, are providing proper care, love, discipline, setting standards of behavior, morality, being a role model.
Please explain how being a good parent is so different now than it was in the 60's.
Semple - You had a mother - in the home, engaged in the process of being a parent, are providing proper care, love, discipline, setting standards of behavior, morality, being a role model.
Your cousins had a mother and father that did none of those things.
When both Mom and Dad are part of the healthy mix so much the better.
One person CAN do a good job. Surely you wouldn't deny that a home with both healthy parents engaged in the process is better than one.
If not, why does everyone's heart pour out for the terrific single Mom that did it all on her own? Go and tell her that her accomplishment was no more remarkable than two parents raising a child.
Why do you try to make a stand on such obviously incorrect shit?
Well, of course it depends on the parents. I really thought I had that covered when I zeroed in on;
"Whether the parents are in the home, engaged in the process of being a parent, are providing proper care, love, discipline, setting standards of behavior, morality, being a role model. "
"You had a mother - in the home, engaged in the process of being a parent, are providing proper care, love, discipline, setting standards of behavior, morality, being a role model. "
" Surely you wouldn't deny that a home with both healthy parents engaged in the process is better than one."
Do you have trick glasses that blot out meaningful comments? Or does your mind just skip over them to make it easy for you?
Come on Simple - stop arguing where there is no argument!
I always resort to being honest. It comes off to some like I'm being a dick - they can't handle raw honesty.
In tact, loving families are not as rare as you might think. Even if they were rare, that's no reason to settle for less.
We want straight "A's" in raising families. A "C" is not good enough, average is not good enough, like everyone else is not good enough - our children deserve our best, all the time.
And I never said they had to meet my expectations (you said that) I simply said they exist - and in numbers greater than you might expect.
And THAT is childish?
Having an opinion about what is good, better, best doesn't equal "they have to meet my expectations "
Definitely. However, I would qualify that by saying the disintegration of a solid family unit. Solid meaning, able to work out differences in a foundation of love and respect, not strife and ill will as a dysfunctional family would.
lot of problems in society like the homosexual agenda, and left wing attack on family is to blame for the disintegration of the family unit
We are DESTROYING the 'Family Unit'. Hence, Chaos reigns.
I believe that it is. When the family unit is destroyed it's impact is like a Tsunami.
Wow Dries, you are just a fountain of bad knowledge! Your comment is wrong! Whoa! Someone open a window and let some of the wrong out!
Uhm, you harping on your narrowly definition of family has little to do with the topic of conversation. This basic unit of a family's structure has existed for millennia. Forcing the descriptor 'nuclear' was your idea - not the authors.
Do you think you have something to gain by derailing this conversation?
The title reads "Family Unit".
Not sure to which "problems" you are referring...
However, the slow pace with which our society moves to embrace
differently parented families is worrisome.
It is a sign that intolerance continues to foment discord.
i think i read that wrong the first time.
A lot of people have their priorities screwed up. People are having kids and putting them in these unstabled situations. And a lot of families don't try to make a better life for their kids. No father figure or guidance, and then these children end up behaving like wild animals and become another statistic.
While it may be a factor, I would be hesitant to blame the breakdown of the family unit for society's problems. A lot of our criminals come from stable, white, middle class families. Society's problems have been around much longer than our modern conception of the American family.
No, I believe it's mankind's utter rejection of God and his way of life, And the consequences of our ignorant and foolish choices absent his guidance
He did warn us this was how it would be when men would rule, and the consequences of not obeying him as a society.
so many pretenders:
-they go to church
-they call themselves "christians"
they spend all day:
-polishing their possessions
-complaining about the government
-casting stones at sinners
all the things "men" do when they are trying to be gods
we should all follow the instructions of Jesus
then we would all enjoy a better society
we need to love or brothers not build fences
Really good insight!
Yeah, thanks for asking. I think we've agreed that the the progressive movement over the past 50-60 years has targeted wholesome traditional things like the family unit . Initial targets were minority families but as opportunities presented themselves the left moved in subtle but effective ways to destroy the family unit.
Americans are getting wise though, and the left has instructed it's mind numb robots to rebut by saying that concept of the "nuclear family" is nothing more than a relatively recently devised aberration.
the way people treat each other is.
Exactly VicZinc. What passes as Christianity today is opposite to what Christ and the early church taught.
In Rom 1 starting in v18, Paul gives a clear graphic description and the reasons society is the way it is today. In vs 28 of particular note, the refusing to retain godly knowledge.
18For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; 19Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. 20For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: 21Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 23And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
24Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: 25Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
26For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
28And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; 29Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, 30Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: 32Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
Does this not describe our society to a T?
Not sure because
"God gave them up unto vile affections"
"God gave them..."
not man, god.
It is god's judgement,
They do what they want
and god judges them,
I do what I want
and don't expect other men (or women) to judge me.
If there is a god,
he will judge me in the end.
If I judge my brothers as
"unrighteous, fornicators, wicked, covetous, malicious; envious, murderous, backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient, without understanding, covenant breakers, without natural affection, implacable, or unmerciful
then I am no better they are
and I will be judged likewise.
For despite what Paul wrote
Jesus made it clear that I am not to cast stones.
People put too much focus on it. Its a product of being born with a sick mind or enabling parents with antisocial ideals they imprint.
Well, according to the last Census report 70% of American children were living in a two-parent household. Most of those were living with their biological parents who were married.
What problems are you referring to?
100 years ago having 2 married biological parents wouldn't be narrow minded. But there are so many more options now...one can't ignore that. And biological parents doesn't necessarily mean loving ones...:-)
Remember, though that parents are people, too...and can get into trouble...porn addictions, gambling...affairs...it happens...
I'm sure you did everything you could...and I'm sure they are proud to have you as your dad.
Time does matter. What was right for yesterday might not be right for today. Which are exactly the issues the Pope is also dealing with....
It works very well to have Leave it To Beaver families where everyone thinks the same and acts the same. Like the movie Pleasantville. But life doesn't work that way and we have to accept that...and change our ideals...
I'm sure you are.
That way of thinking does have some merit but could also lead to no future inventions and still have us living out of caves.
Yes. Some people are not ready for change. I'm not saying that's a bad thing...it is just too much for some to handle... It's too bad that changes don't always settle gently and allow groups of people the time and tools to assimilate.
Now so much change has happened and we are ready for more changes...we're almost conditioned to it...
Yes, but be careful - you you mention black families, you'll be labled a racist.
The world was a much better place before liberals, progressives, homosexuals and atheists screwed it up.
Isn't a male ballerina a danseur or ballerino?
Being part of a family never helped me when I needed it. Well maybe once or twice.
So, you could speak to the disintegrated family perspective. Do you think coming from a disintegrated family helped you through life so far? Or hindered you?
Probably hindered. They are v. religious and I am not. They've always thought differently than me for the most part. We've been able to come together a bit by mostly staying away from certain topics.
So, the problem was / is that you disagree with your family on things that are important to both of you?
I'm think a healthy family can tolerate some dispute. When it gets abusive, mom or dad bail, children ignored, etc - I think that's the kind of disintegration is referenced in the question.
Even disagreement in your situation has hindered you - how much worse would that other stuff be?
Well, being around people when there is a disagreement on basic issues is never easy. Let's just say if I wasn't related to them I would not be in their life, or they in mine.
Growing up i put up with mostly different attitudes but that changed when I moved out....
Some people might say that type of situation might have helped, but as I have little fondness of my growing up experiences...I don't feel that way...
I don't feel that my family situation has to do with the disintegration of society. It was just a typical dysfunctional family, with co-dependant overtones.
I'm glad you made it out unscathed!
And, who knows - the whole thing may have contributed positively to the person you are today.
I wouldn't say that my family unit had disintegrated...but they weren't very supportive....
Actually it's also being on sites like this and hearing other POVs that has helped me become more understanding. Also, I think my family has given up converting me - finally - so I'm a bit more relaxed around them...:-)
Not based on my experience.
Two married biological parents...! That's pretty narrow minded, Brian. How about settling for Two LOving parents.
And as far as one of the parents being drunk or having drug problems...well you are really asking for parents that are perfect and I know no such parents.
Most people have faith in something. It doesn't need to be god. It could be just decent values...without being hypocritical...
Without a doubt...
And the left encourages the destruction of the traditional family unit.
Just because you think traditional families are a myth, doesn't make it so. My parents grew up in one, I grew up in one and my kids grew up in one. We are the silent majority. We don't make news so many think we don't exist.
FYI - The myth of 50% divorce rate is overstated. The divorce rate for first marriages is actually around 30%–and likely closer to 28%. Christians have between a 30% and 50% lower divorce rate than the general population–which puts us at around 14%-20%.
Still nothing to crow about - but far better than the generally accepted number of 50%
Liberals have helped perpetuate the 50% number - making it seem not so bad to get divorced when so many others do it too.
Liberals have fostered a climate encouraging families to split. A single mother can get more federal dollars than a the same woman married.
A whole healthy family is better than a broken unhealthy one. Not rocket science - but you sure have a tough time understanding.
Now you are arguing for the sake of arguing. There isn't a significant difference from your POV to mine.
Mother & Father living together with their children that they love and care for. That's a myth? Never happens? Unrealistic goal?
Wow, it must suck to be YOU!
I get your point but, you happened to choose a family that actually DID exist in real life. Funny how you phuck up some times.
The commonly accepted figure about the divorce rate is profoundly misleading.
The notion that every marriage has a 50-percent chance of failure is so deeply ingrained in our national consciousness that even well informed and thoughtful observers seldom bother to question it. The media has repeated this conclusion so frequently that it has taken on a life of its own – and justifying – the emphasis on marital dysfunction that turns up so frequently in television and motion pictures.
According to responsible statisticians, however, the claim that half of all marriages are bound to fail has never been justified, and stems from simplistic misreading of the numbers. Veteran pollster, Louis Harris, for instance, cites the rock-solid figures compiled by the U.S. Center for Health Statistics and declares that these facts “are directly contrary to the media’s loud proclamation that one out of every two marriages now will end in divorce.” In his 1987 book Inside America, Harris reports the shocking news that our best numbers show that only 10 percent of all ever-married men, 13 percent of all ever-married women have ever been divorced. As he concludes, this in turn means that almost 90 percent of all marriages survive.”
Why is Rick Nelson's divorce even mentioned?
I don't know what the actual divorce rate is. I think it's probably closer to 10% than 50% though.
Your Ozzie and Harriet example is cute and funny, but saying they are the conservative benchmark is simply your projection - maybe so that you could include the flaws within that particular family?
I don't know why this is so difficult a concept to understand Semple, but it's NOT OK for you to pick MY examples.
And, seriously, why are you even resisting the concept that a healthy family unit would consist of Mom, Dad and child? Accepting that as an ideal doesn't mean nothing will work or even that some exceptional child could come from a single family home, or raised by wolves.
But no, all the time when someone suggests an idea, an opposing leftie has to come along with some exaggerated counterpoint - like you did here. Whassup wit dat?
Thank you - only took a week to finally get a response.
I don't think gay couples should adopt children.
Because homos are immoral. YA don't want to put kids into that kind of a situation.
There are bigots among straight and homosexuals.
I hear that 'morality is subjective' a lot from homosexuals and atheists. I wonder why that is. Of course, it's not true.
I know the definition - and, if you maintain the belief that morality is subjective, I submit that YOU don't know the definition.
Immoral is not the same as illegal in many cases.
No, read slowly - Morality is not the same as legality in many cases.
No, because they are not the same.
(Google 'apples and oranges')
This will be the third time I've had to post this - are libs naturally dyslexic or something?
"Morality is not the same as legality in many cases."
Maybe an example would be helpful. Suppose JakGoatBoy was to become romantically involved with your wife behind your back.
While not illegal, it is immoral. Further it is immoral from every perspective. Even Jack and your wife know it's wrong - they just don't care.
And you are unable to extrapolate because your are stupid? Or just obstinate?
With that attitude toward monogamy, you've probably made a good decision to remain single.
I didn't miss a word. And please don't be offended that I came up with the same analysis you did!
You've been careful to include your belief that man is by nature polyamorous, monogamy as a rule has been disprove (although I'm not sure what that means). You've stated that forced monogamy is recipe for disaster.
Yes, you said you prefer it, but I didn't catch anything in what you said to defend it. I'm hearing a lot of negative about monogamy. If I were a potential partner, that would be a concern.
And so, with even greater understanding about your feelings toward monogamy, I say again - "With that attitude toward monogamy, you've probably made a good decision to remain single."
Sure! Was what you wrote supposed to be funny?
I understand. We're good - FYI - I'd like you to know (seriously) that I honestly do appreciate our discussions. I know we disagree often - I see other posts where we in total agreement (like your post to that poor guy whose friend lost both his parents recently - Your advice to that person was on target and appropriately empathetic.)
Anyway, I appreciate your comments and respect your opinions, even when we're opposing one4 another.
Ease up? Nawh, there's plenty we still disagree on. I know we'll both call each other out on disagreements - it's just that seeing another side of a personality, finding common ground, injects respect for ones adversary.
Liberals are responsible for most of it