The Attack On The Family

[CASteinman]

I believe tss' point (and he can correct me if I am wrong) was that for any given woman, on average having more education adds to her ability to provide stability and resources for her family, including increased health benefits.

That would match his second statement, but not his first. They are contradictory.

The data support him.

That is interesting. What data has been collected on this?

[Calm]

There are many factors that play into size of family, education level being only one of those.

As a side note:

A poll in 2007 may show that the shift towards preferring smaller families that has been going on since the 1970s may be turning around as it found that 18-34s were more prone to favour larger families than older groups...not by much, 3 kids instead of 2 being the desired norm.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/27973/americans-25-children-ideal-family-size.aspx

[Calm]

That would match his second statement, but not his first. They are contradictory.

His first statement was poorly written.

Among the data are the links I posted.

Here is another one (a lit review, check its references if you want the actual studies) in which an acquaintance is heavily involved:

http://www.utahwomen...icy_Brief_1.pdf

Edited April 14, 2013 by calmoriah

[Calm]

Specific parenting benefits of education:

• Give birth to healthier babies

• Spend more time reading to their children

• Prepare children better academically for school

• Have children who participate in extracurricular activities

• Provide healthier lifestyles for their children

• Work higher paying, more flexible jobs

• Have more college-educated children who can better provide for self and families

http://www.utahwomenandeducation.org/assets/RS_No._1-Benefits.pdf (includes nice table with lists of benefits of education over a wide range of categories)

[CASteinman]

Specific parenting benefits of education:

http://www.utahwomen..._1-Benefits.pdf (includes nice table with lists of benefits of education over a wide range of categories)

Some of that is just really interesting.

[CV75]

But neither statement matches your "agreement", although your interpretation at least makes sense.

Naturally i will read my interpretation into his statement as have you. 2 Nephi 9:29 is "always" applicable, or at least "always enough."

Frankly a statement like "I am saying that the lack of of women education is an attack on families" doesn't make sense to me. The word pairings of "of of" and "women education" both throw me off. But if it is supposed to mean that the lack of educated women, or the lack of education for women is an attack on familes, I would have to agree with that as well, in the same spirit / under the same conditions as my other posts. And no one can fault him for having an opinion that this would be one of the two biggest threats in the attack on families; 'm sure he would defend it if he wants to. If a woman is educated about certain things, but not educated about having a family, and as a result doesn't have a family (that she might otherwise have had), that is one less family in the world and the attack on that family would be successful; or, if as a result of her education has a family that harms herself, family members and others.

[changed]

I think redefining the role of women in general is one of the biggest attacks on the family - while it's wonderful for women to get an education / work / be treated equally etc. etc. women still need to value their chidren above their career. I think too many women are being pushed to do it all - that we're supposed to have the career, and be a mom, and you just can't do it all - trying to do it all just stresses eveyrone out, and tears apart the family. There are different seasons in life, and too few women are taking time off to devote themselves to being a mom. Everyone's priorities are in the wrong places, and the poor kids are suffering for it.

Edited April 14, 2013 by changed

[Stone holm]

I have never seen gay marriage as much of a threat to anything other than the exaltation of those specially involved. I do think that the breakdown of rural communities and the ethnic urban communities has played a part. Tight knit communities tend to favour the steadfastness of marriages. As we destroy the communities, the divorce rate climbs. In addition our households tend to stay together better if they are all involved in the economic stability as in family businesses. All of these social and economic supports have been under attack and until we can rebuild our communities and restore the importance of households as a productive unit, we will continue to see this decline. Unfortunately, we have been focusing on symptoms rather than causes. As a result you get some off the wall concepts like trying to reduce promiscuity in the gay community with gay marriage is some how going to cause families to break up or not form. Really?

[TAO]

Stone holm, some of the community which wishes to pass gay marriage is looking to push legislation that is much MORE than just that.

That isn't to say all of them wish for that.

But most certainly some of them do.

Edited April 15, 2013 by TAO

[Yirgacheffe]

While Hispanic infant mortality is less than nonHispanic among low educational levels, it evens out with higher education. Within the Hispanic group, the mortality rate drops form 5.2 to 4.6...definitely not as significant as it is for nonHispanics which is more than half the rate with higher education, but still significant (almost 20%). Education does contribute to decreasing infant mortality rates.

http://minorityhealt...nt.aspx?ID=3329

Also there are areas where Hispanic infant mortality rates are higher than nonHispanic, such as in Colorado: http://www.dailycamera.com/state-west-news/ci_22428612/losing-ground-hispanic-infant-mortality-rate-rise-colorado

My guess is that the traditional family structure among some Hispanic groups (not all, for example Puerto Rico has high im rates) has added protection that is lacking among nonHispanic groups...protection that is now failing as Hispanics alter traditional family structure due to immigration, etc.

There was a study my SIL told me about (after my high risk multiple pregnancy and her secret marshaling of both her and my family ) that showed among infants and young children hospitalized for serious illnesses Hispanic children fared better than whites. One of the reasons believed to be responsible for better outcomes was the involvement of extended families. These babies and young children had not only parents by their side but also grandparents, aunts and uncles and often even cousins.

[Rivers]

I have never seen gay marriage as much of a threat to anything other than the exaltation of those specially involved. I do think that the breakdown of rural communities and the ethnic urban communities has played a part. Tight knit communities tend to favour the steadfastness of marriages. As we destroy the communities, the divorce rate climbs. In addition our households tend to stay together better if they are all involved in the economic stability as in family businesses. All of these social and economic supports have been under attack and until we can rebuild our communities and restore the importance of households as a productive unit, we will continue to see this decline. Unfortunately, we have been focusing on symptoms rather than causes. As a result you get some off the wall concepts like trying to reduce promiscuity in the gay community with gay marriage is some how going to cause families to break up or not form. Really?

I think the argument against gay marriage is this:

If marriage is redefined as something else, then the ideal family model that Cinepro was talking about will longer be up on as high a pedestal.

[Stone holm]

I think the argument against gay marriage is this:

If marriage is redefined as something else, then the ideal family model that Cinepro was talking about will longer be up on as high a pedestal.

My response to that is nonsense. The heterosexuals have already destroyed that pedestal, if anything the gays might help rebuild it. That is a quirk in the minds of social conservatives. If you want families to stay together grow tight knit communities

[MormonMason]

My response to that is nonsense. The heterosexuals have already destroyed that pedestal, if anything the gays might help rebuild it. That is a quirk in the minds of social conservatives. If you want families to stay together grow tight knit communities

There is some evidence I have read a couple years ago that traditional marriage is on the downward slope in at least one of the first countries that legalized same sex marriage. I think it was Denmark, if I recall correctly. People are less and less caring about the need for the institution of traditional marriage since the legalization. It remains to be seen if this trend continues and if it is repeated in the other countries and states of America where it has been legalized, however.

ETA: Click here to read an interesting and recent discussion on the subject of nations that legalized same sex marriage, the decline in traditional marriages and rising of rates of out-of-wedlock births in the same countries.

Edited April 15, 2013 by MormonMason

[california boy]

There is some evidence I have read a couple years ago that traditional marriage is on the downward slope in at least one of the first countries that legalized same sex marriage. I think it was Denmark, if I recall correctly. People are less and less caring about the need for the institution of traditional marriage since the legalization. It remains to be seen if this trend continues and if it is repeated in the other countries and states of America where it has been legalized, however.

ETA: Click here to read an interesting and recent discussion on the subject of nations that legalized same sex marriage, the decline in traditional marriages and rising of rates of out-of-wedlock births in the same countries.

How many countries can you list where marriage is on the downslope where gay marriage is not legal. Certainly you can list the United States where 41% of children are born out of wedlock as one of them, Saying that gay marriage caused the Danes to marry less is like saying the increase baptism rate in the Mormon church has caused less people to marry in the United States. While both statistics are true, the cause between them has no relationship. What I want to know is if there has ever been a study in Denmark where people are asked if the reason they choose to not marry is because now gays can marry. You can not even suggest that the two are related unless there is more of a relationship other than statistics of marriage decreasing. As I understand it, divorce rate in Massachusetts has dropped since gay marriage has been adopted. Should we extrapolate that if gays are allowed to marry, then divorce rates will drop? I don't think so.

Also from the article

In Sweden, as elsewhere, the sixties brought contraception, abortion, and growing individualism. Sex was separated from procreation, reducing the need for "shotgun weddings." These changes, along with the movement of women into the workforce, enabled and encouraged people to marry at later ages. With married couples putting off parenthood, early divorce had fewer consequences for children. That weakened the taboo against divorce. Since young couples were putting off children, the next step was to dispense with marriage and cohabit until children were desired. Americans have lived through this transformation. The Swedes have simply drawn the final conclusion: If we've come so far without marriage, why marry at all? Our love is what matters, not a piece of paper. Why should children change that?

Is any of those contributors related to gay marriage??? This article is just an opinion and not even one that is based on any study at all related to gay marriage. They just throw gay marriage in because it is legal. The article even states that marriage was already on the downslide long before gay marriage was legal. Unless you can poll the majority of Danes that say the reason they have no desire to marry is because gays can now marry, you have no case. But I think you probably knew that.

Edited April 15, 2013 by california boy

[Calm]

One of the reasons believed to be responsible for better outcomes was the involvement of extended families. These babies and young children had not only parents by their side but also grandparents, aunts and uncles and often even cousins.

This was a point I was just discussing elsewhere about this subject, wondering if there was evidence to support this theory.

[Stone holm]

This was a point I was just discussing elsewhere about this subject, wondering if there was evidence to support this theory.

At least anecdotal evidence. The cultures with extended families tend to also be close knit where everybody knows everybody and their parents and grandparents and people tend to remain in the same geographic area their whole lives.

[MormonMason]

...Unless you can poll the majority of Danes that say the reason they have no desire to marry is because gays can now marry, you have no case. But I think you probably knew that.

It will be several more years before any definitive study can be done that can fully connect the dots. Until then, this will be hotly debated, with both sides claiming about the other that they have no case. It may just be coincidence that the rates of problematic family situations all went up shortly after legalization of gay marriage. But, when you see it happening more in nations where gay marriage is legalized, and see large jumps like this after legalization, it tends to raise some eyebrows. Then again, it may not be coincidence, but may also just be a symptom of the overall movement to destroy the traditional family already afoot.

[Bikeemikey]

It may just be coincidence that the rates of problematic family situations all went up shortly after legalization of gay marriage.

It's not a coincidence because it didn't happen... show the CFR (or reference the post where the CFR was provided and I missed it) that adequately tracks a "rise in problematic family situations rose" and that the time frame was even remotely tied to gay marriage. (A problematic family situation is not out of wedlock births.)

I really get frustrated with this idea of the European family in decline. Sure marriage is in decline, childbirth is in decline... that does not mean family is in decline. All of the hard data states that children raised in Europe will be better educated, live longer, live healthier, be less likely to commit violent crime, spend less time in prison etc etc than kids raised in the USA.

You measure the quality of family by what they produce... by your fruits ye shall know them anyone?

By most bench marks their children out-perform ours here in the USA... surely that means their families are better?

What am i missing here?

Edited April 15, 2013 by Bikeemikey

[Bikeemikey]

Stone holm, some of the community which wishes to pass gay marriage is looking to push legislation that is much MORE than just that.

That isn't to say all of them wish for that.

But most certainly some of them do.

So I will oppose their broader (secret conspiracy) agenda while supporting what I believe to be a legitimate claim to marriage now.

I can do both...

[Stone holm]

So I will oppose their broader (secret conspiracy) agenda while supporting what I believe to be a legitimate claim to marriage now.

I can do both...

Absolutely, we don't have to deny legitimate rights because scaremongering based on radical conspiracy theories. Actually, there is a split developing because of married gay couples wanting to impose family values agendas on the rest of their community...go figure. You suspect we might become political allies?

[Bikeemikey]

Absolutely, we don't have to deny legitimate rights because scaremongering based on radical conspiracy theories. Actually, there is a split developing because of married gay couples wanting to impose family values agendas on the rest of their community...go figure. You suspect we might become political allies?

Actually restricting others freedoms today out of fear of an imainganed potential restriction to our freedoms at some future date seems a little silly to me... but that's just me and I am sure next year i will be lining up to let pigs get married...

[MormonMason]

It's not a coincidence because it didn't happen... show the CFR (or reference the post where the CFR was provided and I missed it) that adequately tracks a "rise in problematic family situations rose" and that the time frame was even remotely tied to gay marriage. (A problematic family situation is not out of wedlock births.)

I really get frustrated with this idea of the European family in decline. Sure marriage is in decline, childbirth is in decline... that does not mean family is in decline. All of the hard data states that children raised in Europe will be better educated, live longer, live healthier, be less likely to commit violent crime, spend less time in prison etc etc than kids raised in the USA.

You measure the quality of family by what they produce... by your fruits ye shall know them anyone?

By most bench marks their children out-perform ours here in the USA... surely that means their families are better?

What am i missing here?

Let's see where that all goes over the next decade and see whether it remains the same or continues to hold true. Children of divorce get pretty messed up in various ways no matter where they live. We know what our heavenly Father's standards for family are. Anything that threatens that is an attack on the family.

[TAO]

So I will oppose their broader (secret conspiracy) agenda while supporting what I believe to be a legitimate claim to marriage now.

I can do both...

What happens when it goes to court, and they use gay marriage to support their legal stances on other issues though.

That is, the thing which you supported will be used to support things that you don't support. And it won't be a voting issue, so you won't have any control over how it's used. It'll be through the courts or the legislature.

[Stone holm]

Let's see where that all goes over the next decade and see whether it remains the same or continues to hold true. Children of divorce get pretty messed up in various ways no matter where they live. We know what our heavenly Father's standards for family are. Anything that threatens that is an attack on the family.

I remember back in the 70's missionaries returning from South America were saying that one of the biggest obstacles to baptism was the fact that couples were not getting married. There had been a superstition that developed that marriage jinxed relationships apparently because the Catholic Church didn't allow divorce. So I suppose there is some truth to the idea that the leading cause of divorce is marriage. Exactly why two gays or lesbians wanting to enter into a stable commitment to each other constitutes an attack on family.

[CASteinman]

I remember back in the 70's missionaries returning from South America were saying that one of the biggest obstacles to baptism was the fact that couples were not getting married. There had been a superstition that developed that marriage jinxed relationships apparently because the Catholic Church didn't allow divorce. So I suppose there is some truth to the idea that the leading cause of divorce is marriage. Exactly why two gays or lesbians wanting to enter into a stable commitment to each other constitutes an attack on family.

That is really tortured logic.