"Family" Issues

[dgs49]

Seeing some of the points raised in the "Santorum" thread, I thought it might be a good idea to extract a line of discussion for a separate one. The gay-lesbian-transgendered... community is rather peeved at the former Junior Senator from Pennsylvania for implying that children being raised in "non-traditional" households are being cheated (or something).

Although this isn't my main point, I think it is necessary to consider two competing scenarios when analyzing this question. If we are talking about, say, foster kids whose only known biological parents are either in rehab, not in rehab, or in the Big House, and they are being passed around from household to household by the County Children and Youth Services agency, then maybe those particular kids might be better off if placed for adoption in a stable, non-traditional household, provided the other indicia are favorable.

It is a different question altogether when one considers, for example, a gay couple - male or female - who wants to adopt or conceive an infant.

But first, I want to try to make a sports analogy.

I am a bowler. I bowl in a social men's league that has a bit of turnover for one reason or another, and every year we have two or three new guys who basically have never bowled before. In each case, the new guy starts bowling in a way that he personally finds comfortable (usually throwing a "straight" ball), and after a year or two they reach a skill plateau. At this point they stink (say, a 140 average), and although that level of performance is OK for a beginner, they need to decide whether to continue trying to improve by doing what they feel comfortable with, or start trying to throw a curve.

This decision brings into play two factors: (1) trying something new and uncomfortable will probably result in their being WORSE, at least for a short period of time, and (2) they can easily observe that EVERY good bowler in the league throws a curve (in bowling terms, a "hook"). In fact, EVERY bowler on the professional bowlers tour throws a hook. And although one can occasionally find a straight-ball bowler who is OK (say, 180-185 average), it would be manifestly stupid not to try to learn to throw a hook.

Now let's bring this point back to Families. It has been demonstrated in countless studies that any given child has the GREATEST CHANCE of achieving "success," no matter how you define that term, if the child lives in an intact, loving family, with a father and a mother heading the household. "Heather" may have two great Mommies, but her prospects would be markedly better if she had a Mommy and a Daddy.

This is NOT to say that alternative forms of households, or single mothers, or G&L parents cannot provide a loving environment in which a child can thrive. Nor does it prove that just because a married mother and father are heading the household that it will be a wonderful environment in which to grow up. Every household is unique.

All it is saying is that the traditional household is the one that has been demonstrated to provide the best probabilities of "success" for any child, and - as a matter of public policy - the "Government" ought to be promoting. And I would dare say, that the prevailing CULTURE should be promoting. To fail to promote traditional households is like refusing to try to learn to throw a hook in bowling. It is rejecting the path that is most likely to lead to success. In short, t is stupid and counterproductive.

Well.

What sort of things are going on that - shall we say - undermine the traditional household that we ought to be promoting?

Most eggregiously, our Federal government (combined with the state governments) pays more welfare money and non-monetary benefits to a single mother than it pays to an intact family in the same economic circumstances. As a result, single parenthood has become a plague on our society, with upwards of 70% of minority kids being born to single mothers.

In the name of fairness or compassion, our society has completely removed any stigma associated with illegitimacy, and tried to make single motherhood as painless as possible, thus implicitly promoting behavior that is demonstrably deleterious to the society at large. Daycare centers in High Schools? You gotta be shittin' me.

One side of the political spectrum seeks to EQUATE - for absolutely all legal purposes - "alternative" households with traditional households. And yet we know that they are not "equal," and that the traditional household provides the best prospects for success as a nation.

Television programming invariably glorifies "alternative" households and lifestyles, and RARELY portrays healthy, intact families functioning normally. I can't even count the number of programs of the past few years where a main story line is a gay couple having or adopting a baby (which is of course portrayed as a WONDERFUL thing for them to do), or single, professional women deciding to have kids on their own. If this isn't promoting a political agenda, I don't know what is.

Indeed, the programs of the 50's which portrayed successful, intact families are constantly mocked and called irrelevant. And yet, intact families remain not only the norm in the U.S., but they remain the ideal in our society (note the number of people who after divorce seek to get back, as quickly as possible, into a normal, traditional family situation). But you would never know it watching American television.

And all of this is why the social and moral elements of Rick Santorum's presidential campaign are striking a chord with people who value traditional families and traditional lifestyles. They are ABSOLUTELY under attack by the political Left. I'm not sure what a President can do to promote a "pro-life" agenda; it's probably more smoke than anything else, but such voters want the sure that the person they vote for at least shares their values with respect to families.

Isn't it odd that nobody tries to pin Barry down on where he stands w/r/t gay marriage? How can he get away with saying his position is "evolving"?

[Joe Guy]

Most eggregiously, our Federal government (combined with the state governments) pays more welfare money and non-monetary benefits to a single mother than it pays to an intact family in the same economic circumstances. As a result, single parenthood has become a plague on our society, with upwards of 70% of minority kids being born to single mothers.

That's not true. Benefits are issued based on the size of a family, even when "intact."

It seems likely to me that the reason there are so many single parents is because the 'traditional' family setup doesn't work out so well. The reason there are much more single women with children on welfare than there are men is because the father has flown the coop or never joined the coop in the first place.

[Grim Reaper]

Now let's bring this point back to Families. It has been demonstrated in countless studies that any given child has the GREATEST CHANCE of achieving "success," no matter how you define that term, if the child lives in an intact, loving family, with a father and a mother heading the household. "Heather" may have two great Mommies, but her prospects would be markedly better if she had a Mommy and a Daddy.

Wrong. What studies have been done on families with same-sex parents has shown them to be on an equal level with parents of both genders.

[loCAtek]

While I don't quite understand what you mean by 'sucessful' - ...upright, productive citizens? ...non meth-addicts with clean driving records?


In just my own personal observations of a few same-sex couples with children; contrary to Holywierd, the kids seem to generally be hetro oriented and bond to the 'nurturer' and the 'provider' regardless of what sex those persons are. An old friend of mine is so 'ordinary' in his latino male behavior that when discussing lesbian ways, folks try to tell him he couldn't know what it's like 'cause he's a hetro man.
He then responds, he was raised by a lesbian couple.