.

Family Not Required

We are attempting to fix out country from the top; while we corrupt and pervert the basic unit of our communities.

I have long claimed in both my blogs and comments here on Patch that liberal agenda to ‘free’ the US from traditional way of living, is leading to the destruction of the nuclear family.  From the advancement of single motherhood via feminism, treating sex as an extracurricular sport in the public schools, the excuses made for the dehumanizing of women in the inner cities, the acceptance of co-habitation verses marriage and even the demand that we must accept the gay lifestyle; each one stands as lubricant to the slippery slope argument of nuclear family destruction.  However, when taken as a whole, the slope no longer requires each behavior as a lubricant since culture begins to slide down hill on its own.  Recently in a New York Times article, Making a Child, Without the Couple, the final piece of the puzzle has been put into place. 

As it turns out, there is a growing fashion trend (as I would like to point out that this appears in the Fashion & Style section of the paper) in which women who want a family without the commitment, are finding men wanting children without the burden of a wife.  According to the article, women, having been propagated to believe professional success is happiness, are finding that spending the time to develop the bonds required for a ‘traditional’ family tend to interfere with career advancement.  So instead, these women, having been told that professional accomplishments equates to happiness, go out looking from men willing to donate sperm.  For as it turns out, unlike a BMW, children of your own genetic family line do not come pre-assembled.  Yet, how does a woman go about this without being dreadfully awkward amongst friends? 

Thankfully, the article is more then happy to point out a number of websites willing to procure for you the perfect non-romantic, non-sexual partner able to assist in the creation of your stunning Gucci McChild.  These websites act like the Autotrader.com of the living accessory world.  Simply log in, determine which options you would like your future living accessory equipped with genetically, based on the donors picture and background, and proceed to the checkout.  

Oddly enough, the majority of men willing to engage in this practice are homosexual men who feel they are missing out on the family experience.  I say odd, because wouldn’t a sexual determination from birth that causes a man to reject heterosexual relations evolve into something that also prevents the desire for family?  They would seem to go hand in hand.  But I digress…. 

We have taken the traditional nuclear family, 1Dad + 1Mom + 2.5Children = Family, and re-assembled the equation under the assumption that some or all of the variables are interchangeable.  Now according to the fashion section of the New York Times, we can eliminate the equation completely.  

Some will say, ‘Who Cares?’, ‘Live and let live.’.  It is not that easy.  What exactly are we teaching the future generations about commitment or personal restraint?  How do you explain the importance of family when we our own perverted sense of family reads as follows: 

1Mom(5 days per week) / 1Dad(2days per week) = Family 

or  

1Mom + 1Mom + 1/2Dad’s seed – Dad = Family 

or 

1Dad + 1Dad + Rental Fees of Female Uterus – Mom = Family

or

1Dad + 4(1Mom + Children) = Family

 You are teaching the future generations that self want is the basis for existence.  These families are no longer created for the advancement of children; rather they are a formula adults are using as bench marks in a ‘keeping up with the Joneses’ society.  Family can now be produced without love, in order to quench our own insecurities with the false veneer of happiness.

 Prior to societal acceptance of single motherhood, teen sex, no nuclear family in the inner cities and gay rights; did these thing exist?  Of course they did.  The difference was as a country we chastised that behavior, treated it as immoral and produced for further generations a distinct right and wrong way to live.  Yet, our cultural recognition of these lifestyles as permissible removes the ability to make distinction regarding the morality of family creation.  When dismissal of clear cut boundaries between right and wrong occur, then fewer and fewer actions can be deemed as wrong. 

In the end, what can be done?  Our society has chosen the path of least resistance and embraced the materialistic, credit card desires associated with a people motivated by narsissistic personalities.  Selfless considerations, such our impact on children with respect to our own lifestyle decisions, have been abandoned as more and more choices, once deemed traditional unacceptable, become permissible.  From top to bottom, our society will never begin to repair its cultural corruption unless we as people re-establish the traditional, 1Dad + 1Mom + Children = Family, as the one and only path to the legitimate family. 

This post is contributed by a community member. The views expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Patch Media Corporation. Everyone is welcome to submit a post to Patch. If you'd like to post a blog, go here to get started.

J. B. Schmidt February 21, 2013 at 06:36 PM
@Lyle My family is non standard only because our materialistic society has dictated that professional success ranks higher then family. I understand extended families, I was pointing out that if that was how it was done, then it is also dead or broken. My description of the NBA player or rap was truthful, if the truth is offensive to you, then I will allow you to deflect and call me a racist. I will call total BS on your idea that the standard family as I had written was a myth. If so, please tell me when it existed outside those bounds. To attempt to include the G-Parents as 'extended' and therefore discount the fact the 1Dad and 1Mom still made up the core of the family is illogical. In your version of the extended family that traditionally made up our society; how many had 2 dads and no moms? How many had 2 moms and no dads? I am going to go out on a limb here those families were denounced by society. It was upon our acceptance of the non-traditional family that lead to overwhelming inner city problems, over medicated children and yes the Adam Lanza's of the world. He sat and watched 1000's of hours of violent games while his mother worked and took trips. His dad? Who knows. How can you possibly suggest that a stable family life would not have had a stabilizing effect on his life? I am not ignorant to say that June and Ward Cleaver don't occasionally have children out of control, but it is much fewer then the children of broken homes.
Lyle Ruble February 21, 2013 at 07:27 PM
@Mike....You don't probably know the author of this article the way I have come to know him. He is a Christian moralist who condemns everyone and anything that doesn't meet his preconception. His moral perspective is highly judgmental of any view that isn't in agreement with his take on the world. He wants to legislate morality and take away choices from the individual. As far as moral choices and moral structures, of course there isn't a doubt that people's behavior affects others and some of it negatively. However, in a society that values the sovereign individual as well as the sovereign community, choice is an integral part of exercising the rights and privileges of the individual. What J.B. doesn't seem to grasp is that just because something he doesn't agree with is legal and accepted, he doesn't have to engage in the activity he despises.
J. B. Schmidt February 21, 2013 at 07:57 PM
@Lyle Knock it off, your making me blush. I don't recall writing anything about legislation. Oddly enough, you condemn me because my perspective doesn't fit your world view; while you yourself write blogs about legislative action regarding items our society currently accepts as legal.
Lyle Ruble February 21, 2013 at 08:12 PM
@J.B. Schmidt...It has nothing to do with materialism as you suggest. I don't disagree with the notion that people do place a great deal of emphasis on economic success, but the economic realities are what they are. The economic reality has led many to delay marriage and family until such a time as they feel more economically secure. You again demonstrate your lack of knowledge concerning extended families. I would suggest that you might want to take a cultural anthropology course to fully understand the full extent of the extended family structure. The nuclear family as you know it is a rather recent development and has only been around for around 200 years. It wasn't the acceptance of the non-traditional family that has led to the state of the inner cities and many rural areas. It is clearly people dealing with poverty and no opportunity. You obviously don't understand what is involved with children like Adam Lanza. he suffered with serious mental health issues. Your totally misjudging a very complex situation. Let me see, wasn't it from Christian scriptures - "Judge not, least yea be judged!"
J. B. Schmidt February 21, 2013 at 09:04 PM
@Lyle Brilliant use of a passage without fully understanding context. God does not prohibit the judging of others if they stray from his commands. However, Christians must remember that the same standards exist for us. Which is the context of the passage directly following the one you quoted. Nuclear family for 200 years? Europe has had the nuclear family though most of their recorded past. Not to mention the multi-generational household has never been part of US history, hence is has no bearing on my argument. A nuclear family will be better for a child then whatever exists in the inner city. The mentally ill child has better chance in a nuclear family then not.
Bren February 21, 2013 at 10:01 PM
This is such a strange article, J.B. You write as if describing a pervasive social shift and this is certainly untrue. Sperm banks have been around for decades and marriages of convenience have been with us for millennia. So has homosexuality and hypocrisy. People make choices in their lives and so do you. Disagreeing with other people's paths doesn't mean the other person is "better," it simply indicates a parochial viewpoint and an imperfect view of one's own path. While I believe that God created paths that interconnect frequently with those of others, there are no mortal paths that I can perceive that are "higher," "better," or intended to impede the journeys of others. A thought about "personal restraint" is that in olden times and contemporary Third World countries is that more children were/are physically born, but frequently died excruciatingly painful, drawn-out deaths by starvation and/or many hunger-related issues due to compromised immune systems. Also, in North Korea there have been several punishments handed down, recently, for cannibalism. In one incident a man murdered, boiled and ate his son. I'll point out that most Korean (North and South) families are "nuclear." The reason that there are so many counter-arguments for your statements is that someone made up the term "nuclear family." Why do you expect everyone, including yourself, to meet someone else's standard. I'm more concerned about what God thinks.
Lyle Ruble February 21, 2013 at 10:13 PM
@J.B. Schmidt....Something that has me curious. Christianity's doctrinal tenets claim that the Christian should not concern themselves with the things of this world, but the world to come. How do you justify the Christian's involvement in the things of this world when it is clear that was not Jesus's teachings? We still have many extended families, but the ones to which I am referring were dominant when 90% of the nation's population was engaged in farming. Even now, many, if not the majority of oriental families still live as extended families. They all may not occupy the same home, but still their is extended. Ultra-Orthodox Jews still live as extended families as well as certain groups of Amish. Again, you need to update your information based.
Luke February 21, 2013 at 10:48 PM
@J. B. Schmidt I've been wanting to blog on the related topic of how entitlements have harmed the nuclear family and the elderly, resulting in a growing population of people with maladaptive behaviors. I doubt I will ever do so, because I'm almost always on a mobile device when I have free time. Be that as it may, regardless of what the liberals say, the demographic fallout is objectively and empirically measurable, and the results are really bad for certain ways of living. Since the messenger is typically criticized, I have provided a link to a liberal source, below. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/15/us/two-classes-in-america-divided-by-i-do.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
Luke February 21, 2013 at 11:00 PM
@Bren Yes, people make choices, and they should be free to do so. But if you want the people who make good choices to pay for those that make bad ones, you're simply going to have to accept the fact that those who make good choices have the right to complain and sit in judgement. After all, what do you say about someone who consistently makes bad choices, yet blames other people or inanimate objects? Perhaps it's time for the government to buy people some "big boy pants" and have them wear them for a while. I hear they're free.
J. B. Schmidt February 21, 2013 at 11:15 PM
@Lyle Did Christ remain a carpenter? No, he went out preaching salvation and openly spoke against those not living according to God's will. I am simply making a secular argument for the traditional family and its benefits to society. While I have intentionally left out any direct proselytizing, allowing people to believe that God hasn't established a plan for the family is as bad as not witnessing at all. In the extend families you list (which make about like 1.5% of total US families) how many of them do not include the traditional roles of mother and father? How many of them include gay partnership families? How many of them would find disrespect in divorce? I have extended family as well and we care for each others kids; however, the immediate family relationship is 1mom + 1dad + kids. The further extension is a benefit of the traditional family. I have no problem with multi-generational homes. However, they are multi-generational only because of the success of the traditional family.
J. B. Schmidt February 21, 2013 at 11:26 PM
@Luke That article is sad and depressing. It is the fault of our society for being sucked into this liberal hole that claims judging the actions of others is wrong. As a result, we have allowed single motherhood to become acceptable. In the end it is the children that suffer.
Lyle Ruble February 21, 2013 at 11:42 PM
@J.B. Schmidt.....The only thing that is beneficial to society is stability and order. Because people are not following a "traditional nuclear family" doesn't mean that they are contributing to social disorder. To blame the demise to a change in family structures is entirely misleading. You must accept that we are a society in transition and adjusting to changes in the physical and social environments. What we were and are will not be what we will be in the future. Social structures are dynamic and adjust to a variety of forces. As far as he being a carpenter, from what I have read that is a popular myth. He was probably an unskilled laborer that was primarily a day laborer. But, no one knows. Some little known facts: Jesus never preached or taught anyone except Jews. It is also attributed him that he stated: "I have not come to change the law but to teach you how to live by it." G-d's will was interpreted as living by Jewish law and the 613 commandments. If Jesus never married, he was in direct violation of Jewish Law. At the time John the Baptist was better known and had many more followers. The Christian New Testament was not canonized until 336 C.E. and later.
Bob McBride February 21, 2013 at 11:57 PM
It's interesting that some of the folks who've acknowledged, in another blog post here, that our welfare system is, in large part, responsible for the demise of the two parent home in inner cities and that that, also in large part, is the reason for many problems in those areas, are the same folks who here argue that family structure doesn't really matter. So which is it? Is it a problem only when it can be labeled as something forced on people by the (do-gooder) efforts of the government and, conversely, not a problem when the responsibility for the situation is perceived as being self-inflicted?
Jack February 21, 2013 at 11:57 PM
Everything is a popular myth to Ruble..you are a moron.
J. B. Schmidt February 21, 2013 at 11:58 PM
@Lyle Carpenter/Day Laborer, semantics. Jesus did witness to gentiles, while I agree it was not his main focus. As for your passage, again you misquote. He says that he did not come to abolish the 'Law or the Prophets' which is reference to the Old Testament. He further says, 'I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.' As for the 613 commandments, we are not told if he is married; however, my guess is very few the 613 are listed as being specifically done by Christ. He does take time to point out that many of the laws the Jews held to were man created and not directly brought to them by G-d. I don't consider popularity to be the defining characteristic of my Savior. As for change, in Luke's article, the NY Times identifies that the change in married life in the US is related to the income gap. If the change is negative (as I am pointing out) it does not need to be accepted. The liberal practice of acceptance for fear of judging is detrimental to the stability of the US.
Lyle Ruble February 22, 2013 at 12:32 AM
@J.B. Schmidt....Show me where he "witnessed to gentiles". Also, show me what Jewish Laws he claimed were man made.
Luke February 22, 2013 at 12:56 AM
@Bob Exactly. My challenge to Lyle is to give a statistical argument, rather than a relative one. Why should we pay for him to make statistically proven bad choices. He is free to do what he pleases, but if his kids are dumber and poorer, why can't we point that out?
Luke February 22, 2013 at 01:02 PM
Can anyone make sense of Bren's flow of "thought" above? I have read it 5 times.
J. B. Schmidt February 22, 2013 at 01:04 PM
@Lyle Witnessing to Gentiles Matthew 15:21-28 Comdends the faith of the Canaanite Women Luke 7:1-10 Comends the faith of the Centurion John 4:1-26 Jesus talks with the Samaritan woman Calling out the man made laws (oral traditions) of the Pharasees Mark 7:1-13 Specifically vs8, "You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to the traditions of men."
Chris B February 22, 2013 at 01:43 PM
@JB Schmidt Your article brings out important issues. People need to be held accountable for their life decisions and actions. Its called personal responsiblity. Hold on to your faith and pray to God that our society and country don't continue to go down the toliet!
Mike February 22, 2013 at 03:12 PM
Sooooo....the nuclear family is bad because some crazy f*ck in North Korea is a cannibal? Good argument.
Mike February 22, 2013 at 03:16 PM
@ Lyle, you say "As far as moral choices and moral structures, of course there isn't a doubt that people's behavior affects others and some of it negatively. However, in a society that values the sovereign individual as well as the sovereign community, choice is an integral part of exercising the rights and privileges of the individual. What J.B. doesn't seem to grasp is that just because something he doesn't agree with is legal and accepted, he doesn't have to engage in the activity he despises." While what you say sounds artificially great, and it is all true, it's not that black & white. More and more, as our government expands programs to take care of people who make their own choices (which of course they are free to do), it's harder and harder for those of us who disagre with those choices (which we are free to do) to not be somehow punished for them, for example, by having to pay taxes for programs that those of us who make good choices would never need to use. I'm not saying I'm against safety net programs, but it has become clear that people take advantage of the system and then say "woe is me", I come from a broken home and have no education so I can't get a job, at least a job that pays me more than unemployment and welfare do.
Lyle Ruble February 22, 2013 at 06:33 PM
@J.B. Schmidt....Thank you J.B., I stand corrected. The Jewish Law he was chastising the pharisees for, what is called a tradition and not one of the 613 commandments. We still have differences today amongst Jews over these issues.However, in general, these are laws that are designed as fences surrounding one of the 613. This is done so that someone doesn't inadvertently commit a violation. In Hebrew this is known as a gezeirah (fence). For example the Torah commands us to not cook a kid in its own mother's milk. The rabbis Imposed a gezeirah by commanding us not to eat milk and meat together. That's why we don't eat cheeseburgers. Jesus was condemning the gezeirah that the pharisees were speaking of.
Luke February 22, 2013 at 10:29 PM
@Mike Yes, she is actually making an argument that the exception disproves the rule. Apparently she would believe that cars are not a form of transportation because some cars don't run. Her first paragraph attempts to counter what J. B. said by making two points that J. B. actually made in the body of his argument. And if that wasn't odd enough, Bren adds that disagreeing with someone does not make them better, as though J. B. was arguing that people with a differing opinion are better than he is. If all that isn't enough, Bren wraps it up by saying that it doesn't matter what another person thinks; it matters what God thinks. Apparently Bren does not believe God is a person, and also misses that J. B. was implicitly appealing to a Higher Power.
Randy1949 February 24, 2013 at 05:30 PM
@Bob McBride -- Ironically, unless my info is wrong, the requirement for there to be no male in the home in order to receive AFDC was the result of a 'reform' under Carter. Seems to me that the more you try to fix something, the worse you break it.
Bob McBride February 24, 2013 at 05:39 PM
While attempting to fix things and subsequently creating further problems in the process isn't limited, exclusively, to the government, the general scope of actions of that nature taken by the government tends to be enormous. Which is why I shudder every time I hear they're going to "fix" something, broke or not. I don't want to go around and around on ACA again, but perhaps this example might explain why I'm not particularly jazzed over that piece of legislation, either...
Pj February 24, 2013 at 06:51 PM
Ok very interesting view points, but how does 1 Mom + 1 Dad = 2.5 kids sounds like the new math they teach in school, so r we rounding up or down?
Lika Phipps February 25, 2013 at 10:05 PM
I get it. I do. But, what is wrong with a woman who wants financial independence? There are also those of us who put that first, and are still unmarried, or, if so, were too old to start having children. Financially the couple (not family) are stable. My sister is a very successful OB/GYN, who still likes to go kayaking, hiking, skiing, etc, and she has traveled far and wide. Does this mean she didn't want a family? Sure, she did, She accepts the fact that she put her professional goals first. I, on the other hand, settled down, had children, and trying to survive in this poor economy, and while I would love to travel far and wide, that doesn't mean I'd give up my child. I am a proud mom, and life is about sacrifices. Of course if you have enough money, you can buy a lot of stuff. Slavery is banned, but, a wealthy person still can hire a maid, cook, chauffeur, etc... As long as the parties agree to the terms, it's fine. On the other hand, I don't see what is wrong with having 2 dads and a children or 2 moms and a child. As long as the parents, regardless of gender combination, are stable people who provide a safe and happy home for our children, that is the utmost important thing. I'm not saying toss out the Bible, faith, or personal responsibilities. Upstanding people are that, who should not be discriminated against. With every set of responsibilities, come some rights, eg- I have the responsibility to raise my son properly, my right how I do it.
Lika Phipps February 25, 2013 at 10:10 PM
Lyle, just a question... Since Jesus came, not to change Gd's law, but to show how we abide by it, how is it that so many eat from the cloven foot, fish with no scales, etc? Wouldn't those rules be in just as much effect as not cooking the kid in it's own mother's milk? I'm just asking...
Randy1949 February 25, 2013 at 11:30 PM
@Lika Phipps -- Most Christians no longer follow any of the dietary laws, from cheeseburgers to ham to lobster. However, many observant Jews still so. I'm assuming that someone who abstains from cheeseburgers because of the mixing of meat and dairy will not eat bacon either.

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »