The Kids are Doing Alright: The Culture War is Over

[Timshel]

The two parent family is not a myth, per se....it's just should never have been used to make the single parent feel guilty or odd. Ozzie & Harriet, Father Knows Best, The Brady Bunch....THOSE were myths. As TV and movies went through major changes after 1968 and 1972, they may have had more realistic versions of the American family but it's still surrealistic or unrealistic versions.

The vast majority of Americans have been and are raised by two parent families and came out pretty good. Hell, you can say that for pretty much of the world.

What is and always will be a phallacy is the gay "family". The gay family is an artificial construct....period. And until you can have a pregnant man or a woman impregnate another woman, the gay family will remain an artificial construct.

The Stacey and Bilblarz study will always be the thorn in the side of the gay family advocacy.

First off, 62% of children at the last census lived in two parent family homes (not necessarily married). That proves most will be raised in two parent family homes, huh? No, as many of those will end in divorce or breakup before the child is fully raised. Further, some portion of those people are lying or are not aware of the truth that the child is not biologically related to one parent.

Your arguments on the homosexual family are just repetitions of the non sequitur and idiotic assumptions of social conservatives.

Homosexuals have children, through natural processes NOW. The fact that they cannot create them in a homosexual relationship is irrelevant. They can provide a stable home environment, as singles and better as married couples.

The two parent home is not a myth. That it any longer provides a stable environment or that the male-female two parent and biologically connected home is the only possible stable environment environment for child rearing, is the myth.

Also, the idealization of it is a myth, as you agreed.

 

[Timshel]

and you're naive to assume its over

the 60's and 70's were all about free lovin...yet that dramatically changed in the 80's....as for returning to the 50's...you again show your ignorance

what exactly is the 50's? a commercial or mag advert in some magazine? the country actually conservative in the 80's....then the 90's was a free for all...still the country moved towards conservatism....hence, the republicans taking over congress and bush winning TWO terms

this is cyclical...its how america operates...

Hey dummy! The argument is over here!

Dude, you are talking about who got elected. I am talking about what happened in our culture. I made that clear.

Our culture did not become conservative in the 80s. There was a pullback from free sex which was about AIDS, not a return to the traditional family values. The 80s were marked by rising crime rates, teen pregnancy and drug use much of which crested in the 90s. Divorce rates did not go down, they kept rising. Mom did not go back to the traditional role but continued to leave it more and more.

And in the 00s, while crime rates and the rest dropped we still have not returned to any social conservative positions or improved the fractured family.

The march for civil rights did not go backwards in the 80s or 00s either. Women continued to be freed and treated more equally. Homosexuals have gained considerable rights and racial tensions have eased.

All you have is who was in office I am talking about things much more
important.

 

[apple0154]

(Originally Posted by RStringfield)
Let's put em on a pallet in a lumberyard and see which one rots/grows faster.

How perfunctorily stupid and ridiculous...but then that's just you being you. Let's put an infant on a pallet and see if it survives....like I said you are a total dorkpuss.

The point that you either are too knee-jerk or flat out stupid to get is that a stack of lumber if left alone remains a stack of lumber. If the zygote is left alone (not killed) will continue to grow.

In order for a zygote to grow it is not "left alone". The woman's body (heart, lungs, blood, etc) are supplying the necessary labor to "build" a person. If it was a case of simply leaving the zygote alone pregnant women could drink and take drugs without any consequences to it.

 

[apple0154]

which will happen first....humanity will choose not to let unborn children die......or humanity will choose to expand those we are allowed to kill......if we continue to permit the left to desensitize our children as to the value of life, it will be the latter......

Let's hope it's the latter because, today, people are suffering and want to die and others are not permitted to help. People suffering from diseases such as ALS where the body slowly "freezes up" removing the ability to eat and breathe.

Talk about desensitized! What do you call watching an individual deteriorate, pleading for someone to end their misery while others insist on laws preventing honoring their wishes? Or people in extreme pain and doctors denying adequate pain medication because they worry about being charged with hastening a patient's death?

 

[DamnYankee]

...or it soon will be.

It's time for the social conservatives to face the facts of the world as it now exists. The ideal of the two parent family unit is dead and it is not going to return. "Leave it to Beaver" was nothing but a myth to begin with. ...

The social impact of marriage is at the center of debates in many countries. Same-sex marriage, divorce, unmarried mothers and other issues divide public opinion. The journal The Future of Children dedicated its summer issue to the theme "Marriage and Child Well-being" and sheds light on the problems.

...

The decline in two-parent families has been closely linked with a rise in child poverty, the journal said. Moreover, the changes in marriage and the family "appear to be depriving children of such documented benefits of marriage as better physical and emotional health and greater socioeconomic attainment."

http://www.ewtn.com/library/ISSUES/z2parents.HTM

Why do you hate children?

 

[Sammy Jankis]

Let's hope it's the latter because, today, people are suffering and want to die and others are not permitted to help. People suffering from diseases such as ALS where the body slowly "freezes up" removing the ability to eat and breathe.

Talk about desensitized! What do you call watching an individual deteriorate, pleading for someone to end their misery while others insist on laws preventing honoring their wishes? Or people in extreme pain and doctors denying adequate pain medication because they worry about being charged with hastening a patient's death?

Why do you DENY death panels then, when apparently it's what everyone wants?

you = textbook nihilist nazi of the revolutionary holocaust

 

[apple0154]

actually, the changes are reflective of the knowledge gained through scientific endeavor......when science determined when children were actually alive, the church adjusted it's views on killing them......oddly, it's the seculars who continue to ignore science in this case.......

You poor, naive soul.

The total ban on abortion came about in 1869 when the Emperor of France, a nation then known for it's love of war, realized the population was decreasing. So the Emperor paid the Pope, a fellow megalomaniac, a visit.

In exchange for the Pope telling the people all abortion was a sin the Emperor would tell the people the Pope was infallible. The Emperor was assured of a future abundance of young men to send to the slaughter of war and the Pope's massive ego was fed. A win-win situation. Truly a deal made in Hell.

 

[apple0154]

Why do you DENY death panels then, when apparently it's what everyone wants?

you = textbook nihilist nazi of the revolutionary holocaust

Who wants death panels? I was talking about the freedom to live or die. Can it be said one is truly free if that most basic freedom does not exist?

 

[PostmodernProphet]

What do you call watching an individual deteriorate, pleading for someone to end their misery

I call it oddly reminiscent of reading your threads......

 

[Timshel]

nothing you have said actually counters what i said.....

if this is about opinion only....fine....my opinion vs yours....just don't pass off your opinion as fact

and don't be surprised when the country turns conservative.....read history, you will learn something

What you said was not relevant to anything. Republicans were elected. Great! What a fascinating piece of information. Thanks, for your contribution.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

String....another matter.....the title of the thread is "The kids are doing alright"......there's 48 million of them that didn't fare so well since the 70's.........

 

[apple0154]

(Originally Posted by RStringfield)
...or it soon will be.

It's time for the social conservatives to face the facts of the world as it now exists. The ideal of the two parent family unit is dead and it is not going to return. "Leave it to Beaver" was nothing but a myth to begin with. ...

The social impact of marriage is at the center of debates in many countries. Same-sex marriage, divorce, unmarried mothers and other issues divide public opinion. The journal The Future of Children dedicated its summer issue to the theme "Marriage and Child Well-being" and sheds light on the problems.
.......

The decline in two-parent families has been closely linked with a rise in child poverty, the journal said. Moreover, the changes in marriage and the family "appear to be depriving children of such documented benefits of marriage as better physical and emotional health and greater socioeconomic attainment."

http://www.ewtn.com/library/ISSUES/z2parents.HTM

Why do you hate children?

It would appear it's the Conservatives who hate children. You've laid out the reality so what's the solution? Force people to marry? Outlaw divorce? Demand families stay together?

OR

Institute programs for children/single families. Universal child care for working parents. A guaranteed income for heads of households with children.

This goes back to the root of the problem and that is discouraging abortion, encouraging people to bear children knowing they can not or will not provide a suitable home.

Is it logical to expect that society will go back to the "old days", people will give up their freedoms and live in miserable relationships and that will result in happy and well adjusted children or is it wiser to try a different approach?

In a way it's similar to elderly folks. The elderly depended on family for support in their final years. As families split and moved away many elderly were abandoned. Now there are government programs such as pensions and homes available for the elderly. Society and government adjusted to the new reality.

It's time to adjust to the new reality regarding children. As one support system weakens (the family) another takes it's place (the government).

Child care. After school programs. Week-end activities. Tutoring....it's time for society to pick up the slack rather than having people lament about "the good old days" while doing nothing or, worse, actively resisting/preventing governments from assisting.

It's the hypocrite who cries "the poor children" while voting against government programs to help children shouting "not with my money."

 

[apple0154]

I call it oddly reminiscent of reading your threads......

I'm glad to see you have read them. Now my next wish is for you to have the ability to grasp the content.

Hope springs eternal.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

I'm glad to see you have read them. Now my next wish is for you to have the ability to grasp the content.

Hope springs eternal.

/shrugs....I grasped the content, puked, went forward.....just as I did with your last "we cannot be financially secure unless we kill our children" post.....

 

[Timshel]

How perfunctorily stupid and ridiculous...but then that's just you being you. Let's put an infant on a pallet and see if it survives....like I said you are a total dorkpuss.

The point that you either are too knee-jerk or flat out stupid to get is that a stack of lumber if left alone remains a stack of lumber. If the zygote is left alone (not killed) will continue to grow.

It will not. That is the point you are ignoring or are to stupid to get. The fertilized egg, needs the mother or it will not grow, at all, and it will start to die IMMEDIATELY. What you mean by "leaving it alone" is... if the mother is forced to carry it.

And it is your analogy that is stupid. A zygote is not comparable to the needs of an infant. An infant is actually animate. It chooses it's actions based on it's functioning brain. The zygote is an automaton directed by some sort of instinctive nature encoded into it's dna that determines its responses to stimuli. It does not choose how it reacts anymore than a stack of lumber does.

Let's put all three on the pallet.

The zygote is already dead and rots rapidly.
The wood is already dead and rots slowly.
The infant moves around, likely cries in order to gain attention, and if something edible crosses it's path it may try to consume it. It breathes in and out, a function directed by it's brain. It is not dead. It is not rotting. It is alive, in a way that is human and imbues it with individual rights.

 

[Sammy Jankis]

The fantasy of the stable home for the purposes of child rearing, that you claim justifies denying homosexuals the right to marry, was built on the subservience of women to men. As women became more free to work outside of the home and to enjoy full legal rights, divorce rates went up and that myth was forever fractured.

The reality now is that a child has no expectation that their parents are going to stay together forever and live happily ever after. Their parents do not either. The truth is, that that was all a cruel fantasy to start with.

I am not saying it cannot be achieved. Everyone still wants it. But our expectations of it have changed to something more realistic. Social conservatives can try to still live the lie if they wish, but they will almost certainly fail.

The time of taking the woman's role for granted is over. As a male, if you hope to provide your children with a stable two parent home, you better be ready to work for it.

Olay hamburger is here! Kill the gentiles. (just fing with nAHZi)

Im not saying gays can't form families. Im saying they can't redefine marriage. Civil unions will be fine. Let go of your social engineering agenda.

Stable homes are not just a fantasy. I'm sorry you got dildo assraped by your mom, but that's a marginal case.

 

[Timshel]

String....another matter.....the title of the thread is "The kids are doing alright"......there's 48 million of them that didn't fare so well since the 70's.........

I know that and pointed it out in the OP. I grew up during the height of its casualties and noted my generations lawlessness. I will go over it, again, since everything has to spelled out in detail to the neanderthals...

Yurt, is misinformed enough to believe there was some return to social conservatism. There was not. He bases it on the children of the 70s who had free love and drugs. The free love slowed due to fears of disease, but we still had sex, which is obvious with reference to exploding teen pregnancy rates during the period. We did plenty of drugs too. But our outburst were FAR worse. We were not just sitting around, getting high and hugging on each other. We were looking for things to destroy and people to punch.

It was not mommy and daddy are gone let's all love each other and get high. It was, the good feeling of the party is over, I got a headache, mommy and daddy are still gone, let's fucking wreck this place.

But that has passed. Mommy and daddy are STILL gone. Drugs are STILL being used. Sex is still common in youth. Most of the teen problems are declining. Why?

IMO, we have adapted. The culture has adapted. The family has adapted. Partly due to ridding ourselves of old fairy tales like "Leave it to Beaver." More due to parents that have been raised in the new reality. Today's parents have developed skills that make them completely unlike the parents that came before. Gender has lost it's defining role in the family. Women have and are being prepared to be providers. Men have and are being prepared to be nurturers. And we know not to fill the heads of children with bullshit.

The storm has passed, THE Culture War is over and the myths that surrounded it are dead and forgotten.

We will not be returning to Pleasantville or what was normal in 1950. Obviously, grandma is going to keep babbling about how we can make it back there. But nobody is paying attention to her any longer and the stupid directions, which are no good in the new reality because the roads no longer exist, will soon fade to nothing.

We have witnessed a historical cultural shift and it primarily surrounds our expectations and understanding of family. There are still problems on which we will squabble, of course. But it is a quite different time than any that have come before it in human history. The conservatives were right on one point, it really started with women's liberation. But they were/are wrong on the course away from the ghetto that was the 80s-90s.

 

[Timshel]

Im not saying gays can't form families. Im saying they can't redefine marriage. Civil unions will be fine. Let go of your social engineering agenda.

Stable homes are not just a fantasy. I'm sorry you got dildo assraped by your mom, but that's a marginal case.

FUCK YOU RETARD. I'd beat you to within the edge of your life if you said that shit to my face.

My mother was a virtual saint in a position for which she had not been prepared. She was a model for single mothers. Ask many of my female cousins, who seek her counsel and love her dearly.

You are nothing but human filth. A big bag of excrement that has no grasp on reality, old or new. You sit in your own filth and masturbate to fantasies of how your mother lived under your father's thumb. You wish you could be like dad. It's not going to happen and because of that you will be cutoff from the future. Evolution is a beautiful thing.

 

[Sammy Jankis]

I know that and pointed it out in the OP. I grew up during the height of its casualties and noted my generations lawlessness. I will go over it, again, since everything has to spelled out in detail to the neanderthals...

Yurt, is misinformed enough to believe there was some return to social conservatism. There was not. He bases it on the children of the 70s who had free love and drugs. The free love slowed due to fears of disease, but we still had sex, which is obvious with reference to exploding teen pregnancy rates during the period. We did plenty of drugs too. But our outburst were FAR worse. We were not just sitting around, getting high and hugging on each other. We were looking for things to destroy and people to punch.

It was not mommy and daddy are gone let's all love each other and get high. It was, the good feeling of the party is over, I got a headache, mommy and daddy are still gone, let's fucking wreck this place.

But that has passed. Mommy and daddy are STILL gone. Drugs are STILL being used. Sex is still common in youth. Most of the teen problems are declining. Why?

IMO, we have adapted. The culture has adapted. The family has adapted. Partly due to ridding ourselves of old fairy tales like "Leave it to Beaver." More due to parents that have been raised in the new reality. Today's parents have developed skills that make them completely unlike the parents that came before. Gender has lost it's defining role in the family. Women have and are being prepared to be providers. Men have and are being prepared to be nurturers. And we know not to fill the heads of children with bullshit.

The storm has passed, THE Culture War is over and the myths that surrounded it are dead and forgotten.

We will not be returning to Pleasantville or what was normal in 1950. Obviously, grandma is going to keep babbling about how we can make it back there. But nobody is paying attention to her any longer and the stupid directions, which are no good in the new reality because the roads no longer exist, will soon fade to nothing.

We have witnessed a historical cultural shift and it primarily surrounds our expectations and understanding of family. There are still problems on which we will squabble, of course. But it is a quite different time than any that have come before it in human history. The conservatives were right on one point, it really started with women's liberation. But they were/are wrong on the course away from the ghetto that was the 80s-90s.

How will gay families be less '1950's'? I mean, besides being two guys. Maybe they will be just two gin-soaked ward cleavers?

 

[Sammy Jankis]

FUCK YOU RETARD. I'd beat you to within the edge of your life if you said that shit to my face.

My mother was a virtual saint in a position for which she had not been prepared. She was a model for single mothers. Ask many of my female cousins, who seek her counsel and love her dearly.

You are nothing but human filth. A big bag of excrement that has no grasp on reality, old or new. You sit in your own filth and masturbate to fantasies of how your mother lived under your father's thumb. You wish you could be like dad. It's not going to happen and because of that you will be cutoff from the future. Evolution is a beautiful thing.

Families are not based solely on suppression of women, you demented oaf.

Some women choose them. Family is the reproductive and cultural transmission unit of humanity. Your statist hate can't change that.