Comments about ‘In our opinion: Are 'family values' outdated? Traditional family becoming the exception rather than the norm’

@Kalindra:

Your use of the word "Nuclear" is so fitting.

The purpose of a nuclear bomb is to take some unstable compounds and cause them to make everything around them unstable, thus causing massive destruction.

While it is unfortunate that many families deteriorate naturally (death of a spouse, or divorce, or irresponsible people -- typically teenagers -- creating babies outside of marriage), the introduction of purposefully unstable families -- nuclear families -- into our society causes the instability to spread and destruction of society to occur.

Some single men actually think it is cool to adopt a baby with no intention of providing the child with a mother. Some women actually think it is cool to create or adopt a child without providing a father for their child. Some same-sex couples think it is cool to adopt children without providing both a father and mother for their children.

Just a few years ago, all the situations listed above were illegal. Society did what it could to protect stable families.

Our society is now fostering and promoting unstable nuclear families -- and with each new instability, others push the envelope further to see if they can create a yet less stable family.

The research clearly shows that children are best raised by parents who are committed to child rearing and who love them whether or not they are their "biological children." I've raised two boys who were not my literal offspring. In every other sense I am their father. I'm surprised in this day and age anyone would be so insensitive to question that. They certainly don't.

Kalindra,

Science? History? Those are your claims to authority? Many have tried to use that argument when telling us how superior they are to God. Yet, what has science taught you about the family? What has history taught you about the purpose of life? Did Newton answer your questions about the importance of the family? Did the history books tell you that the traditional family is just a figment of our imagination?

Science compared to God is like a candle compared to the Sun. Both give light but there the similarity ends. We barely know how to split the atom, but God has set in place worlds without number revolving around "Suns" without number. Those suns don't depend on our knowledge of the science of fusion before they go about their work. Our inability to keep satellites in orbit more than a few years is childish compared to God's ability to keep worlds without number in their proper orbit without consulting us.

Don't you think that you could give him just a little respect for what he has accomplished - without the aid of human history or human science?

Some of the commenters on this thread are treating the nuclear family as almost a bad thing. This is due to their anti-religious bias, nothing more. Religion aside, the idea of the nuclear family is best for individuals and society because it is based on love and selflessness. The claims that the nuclear family hasn't existed for more than 50 years is bogus because people have loved each other and committed their lives to each other and their children for millenia. Is that really such a bad idea, to have a society that encourages people to try and find true love and build a family around it? While yes its getting harder for people in our society to have that blessing, that doesn't diminish the value of it. We should be trying to celebrate success and ideals, not bring them down to appease the envious.

"Family is an institution that God established on this Earth with Adam and Eve" Adam and Eve..seriously?

I'm not a member of your religion. I don't believe in your god. I'm not subject to your rules.

And yet I am a productive member of society. I pay all my bills. I have no debt. I have no wish of the 'nuclear' family. I am and will remain single.

Does that make me less of a citizen of the US

@ A voice of Reason:

“Purple” is a range of hues.
“Dinosaur” is a group of diverse animals.
“Fly” is a means of locomotion – there are many other means of locomotion.

In spite of the many differences within each meaning, however, there are certain requirements to being included in those categories.

While a human cannot be a purple dinosaur, there are many different dynamics that classify as “family” and “marriage.”

To claim that the only valid definitions of “family” and “marriage” are the very narrow definition approved by your religion is to ignore thousands of years of history and to set your religion above all others.

You and Chris B. actually prove the point you are trying to argue against.

I believe that the "traditional family" is not outdated since it is "timeless", tried and tested, effective, time-honored and so on. In another sense, and a superficial one, it is often claimed to be "dated", passe, a relic, but so are these claims, they have been made many times before I am sure.

I remember hearing that the most recent and successful attempt to bring as many women as possible into the workforce was so that there would be more taxpayers, more government revenue in other words. I could add that it has meant a glut of labor, which would make labor cheaper, as well as lots of work for divorce lawyers. Sounds credible to me.

Just because a family is "non-traditional" doesn't mean it doesn't have family values. Remember, a lot of those single mothers some deride were the women who when faced with a choice chose life.

@KD Lewis
"Religion aside, the idea of the nuclear family is best for individuals and society because it is based on love and selflessness."

Now hold on just a minute. You're attacking non-traditional families as if they don't love or aren't selfless for their children. Good luck teaching that to the single working moms who chose life instead of abortion and are working two jobs, the one they get paid, and then taking care of their child. Yeah tell them they don't love or aren't selfless.

Mike Richards, J Thompson, VoR;

Prove it. You keep claiming that "god" said this, "god" said that.

Prove it.

Your god has no standing except in the lives of those who follow it. Nobody else, regardless what you may believe, is obligated to live by the dictates of your god. You are welcome to do so. You keep claiming that "god" gave you the authority to define who gets to live how; you are incorrect.

According to your own scriptures, your "god" gave EVERYONE the choice to live their lives by their own conscience, not yours.

@KD Lewis
its not the idea of family people are attacking its your narrow view of what constitutes a family which yes does only date back to the late 1940's and no the evidence does not support the claim that it is the best or only viable option.

@mike richards

actually what the fats show us mike is that your dogma just does not stand up in the light of day. YOu have nothing to support your claims other then your unverifiable belief in a higher power. While I commend peoples willingness to try to get you to understand I have been around long enough to know you cannot really have a rational conversation with a person that bases their entire thought process on their dogmatic adherence to their selective reading of an ancient script.

RanchHand,

I could go into very just and valid reasons why God doesn't give signs to you but I'm sure you will not accept them anyway, so I will address a more pressing point. In the future, if you want I can devote an entire 4 comments to the matter of what I or other persons arguing 'for religion' need prove in order to have objectively credible arguments.

And before you say "see, you can't prove your God", please realize that differing a point to a later date where I have 400 more words to argue with is not a surrender of reason- but wanting to have equal ability to defend my position. It is only fair where my space here is already limited and proving God's existence or the legitimacy of LDS doctrine isn't obligatory to sustain traditional family values.

-------

In the meantime, I would rather suggest that the burden of proof is not on those arguing for traditional family but on those arguing against it.

It takes a man and a woman to have children. Until you can prove otherwise, then clearly I am not the one abandoning reason and denying the truth.

oops facts not fats

Wow! The ignorance of the comments on this board is astounding. "Jesus wept."

Whatever happened to taking care of ourselves? Taking care of our own families? I, for one, will worry about my own family and let others worry about their own. I have no business telling other people that their "family" isn't a family. Family has many definitions.

@voice of reason

"It takes a man and a woman to have children. Until you can prove otherwise, then clearly I am not the one abandoning reason and denying the truth."

clearly you do not understand modern reality or science if you believe that to be true.

Oh my, I may need to stop reading the Deseret News after reading this artical and forum. I'm offended by your ideas of what the traditional family should be. I have a wonderful blended family. I have 2 sons and 2 step-daughters they are all very loving and productive people. I do not need belief in god to make my family strong. My faith is not in god but in the good I see in human kind. I only hope that someday there will be tolerance for the people around you who are not like you.

Are 'family values' outdated?

----

This headline is almost Yellow Journalism.

The nuclear family is still the ideal that is strived for. Problem is, not as many are living up to that ideal anymore due to divorce.