Published: Sunday, April 29 2012 12:00 a.m. MDT
If you can't accept change, you can at least complain about it.
Moral values are cyclical. Decadent Roman society became a puritanical
(ostensibly), celibate religion and a rigid Victorian England changed into the
punk UK of today.
A family is what those within the unit define it to be.
Before asking "which" new kind of "family" should be accepted as
the norm in America, shouldn't we determine why the traditional family
model is no longer recognised as being the "norm"?What
caused the traditional family to dissolve? Could the words
"self-centeredness" define the primary cause? Would being
family-centered instead of self-centered return the family to its proper
place?Would anyone argue that the broken families where many
children are being raised is better than the traditional family? Would they
argue that those who grew up without a father or a mother in the home would have
a desire to have a spouse who is a father or a mother to their own children?Would anyone argue that those who receive handouts from government
agencies would rather find a way to support their own families without public
aid?Would anyone who has no family tradition of respecting and
following God be expected to instill those values in their own children?When God is the center of our personal lives and his definition of
marriage is accepted as being the "norm", then our role as parents is
clear as is our responsibility.
This editorial only considers evidence that supports a religious belief and
ignores evidence that children of same sex couple households enjoy the same
outcomes as children of biological parents. The gender of parents does not
matter.Why do children in single parent households struggle? The
simple answer is that it's more difficult to raise children when only one
person is doing all the work. Children raised by more than one parent, no
matter the gender or biological relationship, are just as likely to thrive as
children raised by biological parents. Let's set aside gender for a
moment and consider adopted children? This editorial implies that adopted
children are at a great disadvantage, an assumption I find contrary to the views
of my friends who were adopted as children. The editorial is
simply the result of an exercise of citing studies supporting its beliefs and
ignoring evidence contrary to to them. Given the definition of
traditional family values, does this editorial suggest that polygamy was not
healthy for children? Are they suggesting that the nuclear family of biological
parents is better than divinely inspired polygamy of the past?
The premise that only heterosexuals have "family values" is a flawed
premise that SHOULD be rejected.
The greatest danger to children is when "parents" reject the God that
gave us life, his doctrines and his requirements and replace God, doctrine and
requirements with their own ideas. Those who believe in same-sex
marriage would tell us that no harm will come to children who are taught that
same-sex sex is appropriate. They would tell us that children raised in that
kind of home will be "normal". They have not only redefined
"marriage" but also the word "normal".Those who
believe that a single parent household is the ideal might have us believe that a
strong father or a strong mother, in a single parent household, gives his/her
children all the leadership, the nurture and the life's experiences
necessary to shape those children so that those children can properly
function.The sad truth is that many "families" are
irreparably broken. The children in those "families" suffer.God gave us the "norm" - one man, one woman who covenant to marry are
a "family". When children are given to them, they care for those
children and teach them to live righteously. They teach those children to reject
the ways of the world.
Isn't this like the religion confusion?Perhaps your family values are
not the same as mine? Are you bad, am I good? Are you good, and I am the bad
one?Let's just skip all of this and do what's best for our
individual families.Reading the DN will get really boring if we continue
down this road.
Here's a perfect example of why there are so many news articles claiming
that "Tea Party" people are right wing extremists.200, 100,
50 years ago, everyone agreed that the traditional family was the norm. But over
the last 50 years, extreme left-wing groups and people have been trying to undo
all traditional values.The result? What was once considered the norm
-- middle of the road politically, is now considered "extreme
right-wing". Anybody who still believes in time-tested traditions is now
labeled an "extremist."Every time the traditionalists win a
battle to preserve their cherished traditions, the news articles claim how
"right wing extremists" are moving our country more to the right.Not so, they're just slowing down the constant drift to the left,
but you'd never know it by the bias of the news organizations.
Wonderful article. Keep it up Deseret News. I love the fact that you can support
your claims with imperical (not sure abou the spelling, sorry) proof. People may
scoff and try to change the rules that God has declared, but in the end it will
be to no avail.
Those who would put a distance between "religion" and "family"
know very little about either religion or family. They would have
us believe that the $1.4 TRILLION that the federal government spends on broken
families every year is necessary. They fail to understand that every person who
receives part of that $1.4 TRILLION has a family whose primary responsibility is
to care for the personal needs of each person in the family. NONE of that $1.4
TRILLION is authorized by the Constitution. Every dollar of that $1.4 TRILLION
is an effort by the government to make up for failed families.They
would have use believe that the failure of schools to teach the children is not
caused by the breakdown of the family, where traditional parents expected that
their children would behave properly in school and apply themselves; instead,
today's family expects the school to be a baby-sitter.The
break-down of the family has far reaching effects. The breakdown of society is
directly related to the breakdown of the family and the breakdown of the family
is directly related to their rejection of God. Study history and
you'll see the pattern.
@ Mike Richards and sjgf: The "nuclear" family has only existed since
the late 1940's. It is impossible to claim that differentiating from a
"norm" that has existed for less than 100 years is going to have some
long lasting negative effect.There have been numerous family
dynamics throughout the generations. There is no basis to assume that further
evolution will be any more harmful than past evolutions have been.
Kalindra,Those who impose their own definitions of "family",
"marriage" and "norm" should first tell us who gave them that
authority. We are not on this earth by chance. We are not some
kind of animal experiment to see which form of family is the best. We are not
pawns of government or of society where we have to grope for truth.We are sons and daughters of Almighty God who placed us here so that we could
prove to ourselves whether we would be obedient to eternal laws; the laws that
governed us before we were placed here; the laws that will govern us after we
leave. Being sons and daughters of God, he did not leave us here without
direction, without principles, without purpose. He placed and married our first
parents, Adam and Eve, and taught them how to raise their children.The breakdown of society started in that first family. When sons and
daughters rejected truth, they defined for themselves the rules by which they
would live. They were not successful.No one who rejects the divine
nature of mankind will succeed. He will only break himself while trying to do
The country in the last 50 years has had an interesting ride. Norms broke down,
people were encouraged to explore self-interest, the "me generation". I
had the good fortune to be raised by two people, who "hung on like he-double
hockey sticks" through thick and thin. They are in their eighties and still
together. Back in the sixties, I listened to the new gurus, sex, drugs and
rockin' roll. I had some inner tickle that told me it was baloney. Might
have been God. In any case back in the eighties after being a societal
observer, (down in Californ-i-a) I began to withdraw from general society and
limit my associations. The male/female nuclear families (with a few
grandparents thrown in) have healthy, constructive well educated children,
building their lives of firm ground. I've watch the fragile children, not
so fortunate, go down to destruction, some survived and made it, most have not.
I have watched my daughter's friends and generation and now my
granddaughters, things are getting worse. The economy and the country are under
stress, more and more of the fragile will go down to destruction.
If this article and forum came from a state periodical other than the DN here in
Utah, we would have a large variety of opinions. Some great uplifting stories
would be discussed that do not include the very religious back rounds of many
here on the DN.You folks understand this, right?
There are times when the traditional nuclear family doesn't work. Should a
woman stay with the father of her children if he comes home from work every
night and beats her?Should a man stay with the mother of his
children if she berates him everyday to the point that it causes a
stress-related illness?So it's not a black and white issue.
There are many gray areas.
@ Mike Richards: I am using science and history as my authority. It is very
easy to confirm the past - and there is very little controversy over it. I am
not defining anything - I am merely relying on pre-existing definitions that
have been around for thousands of years.You are using religion as
your authority - something that is not easy to confirm and which has a great
deal of controversy. Additionally, you are attempting to change or ignore long
standing terms to fit the terms espoused by your religion.If you are
going to ask who gets to impose their definitions, perhaps you should first
explain why your religion should supersede any other religion as well as the
verifiable facts of history.
Anyone who spends that kind of money on a wedding is spending way too much
RanchHand,Are human beings whatever we define ourselves to be? I
remember on a Deseret News article about a Cuban transgender wedding, that
"Chris B" posted a fantastic comment on the problem with this logic.---"I would now like everyone to address me as Franky.
In addition, I am no longer human. I am now a purple dinosaur that can fly. Thank you. If you do not, you are intolerant."---Family is an institution that God established on this Earth
with Adam and Eve. God has maintained a record in one form or another even from
our first parents all the way down until this time- to provide us with the tools
we need to succeed and come back to Him. As soon as we start defining the most
basic truths as something else, even a lie- then we have rejected what we know
to be true in favor of living a lie- living a life where we value what will not
bring us happiness in the end.We can mislabel all we want, but no
matter how much we try to call an apple an orange- we know the truth and will be
held accountable to it.
ThornBirdsSt.George, UtahIf this article and forum came from a state
periodical other than the DN here in Utah, we would have a large variety of
opinions. Some great uplifting stories would be discussed that do not include
the very religious back rounds of many here on the DN.You folks understand
this, right?__________State periodical = bought and paid
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments