Family As The Most Important Unit In Society

[Walden]

Therein lies a major problem. The financially and educationally secure look down on the rest of us for having kids -- therein lies the reason for expanding Muslim and Hispanic birthrates. They shall inherit the earth. (Hmm, fulfilling prophecy, it seems.)

The educated and financially secure do not look down on others for simply having babies.

The educated and financially secure do, however, hold some disdain for couples who do not have the financial means to support the children that they already have, nor the education to lift themselves up to greater occupational opportunities, and still continue to produce children that they cannot possibly afford to bear and/or raise without generous government and/or church assistance.

My wife and I both hold multiple degrees and are currently in management positions. We waited until we were done with our education and had purchased a home before we had our two babies (I was 30 years old when our first son was born). We required absolutely no assistance from family, churches or the government to have our children, nor have we had to use any assistance to afford to pay for their care and upbringing.

Yes, I consider us fortunate, but in no way are we lucky. Our current state of financial independence, job opportunity/success and our ability to pay our own way is the direct result of our desire to have our financial and educational goals achieved, or at the least, firmly grounded, before we decided to have children.

Contrast this with my TBM sister, who dropped out of BYU to marry a returned missionary with a high-school degree, had her first child while living in a one-bedroom apartment in Provo, moved in with my parents after going broke trying to live off of her husbands paltry income, quickly had another baby while living with my parents, finally got on her feet and purchased a home with her husband, went on to have three more children in rapid succession, went broke again trying to feed, clothe and educate 5 children on her husband's meager salary, lost her home, and now lives in a rental property owned by my parents, while receiving assistance from both the church and the government, and of course, due to her large family, does not pay any taxes.

These are the types of people that the "educated and financially secure" among us hold disdain for.

[The Nehor]

Where did I claim to be discussing that the two had similar attributes--except as an parenthetical aside?

Comparing parenthetically is still comparing.

[The Nehor]

The educated and financially secure do not look down on others for simply having babies.

The educated and financially secure do, however, hold some disdain for couples who do not have the financial means to support the children that they already have, nor the education to lift themselves up to greater occupational opportunities, and still continue to produce children that they cannot possibly afford to bear and/or raise without generous government and/or church assistance.

My wife and I both hold multiple degrees and are currently in management positions. We waited until we were done with our education and had purchased a home before we had our two babies (I was 30 years old when our first son was born). We required absolutely no assistance from family, churches or the government to have our children, nor have we had to use any assistance to afford to pay for their care and upbringing.

Yes, I consider us fortunate, but in no way are we lucky. Our current state of financial independence, job opportunity/success and our ability to pay our own way is the direct result of our desire to have our financial and educational goals achieved, or at the least, firmly grounded, before we decided to have children.

Contrast this with my TBM sister, who dropped out of BYU to marry a returned missionary with a high-school degree, had her first child while living in a one-bedroom apartment in Provo, moved in with my parents after going broke trying to live off of her husbands paltry income, quickly had another baby while living with my parents, finally got on her feet and purchased a home with her husband, went on to have three more children in rapid succession, went broke again trying to feed, clothe and educate 5 children on her husband's meager salary, lost her home, and now lives in a rental property owned by my parents, while receiving assistance from both the church and the government, and of course, due to her large family, does not pay any taxes.

These are the types of people that the "educated and financially secure" among us hold disdain for.

The Parable of the 12 Sons in the D&C suggests it has little to do with worthiness or intelligence. Such disdain is sin.

[wenglund]

Comparing parenthetically is still comparing.

I already agreed that the parenthetical were comparisons--they were the exception to the rule. They were also asides, and were specific to the loving and edifying aspects of the relationships, and not the relationships as a whole (as some have mistakenly assumed), and more important, they were not the intended point of my post.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited September 24, 2012 by wenglund

[Damien the Leper]

Where did I claim to be discussing that the two had similar attributes--except as a parenthetical aside?

Granted, the way I juxtaposed Val's statement with mine, one may reasonably extrapolate such comparisons. However, that wasn't my intent. Instead, I simply wished to make the point that love in a relationship (of any sort), itself, is not sufficient to make it the model for the human family. Rather, other critical aspects, like perpetuation and progress of the species, should also be included.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Ummm...reproductive organs are lower on the totem pole than love Wade. In fact, they should be the least of our concerns.

[Damien the Leper]

Simply rephrasing your false accusations does not satisfy the CFRs. Thus far you have been the only one guilty of disrespect, insults, and making things personal. Either satisfy the CFRs or retract your false accusations.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Let's not make this unnecessarily difficult. You have access to the archives so that you can reference your many posts over the years Wade. I'm not doing the work for you. Let me simplify it for you a little more...you Wade, yourself, are the answer to your own CFR.

[RobertAC]

Rather, other critical aspects, like perpetuation and progress of the species, should also be included.

Not to be critical of Wade, but I am not sure that humans have to worry about the perpetuation of the speciies due to homosexuality.

Global warming. Nuclear war. Global pandemics. Population explosions. Yup! Those could affect the species in a big way. I'm not sure how gay and lesbian folks fit into the end-of-humankind scenario.

[wenglund]

Ummm...reproductive organs are lower on the totem pole than love Wade. In fact, they should be the least of our concerns.

So you say. However, many a legislature and court disagree. Perpetuation and progress of the species are the very reasons given for the state's interest in getting into the business of marriage/family and for specifically sanctioning committed relations between a man and a woman.

Also, I am still waiting for you to satisfy the CFRs or to retract your false, disrespectful, and insulting personal accusations against me.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Damien the Leper]

So you say. However, many a legislature and court disagree. Perpetuation and progress of the species are the very reasons given for the state's interest in getting into the business of marriage/family and for specifically sanctioning committed relations between a man and a woman.

As RobertAC said, homosexuality isn't going to stop men an women from making babies Wade. That isn't even a logical argument.

Also, I am still waiting for you to satisfy the CFRs or to retract your false, disrespectful, and insulting personal accusations against me.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

And as I told you before...you Wade, yourself, are the answer to your CFR.

[wenglund]

Let's not make this unnecessarily difficult. You have access to the archives so that you can reference your many posts over the years Wade. I'm not doing the work for you. Let me simplify it for you a little more...you Wade, yourself, are the answer to your own CFR.

Sorry...you making some general and vague reference to my posts in the past does not satisfy the CFRs for the charges you leveled against me specific to this thread. Either satisfy the CFRs or, as required by boards rules, retract your false, disrespectful, and insulting personal accusations against me.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Not to be critical of Wade, but I am not sure that humans have to worry about the perpetuation of the speciies due to homosexuality.

I don't either--which is why I didn't suggest anything of the sort. My point wasn't about human worries, but about which family model I prefer and why it has been preferred and promoted by government. Does this help clear up your evident confusion?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited September 24, 2012 by wenglund

[wenglund]

As RobertAC said, homosexuality isn't going to stop men an women from making babies Wade. That isn't even a logical argument.

And, as I explained to the evidently confused RobertAC, that wasn't the argument that I made. Please pay better attention. You continue to read things into my comments that are obviously not there and which were never intended by me to be there. Stop wrongly putting words into my mouth.

And as I told you before...you Wade, yourself, are the answer to your CFR.

Again, repeating your same baseless assertion does not satisfy the CFR. Either satisfy the CFRs or, as required by boards rules, retract your false, disrespectful, and insulting personal accusations against me.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Damien the Leper]

For the last time, Wade. I'm not going to do the research for you. You know who you are and you know what you've posted. If you are incapable of manning up and acknowledging what you have posted in the the past then our discussions and interactions end here which will be no skin off either our backs.

[KevinG]

I don't think there is enough longitudinal data to determine the efficacy of two same sex parents vs. a man and a woman as parents.

There is however a striking correlation on this board between threads on the family and someone injecting homosexual rights into the discussion.

[Damien the Leper]

I don't think there is enough longitudinal data to determine the efficacy of two same sex parents vs. a man and a woman as parents.

There is however a striking correlation on this board between threads on the family and someone injecting homosexual rights into the discussion.

I sincerely hope that you are not accusing me of such. As I told Skylla, my original post in this thread was not about same sex marriage/rights but a model family whom I'm close with. There is no underlying agenda on my part.

[The Nehor]

I sincerely hope that you are not accusing me of such. As I told Skylla, my original post in this thread was not about same sex marriage/rights but a model family whom I'm close with. There is no underlying agenda on my part.

Am I expected to believe you typed this with a straight face?

[Nemesis]

Get this thread back on topic or itll be shut down.

Nemesis

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Stalin is hardly the model for pure Communism. I don't see why you even brought him up other than to disuade me from my political stance. It didn't work.

Cuba, with government support (Fidel Castro & Co.), celebrates homosexual rights and relationships every year and they are Communist.

He kited 20+ million for any numbers of reason.

[wenglund]

For the last time, Wade. I'm not going to do the research for you. You know who you are and you know what you've posted. If you are incapable of manning up and acknowledging what you have posted in the the past then our discussions and interactions end here which will be no skin off either our backs.

I'm done asking you to honor the board rules. You have proven yourself to be a false accuser and guilty of some of the very things about which you falsely accused me. I can certainly understand why you resort to such an underhanded approach since evidently that is the best you have to offer in the face of sound reason.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Am I expected to believe you typed this with a straight face?

Family is everything...My Ward Family is great also. While going trough my my disbelief my Bishop has been great, the remainder has all but shunned. But I am going to attended still.

[volgadon]

Apparently French parents take the above approach and get well-behaved children as a result:

Pamela Druckerman, "Why French Parents Are Superior," The Wall Street Journal (Feb. 4, 2012).

Given that my generation is incredibly self-absorbed, a little less talking and a bit more listening and learning may be in order. See Jean M. Twenge, Generation Me: Why Today's Young Americans Are More Confident, Assertive, Entitled--And More Miserable Than Ever Before (Free Press, 2006).

I shared the French one with my wife. Superb article. Reminded her of the way she was brought up.

[volgadon]

Probably exactly the one he got, if he is intelligent, which meant that he wanted it by making that post.

By the way, Valentinus, Joseph Stalin made male homosexuality a criminal offense punishable by 5 years in prison with hard labor. So if your friends were living in the worker's paradise symbolized by your profile picture, they'd be in the gulag. Lucky for them they live in America.

No communist country allows same-sex marriages or unions; only the democracies do. Perhaps you should rethink your communist stance?

Cuts both ways. One could also mention that Stalin's totalitarian rule was highly influenced by traditional Orthodox Christian models, such as the veneration of rulers, saints, and relics. For example, have you read any of the Soviet children's biographies of Lenin? They read like any number of popular Lives of the Saints sort of book.

As Valentinus said, Stalin is hardly the model for pure communism, not to mention that even in the Soviet Union, communism was conceived as the model for the future, not the one they actually lived under.

[Yirgacheffe]

. I am surprised by the number of conservative, christian families who willingly pass their family duties to schools and educators - at the expense of others.

Exactly what family duties are Christian families passing on to schools and educators?

[Robert F. Smith]

I think most christians agree with the concept that the family is the backbone of society. Like so many other Mormon/Evangelical beliefs, they phrase it differently, but mean basically the same thing. Something hit me this week, though, regarding this belief.

I always thought of this concept, that the family is the most important unit in society, was primarily a spiritual concept. Basically, if the family falls apart, God will make sure that the nation fails. Accepting a new job as a school superintendent has given me a new understanding of this. The relation is much more direct, and a natural outcome of the failure of the family. For example, heavy reliance on government services and funding is largely an outgrowth of failures within the individual families in our nation. I am surprised by the number of conservative, christian families who willingly pass their family duties to schools and educators - at the expense of others.

I really am worried about the well being of our nation as we continue to devalue the importance of the family. We talk it up all the time, but often we do not follow our words with actions. It seems clearer and clearer to me in my current position that our nation really is struggling as a direct result of the disintegration of the family.

Yeh, but which kind of family? The nuclear family, the extended family, or Sly and the Family Stone?

[Ahab]

First, it's a family and not a "family".

A real family is one with a Mother and Father who at least have the potential of creating their own children with each other.

Same sex couples can't and never will be able to do that, which is why they must get their children from a real family, if they get any.

For the sake of discussion, just realize there is a big difference between a "same sex" couple and a couple with both a man and a woman, also known as an "opposite sex" couple.

Second, there isn't going to be a shortage of reproducing heterosexuals anytime in the next thousand years.

And as long as there isn't, there isn't going to be a shortage of children who can themselves grow up to produce their own children, etc, ad infinitum.

Whether you or conservative religionists agree with the structure of that family or not is absolutely irrelevant.

I think we can do better than that. I think you can agree that children come from "opposite sex" couples, rather than "same sex" couples. Same sex couples have no choice but to try to get children from somebody else, if they want any.

No need to get testy or frustrated with the fact that same sex couples can't have their own children. It's a simple statement of fact.