The Case for the Family.

Not that long ago, people looked at life with common sense. They believed that one of the chief elements of a healthy child was an intact family. Delinquency and other social problems, were nearly always assumed to be the result of a broken home.

Then came the "me generation" or "baby boomers." The me generation cared only about themselves and their own immediate gratification - hence the term.

In their obsession with immediate gratification, they developed a new way of thinking that banished all that stood in the way of what they desired most - immediate gratification. Things like consequences, responsibility and moral obligation just had to go.

One of the things they just had to do away with was the nuclear family - or at least the responsibility and obligation that goes along with it. So they pushed for things like no fault divorce and they argued that divorce, or raising children out of wedlock is irrelevant to the health of the child.

And they did a good job of this. In fact, they did such a good job that such things have been accepted as normal and healthy by many if not most. Claims that would have sounded insane a few decades ago.

The problem is, the belief is insane. And in a Country where more and more people seek to escape personal responsibility and the consequences of their choices and actions, the line of reason fits like a glove.

Well, it turns out that like most things, the wisdom of the ages trumps the attitude of personal convenience every time.

Here are a few of the facts.

http://www.childrensjustice.org/fatherlessness2.htm

http://fatherhood.about.com/od/fathersrights/a/fatherless_children.htm

http://www.photius.com/feminocracy/facts_on_fatherless_kids.html

Google is full of this stuff if you need a few hundred more links.

Here is one small excerpt:

Incarceration Rates. "Young men who grow up in homes without fathers are twice as likely to end up in jail as those who come from traditional two-parent families...those boys whose fathers were absent from the household had double the odds of being incarcerated -- even when other factors such as race, income, parent education and urban residence were held constant." (Cynthia Harper of the University of Pennsylvania and Sara S. McLanahan of Princeton University cited in "Father Absence and Youth Incarceration." Journal of Research on Adolescence 14 (September 2004): 369-397.)

Just curious, what are your thoughts on families that have two mommies or two daddies?

I think the whole concept of the absence of the father is based on the simple principle that children need a male roll model.

Asside from that - you do the math.



The American Journal of Public Health has published a detailed study of battering victimization in the male homosexual community (December 2002, Vol. 92, No. 12). The probability-based sampling of "men who have sex with men" (MSM) focused on four geographical areas (San Francisco, Los Angeles, Chicago, and New York) and resulted in 2,881 completed telephone interviews. Based on these responses, this first-of-its-kind study determined that the rate of battering victimization among gay men in the target group (men over 18 who had engaged in homosexual activity since age 14, or who identified as gay, homosexual, or bisexual) is "substantially higher than among heterosexual men" and also possibly higher than the rate for heterosexual women, according to the study.


http://www.narth.com/docs/domestic.html

I wish you wouldn't be so timid and just state your damn views.

I personally believe that a child needs a good family, it does not matter exactly how it is composed.

Like other adults in this country, the majority of lesbians and gay men are in stable committed relationships. Of course some of these relationships have problems, as do some heterosexual relationships. The adoption and foster care screening process is very rigorous, including extensive home visits and interviews of prospective parents. It is designed to screen out those individuals who are not qualified to adopt or be foster parents, for whatever reason. All of the evidence shows that lesbians and gay men can and do make good parents. The American Psychological Association, in a recent report reviewing the research, observed that "not a single study has found children of gay or lesbian parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents," and concluded that "home environments provided by gay and lesbian parents are as likely as those provided by heterosexual parents to support and enable children's psychosocial growth." That is why the Child Welfare League of America, the nation's oldest children's advocacy organization, and the North American Council on Adoptable Children say that gays and lesbians seeking to adopt should be evaluated just like other adoptive applicants.

Rick wont admit it, but the truth is he hates queers, niggers, jews, spics. It is just that the "new ultra-right" rarely use theses words. They do not want to scare people whom they are trying to recruit.

Fact of the matter is, the "YOU LIE!" ultra-right wing nuts are getting a free ride by the so-called "liberal" media. Most are racists and homophobes of the very worst sort. These nazi freaks are rising in the ranks of the republican party just like the religeous right did.

First, I am a Jew and I have nothing against Gays. I am simply not willing to buy into PC nonsense without questioning the wisdom of abandoning the most basic tenants of society.

Here is an example:

The American Psychological Association, in a recent report reviewing the research, observed that "not a single study has found children of gay or lesbian parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents," and concluded that "home environments provided by gay and lesbian parents are as likely as those provided by heterosexual parents to support and enable children's psychosocial growth.

The APA is notoriously far Left as are most professors in the social sciences. The above statement is argument ad ignorantiam - it is an appeal to ignorance. Although there may be no specific long term studies of harm caused to children raised by Gays, this in no way proves that the opposite is true. in fact, it stands to reason, because Gays raising children is a very recent thing. Of course there are no such studies, how could there be? So right there the statement falls on its face.

What the above statement intentionally omits is that there is ample evidence that lack of fathers is very harmful along with the other facts about higher rates of homosexual abuse. This is Left wing spin plain and simple.

Now, why not address the real data that I posted instead of an "opinion" based on lack of proof that would not logically exist to begin with.

The facts about children without fathers is overwhelming. Obviously, Lesbian couples include no fathers. And Gay men is another issue addressed above.

Marriage, Parentage, and the Constitution of the Family
by Chuck Donovan
WebMemo #2783
The family is a prime institution of civil society. In its origins, it is both natural and pre-political. Family is not the creature of the state but a network of relationships between a man and a woman, their offspring (if any), and the families from which they themselves come and that their union will create.
In the modern era, temptations to experiment with the institutions of marriage and family have multiplied. With less emphasis on the long-term responsibilities of marriage, the consequences of redefining the institution for children and society are subordinated to the desires of adults. Rather than compound these weaknesses, policymakers and citizens should consider and adopt necessary reforms to strengthen families and rebuild civil society as the engine of the greatest human goods.
Marriage as a Natural Institution
The Compact Oxford English Dictionary defines marriage straightforwardly as the "formal union of a man and a woman, by which they become husband and wife."[1] The United States Census Bureau defines family as a "group of two people or more (one of whom is the householder) related by birth, marriage, or adoption."[2] Until recently, the plain meaning of these definitions has been universally recognized.
The underpinnings of sexual differentiation and complementarity have been understood as fixed in natural law. The jurist Joseph Story spoke for this tradition when he wrote, "Marriage is treated by all civilized societies as a peculiar and favored contract. It is in its origin a contract of natural law."[3]
The marriage contract derives its strength from its conformity with the truth about the human person. Whether or not spouses in a particular marriage are able or willing to have children, they are themselves the children of one man and one woman. Their coming together is the extension into a new generation of the pairings of men and women. Marriage is not only a conjunction of individuals but the intertwining of family heritages. Marriage is the intragenerational expression of the union of man and woman that results from, and often results in, its intergenerational expression: the child.
The simplicity of this truth accounts for the nearly universal history and expression of marriage across cultures. Despite the enormity of the pressures marriage and family face today, the vast majority of people in American society express the desires to marry, experience a lifelong faithful relationship,[4] have children,[5] and raise those children into adulthood where they are able to establish families of their own.
Protecting Marriage Protects Society
The personal benefits of marriage to men and women, their children, and the social benefits to neighborhoods and nations are extensive. Author Michael Novak famously referred to the family unit as the "original Department of Health, Education and Welfare."
The intact, married family performs best on measure after measure of social outcomes for parents and children alike. For example:

• Married adults have better health, live longer lives, suffer fewer accidents or injuries, experience less depression, and enjoy greater happiness than either single or cohabiting adults.[6] Health benefits are particularly pronounced for married men.[7]
• Married women experience less domestic violence than single or divorced women, and they are the victims of fewer acts of violent crime overall.[8]
• Children raised in intact, married families with their biological mother and father experience a vast array of benefits that span the age spectrum and persist into their own adulthood, including achieving literacy, avoiding teenage pregnancy and juvenile crime, graduating from high school, and attaining marital success.[9]

The fracturing of a family is not the breaking of a single link in a chain but the opening of a hole in a protective net. One scholar has referred to five concentric "rings of community" that the family affects1) their unborn children, (2) kin or extended family, (3) the neighborhood, (4) the community of faith, and (5) the nation as community.[10] Damage to one of these rings affects all the others.
Marriage is a wealth-creating and wealth-preserving institution. One proximate result of its weakening has been the growth of government as substitute provider. As one prominent economist has remarked, "Deinstitutionalization of marriage will lead to an expansion of the size and scope of the state."[11]
Decades of Failed Experiments
Current challenges to the primacy of marriage and family as well-established civil institutions are often premised on the assertion that they will inflict little damage beyond that done by previous changes in law and culture. Those prior experiments, however, bear witness to the unintended consequences of ill-considered changes in public policy.
No-Fault Divorce. Advocates of no-fault divorce assured policymakers that the impact on children would be minimal if not beneficial.[12] National studies of the children of that generation who are now adults provide a clearer picture, as do surveys of divorced adults.
While many marriages are not salvageable (particularly in the presence of abuse, adultery or addiction), a recent University of Texas study of ever-divorced spouses found that only a third of them felt that they had done enough to try to save their marriage.[13] Moreover, children of divorce disproportionately suffer from such maladies as depression, compromised health, childhood sexual abuse, arrests, and addiction.[14]
Welfare. The expanding programs of the Great Society, while well-intentioned and effective in meeting short-term needs for basic necessities, also had long-term and unwelcome effects on intact families.
Until welfare reform in 1996, anti-poverty initiatives in the United States contributed to the self-defeating financing of family breakdown. Marriage remains the primary route out of poverty for low-income couples, and children who grow up in single-parent homes are five times more likely to live in poverty than children in two-parent homes.[15]
In each of these instances, experiments with family form and support mechanisms have inadequately considered the needs of children. They have spurred calls for reform, frequently from the children themselves as they reach maturity. These calls remind policymakers that no period of family decline has proved inevitable or irreversible.
Go with What Works
The decline in the most fundamental indicators of the health of marriage over the past 40 years is real. Rather than risk further decline in this core institution of civil society through additional experiments with the nature of marriage, policymakers would be wise to turn their attention to reforms that capitalize on the lessons of prior eras.
Blueprints are proliferating for the strengthening of traditional marriage.[16] Attention to these blueprints should be the first concern of policymakers seeking the common good of a marriage-centered and child-focused culture. The well-being of this generation and of generations to come depends on their success.
Chuck Donovan is Senior Research Fellow in the Richard and Helen DeVos Center for Religion and Civil Society at The Heritage Foundation.

[1]Oxford University Press, "Marriage," Compact Oxford English Dictionary, at http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/marriage?view=uk (January 11, 2010).

[2]U.S. Census Bureau, "Current Population Survey Definitions and Explanations," at http://www.census.gov/population/www/cps/cpsdef.html (January 11, 2010).

[3]Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Conflict of Laws, cited in Matthew Spalding, We Still Hold These Truths: Rediscovering Our Principles, Reclaiming Our Future (Wilmington, DE: ISI Books, 2009), p. 157.

[4]Mindy E. Scott, Erin Schelar, Jennifer Manlove, and Carol Cui, "Young Adult Attitudes About Relationships and Marriage: Times May Have Changed, But Expectations Remain High," Child Trends, July 2009, pp. 4-5, at http://www.childtrends.org/Files//Child_Trends-2009_07_08
_RB_YoungAdultAttitudes.pdf (January 8, 2010).

[5]Frank Newport, "Desire to Have Children Alive and Well in America," Gallup.com, August 19, 2003, at http://www.gallup.com/poll/9091/desire
-children-alive-well-america.aspx (January 11, 2010).

[6]Linda Waite and Maggie Gallagher, The Case for Marriage: Why Married People Are Happier, Healthier, and Better Off Financially (New York: Broadway, 2000), cited in the Witherspoon Institute, Marriage and the Public Good (Princeton, NJ: Witherspoon Institute, 2006), p. 31.

[7]Jennifer Steinhauer, 'Studies Find Big Benefits in Marriage," The New York Times, April 10, 1995, A10, at http://www.nytimes.com/1995/04/10/us/studies
-find-big-benefits-in-marriage.html?pagewanted=1 (January 8, 2010).

[8]Witherspoon Institute, Marriage and the Public Good, p. 33.

[9]Ibid., pp. 22-29; see also, generally, Patrick F. Fagan, "Special Collection: Mapping America: Marriage, Family and the Common Good," October 9, 2009, at http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=WX09J01 (January 9, 2010).

[10]Allan Carlson, Conjugal America: On the Public Purposes of America (New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Press, 2007), p. 42.

[11]Jennifer Roback Morse, "The Limited Government Case for Marriage," in Jennifer A. Marshall and J. D. Foster, eds., Indivisible: Social and Economic Foundations of American Liberty (Washington, D.C.: The Heritage Foundation, 2009), p. 31.

[12]Elizabeth Marquardt, Between Two Worlds: The Inner Lives of Children and Divorce (New York: Crown Publishers, 2005), p. 169.

[13]Ibid., Norval Glenn, foreword, p. xxii.

[14]Ibid., p. 189.

[15]Robert Rector, "Reducing Poverty by Revitalizing Marriage in Low-Income Communities: A Memo to President-elect Obama," Heritage Foundation Special Report No. 45, January 13, 2009, at http://www.heritage.org/
Research/Family/sr0045.cfm.

[16]See especially David Blankenhorn and Linda Malone-Colon, The Marriage Index: A Proposal to Establish Leading Marriage Indicators (New York and Hampton, VA: Institute for American Values and National Center on African American Marriages and Parenting, 2009), pp. 14-22. The authors offer 101 specific ideas to strengthen the institution of marriage without alteration of its historical terms.

Here is more info on the Gay lifestyle:

Full article here: http://www.traditionalvalues.org/pdf_files/statistics_on_homosexual_lifestyle.pdf

High Rates Of Mental Health Problems​

A 2004 issue of the The​

​

​

​

43% of lesbians; 49% of bisexual men and women.

the AJPH study also states that the sampling was not scientific and results could not be extended to a national population. the sampling was limited to 4 urban areas of the country. the study concludes that assistance to victims in preventing and treating abuse is lacking.

and then there is this: "this first-of-its-kind study determined that the rate of battering victimization among gay men in the target group (men over 18 who had engaged in homosexual activity since age 14, or who identified as gay, homosexual, or bisexual) is 'substantially higher than among heterosexual men' and also possibly higher than the rate for heterosexual women, according to the study."

of course the rate of battering victimization among gay men is substantially higher than hetero men, because usually, women don't victimize men physically. and notice victimization of gay men is only possibly higher than the rate for hetero women, who would be victimized by hetero men.

there has been plenty of time to study children growing up with either 1 or 2 gay parents. i mean really, how long do you think it takes for a child to mature.

and one last comment. i am not sure what your solution is to all these problems associated with gay people. but if you think taking away their rights in favor of your conventional "tenants of society" historical demeaning past is the solution, you are wrong.

the solution lies in supporting their right to live lives like everybody else does. it is not the fact that people are gay that causes the social ills. it is the discrimination, prejudice and stress placed upon the lives of the discriminated victims that manifests itself in abuse.

"the solution lies in supporting their right to live lives like everybody else does. it is not the fact that people are gay that causes the social ills. it is the discrimination, prejudice and stress placed upon the lives of the discriminated victims that manifests itself in abuse. "

Agreed.

RickWhite said:

Here is more info on the Gay lifestyle:

Full article here: http://www.traditionalvalues.org/pdf_files/statistics_on_homosexual_lifestyle.pdf

High Rates Of Mental Health Problems​

A 2004 issue of the The​

​

​

​

British Journal of
Psychiatry, published a study of the high rates of
mental illness in gay males, lesbians, and bisexual
men and women.
The study surveyed mental health problems faced
by gays and bisexuals in England and Wales between
September, 2000 and July, 2002. The survey
was of 2,430 gays and bisexuals over the age of
16 years.
It found high rates of planned or actual deliberate
self-harm among these groups: 42% of gay males;​

43% of lesbians; 49% of bisexual men and women.

Click to expand...

this is a most provoking post. given the nature of the thread, i am assuming that you are presenting these studies in support of your opinion that gays are bad for society? that they don't have the right to raise children?that they are prone to violence? and they are mentally unstable? am I reading you?

jeffchr said:

this is a most provoking post. given the nature of the thread, i am assuming that you are presenting these studies in support of your opinion that gays are bad for society? that they don't have the right to raise children?that they are prone to violence? and they are mentally unstable? am I reading you?

Click to expand...

Ah, because you think in terms of dogma, you assume I must be as well.

I'm just presenting the data. Could increased incidence of social ills be the result of how Gays are treated - perhaps. Could this also indicate that homosexuality is just another symptom of some childhood trauma or the like - perhaps.

The question is, given the higher rates of drug abuse, spousal abuse, break up and general instability, is it fair to say that this environment is less ideal than the traditional family? It sure looks that way from how I interpret the data.

And a proper longitudinal study regarding children raised by Gays would need to track at least several hundred into adulthood.

There is also that pesky problem of the clear evidence showing the particular importance of fathers.

I would say that if a boy growing up without a father is twice as likely to become incarcerated, that has an effect on all of us doesn't it?

It's all about which example you want to hold up as the ideal. Should we encourage people to understand and assume the responsibilities and concessions that come with marriage and to do the right thing by their children, or should we just say "fuck it, just do what you want because none of it matters"?

You see, that is really what you Liberals want. You want no responsibility at all, even for your own existence. You feel the Government ought to handle that for you. And you want no responsibility when it comes to raising children. You just want everything to revolve around your whim. Get mad at your spouse - divorce and fuck the kids they will be fine. Gays raising kids, why the hell not - kids make great guinny pigs.

I guess, in the end, your warped minds kind of prove my point for me. If people aren't careful in how they raise their kids, they might wind up like the two of you. If that isn't enough reason in and of itself I don't know what is.

When any conservative or extreme ultra-right winger uses the word "family", it takes on a very dangerous new meaning.

The traditional meaning of "family" has absolutely nothing to do with the poorly disguised message that they are actually trying to convey.

That message is this: Gay people are less then real human beings. They are sick and ill. They do not deserve to raise children. In fact, they are a danger to society. Like vermin and rats destroying every aspect of society. Gay people should be marginalized.

Any educated person knows this is a sick pathetic lie.

Rick, shame on you. Being jewish, I thought you might have some insight into what it means to be singled out as being some deviant "threat" to society.

The lying deviant crap being spread about gays by elements of the far right is NO DIFFERENT THEN THE LIES THE NAZIS SPREAD ABOUT JEWS. It is dangerous, destablizing, hurtful, and morally wrong.

Gays are, have, and are in families. You are just wrong. Letting gays marry, have kids if they want, and assimilating them into society is for everyone's benefit. This is only going to strengthen families; both "traditional" and so-called "non-traditional" (although I believe there are ONLY families).

Gays just want a FAIR shot at life just like anyone else. No special treatment, just the SAME rights almost everyone else has.

Disparaging gays I think is mostly a propaganda ploy, a distraction used by the far-right. History has shown what his can lead too.

Rick, please think about what you are thinking. Don't betray your heritage.

upnorth2505 said:

When any conservative or extreme ultra-right winger uses the word "family", it takes on a very dangerous new meaning.

The traditional meaning of "family" has absolutely nothing to do with the poorly disguised message that they are actually trying to convey.

That message is this: Gay people are less then real human beings. They are sick and ill. They do not deserve to raise children. In fact, they are a danger to society. Like vermin and rats destroying every aspect of society. Gay people should be marginalized.

Any educated person knows this is a sick pathetic lie.

Jeff, shame on you. Being jewish, I thought you might have some insight into what it means to be singled out as being some deviant "threat" to society.

The lying deviant crap being spread about gays by elements of the far right is NO DIFFERENT THE THE LIES THE NAZIS SPREAD ABOUT JEWS. It is dangerous, destablizing, hurtful, and morally wrong.

Gays are, have, and are in families. You are just wrong. Letting gays marry, have kids if they want, and assimilating them into society is for everyone's benefit. This is only going to strengthen families; both "traditional" and so-called "non-traditional" (although I believe there are ONLY families).

Gays just want a FAIR shot at life just like anyone else. No special treatment, just the SAME rights almost everyone else has.

Disparaging gays I think is mostly a propaganda ploy, a distraction used by the far-right. History has shown what his can lead too.

Jeff, please think about what you are thinking. Don't betray your heritage.

Click to expand...

just for the record, it's Rick, not Jeff.

other than that, you hit the nail on the head.

How is the APA far left? Examples please.

And a question: Would you rather see a child grow up waiting for adoption, as responsible gay and lesbian couples get denied? Seems kind of fucked up to deny a child a good home like that. Not that you said that was your stance, but I would be willing to bet. I'll await a reply.

I really liked how you dismissed the APA and its extensive body of work by simply calling them 'far left'. I can play that game too! Everything you cited is wrong because it is the work of a 'far right' institution. Yay! That was easy and fun!

I also think it's funny how you state that most professors of social science are far left as well (again, without citing anything to support your assertion). Ain't it funny, how most of the people that go out there and get an education somehow end up on the left of the spectrum? I think that is kind of funny

jeffchr said:

just for the record, it's Rick, not Jeff.

other than that, you hit the nail on the head.

Click to expand...

Opps. Fixed. Jeff, Mea Culpa. Sorry.

RickWhite said:

The APA is notoriously far Left as are most professors in the social sciences.

Click to expand...

LOL typical super far right nonsense there. Anyone with an opposing view that is educated is a "liberal elitist" or a "radical".

Science= Bad to the far right

OMFG, teh gayz is under your bedz trying to recruit you childrens....!!!

In case it escaped everyone's notice, I was not the one who brought Gays into the conversation - I merely made a case for intact families. I am more concerned with the high divorce rate, epidemic of single parent homes and the lackadaisical attitude people have toward proper parenting than I am with Gays.

Also, I do not practice religion at all. I simply call them like I see them. But resorting to personal attacks is one of the preferred tactics of the Left. All I see here is the same old saws I see in every Leftist argument. You people have zero ability to use critical reasoning or common sense.