Comments about ‘In our opinion: Are 'family values' outdated?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

@ sjgf: You know what is even more interesting than my use of the word "nuclear"? Your objection to it.

Did you even read the article?

The nuclear family - the one you deem so destructive - is defined as a married heterosexual couple who resides together and their children - in other words, the traditional model that you think is so important.

Prior to WWII, it was very common here in the United States for newly married couples to live with one of their families for a time. It was also common that as the parents aged, they would move in with their grown children who would care for them. This family model is known as "multigenerational" - and even today it is the norm in a great many societies.

The "nuclear" family is a construct of the post-war effort to get young couples to spend money by buying their own homes when they got married instead of living with his or her parents.

Multigenerational families are much more traditional and have a greater success rate than nuclear families. But just because a family has a different set-up doesn't mean they cannot be successful.

Compared to many other animal species, human children take much longer to raise to adulthood and require much more care and training. Consequently, human beings have evolved into a heterosexual, pair-bonding species in which the female stays home with the children while the male goes hunting. Human societies have a vital interest in encouraging strong pair-bonds or marriages because the young of the species are trained and taught and nurtured in the home provided by the bonded pair. The young of the human species who are raised in a home in which there is a strong heterosexual pair-bond, tend to thrive and are likely to be productive adult members of their society and form strong pair-bonds themselves. Children who are raised in a home or situation in which the heterosexual pair-bond is weak or damaged or missing often don’t thrive.

I would think the more important question is, "What happens to a nation when the traditional family is no longer the norm?" That is the experiment we seem intent on running.

I will never define "traditional norm" by neither what evidence based guidelines from "experts" nor a majority may claim to be "norm" because mankind does not set the rules in this area, God does. And, I would rather live in a god-fearing society than in a godless society.

It seems to me most of the commenters missed the main point of this op-ed. The editorial board deliberately avoided answering the question in the headline and instead said we need to ask different questions.

What constitutes a family? What is the purpose of family? What kinds of policies could we as a society enact that would support family and help achieve broadly agreed upon positive outcomes?

It's not a debate about "God created a specific kind of family" but rather a recognition that family itself constantly changes and evolves. The so called traditional family - the heterosexual nuclear family - hasn't been around a very long time. Prior to that, other forms dominated family life. A healthy society could support multiple forms of family if it agreed that family existed to nurture children into adulthood and sustain healthy adults.

Those goals easily encompass far more than nuclear family in its suburban home - co-housing communities, extended families, same-gender couples raising children, blended households, even non-family networks sharing resources can all be encompassed in policies based on the board's broadly defined goals. And that's a good thing.

Loved the article. Love my family. Glory be to God for ordaining "traditional" marriage and family. God's plan for us is his plan of happiness, and it is centered on families comprised of a husband, a wife and their children.

I think rather than feeling bad about not conforming to a traditional role, those outside a traditional family setting should acknowledge that certain social pressures exist for the good of society, and when they are attempting to make a life outside of that tradition, there is going to be some discomfort. It's really quite selfish to think that all social pressures exist to make you feel personally good about yourself--that only happens if you conform to it.

The fact remains that we need traditional heterosexual couples to remain faithful one to another, and raise children that are strong, well-adjusted and biologically in tact. Children who have familial access to both sets of their genetic make up, can naturally understand their own physiology, and thriving requires no special inquiries and minimal additional expense.

Society has an interest in preserving the next generation. It does so through elevating the most successful and acceptable practices. Those who choose to dwell outside the norm should receive training on how to cope, but should not redefine the norm without at least demonstrating that their situation is vastly superior to that which already works.

People get pretty defensive about the way they are living out their mortality.

Economics, more than anything else, has changed the traditional family. One bread winner couldn't do it in the 80's. Now two can't do it either.

The traditional family is the standard, the benchmark. That many fall on one side or another - that is a fact of our society.

Life happens and we need to adjust and make the best of what is thrown at us - as so many people do. But who would choose a blended family or single parenthood over a successful first marriage and family? What child would prefer being raise in two separate homes or in one where one parent is absent - with the lifetime logistical and emotional complication that goes with that?

I have close family in these situations. Do they love their kids any less because they are not a traditional family? No. But if they could have chosen - they would have chosen the standard.

There will always be different types of family units. However, I don't think there is an argument against having 2 committed parents raising a child. Anything else is a compromise and there wil be negative consequences in most if not all cases. In a committed relationship, the two parents can work as a team. Physical needs are fulfilled in that relationship and the parents have to spend less time seeking that physical fulfillment and have more time to spend parenting. Single parenting is a compromise and I hope I never have to do it on my own. I greatly respect those who can raise children well on their own.

If you really want to look at scientific evidence, the most unreliable resource is 'expert opinion'. These experts are trying to convince people that the 'king has clothes' when he really doesn't.

Since society is becoming more open and behavior are in the open as well. Proof will be as more and more adopt these behaviors. There isn't a long history of people who have adopted non family units- I wonder why??? We know it's happened in the past- what happened to these groups??

@JSB

actually in hunter gather societies the women provided the majority of the food eaten by the clan through gathering, the meat from hunting only accounts for a fraction of the food consumed by the clan. Further in such societies an individual was beholden to and taken care of by the entire clan not the parents.

You and the rest of the late posters can claim what ever you which but the facts are the facts and the fact is your definition of family is a modern construct and the research does not support the claims that children raised in such a construct fair any better then several other types of constructs.

For the record, there are many members of the LDS Church who wholly reject the judgmental filth being spewed by supposed members on this forum. As was aptly stated by RanchHand "a family is what those within the unit define it to be."

If you are one of two brothers who have no parents, you are a family. If you're a gay couple who love your adopted daughter, you are a family. If you're a single mom struggling to raise two children, you are a family. No matter what your family makeup, it only fortifies my marriage to see unconditional love, irrespective of who gives it.

Indeed, the vile doctrinal claims made by members of the LDS Church on this thread are unintentionally chiding our own Church's position but 110 years ago. They forgot that the first substantive case to reach the SCOTUS on interpretation of the Free Exercise Clause was Reynolds v US - the case of a polygamous LDS man who sought exception from the US" Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act. In just over a century, members of the Church have seemingly gone from victims to culprits. Absolutely reprehensible and hypocritical to the highest degree.

I have mixed feelings about this subject since I have a mixed race family, something that was not only illegal just a handful of years ago, but was much looked down upon as well. Today, the number of multiracial families either through marriage or adoption has doubled, and in many parts of the country is so common that it is hardly even noticed anymore. It blows me away that there was a time when there were actual laws telling people who can and can't be part of their family.

On the other hand, this whole idea of creating a new "normal" around the homosexual agenda is problematic for me. It is so for many reason, but mostly notably because it represents only a single groups agenda. If the issue was cast broader, in that it protected all groups rights, not being tied to a singular group, I could live with that. If it aimed at expanding the rights of all - to all allow gays to adopt, and to allow birth parents to dictate the type of household their child would be raised, I could live with that, ensuring everyones freedoms and rights.

Tough issues indeed.

@ Mike Richards 12:02 p.m. April 29, 2012

"Those who impose their own definitions of "family", "marriage" and "norm" should first tell us who gave them that authority."

One word: polygamy.

The family is under attach and Obama and his policies are leading the charge!! Someone needs to send out a riding going from town to town - Obama is coming OBama is coming!!!!

@JThompsan,

"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. "

"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. "

Wow. Makes me kind of sick reading this. So the greatest danger to children is a family that doesn't believe in God? Do you have any idea how ethnocentric you sound? Unbelievable.

Can you PROVE this? I'd love to hear it.

Try thinking AND speaking objectively. I can hear the last General Conference in your words .... obviously not your own thinking here.

Reading these type of articles makes me want to be a much better husband and father. We need to stop making up excuses for our poor social behavior! Too many children of countless generations have grown up in troubled circumstances, and too many spouses are treated with thoughtless regard, because we keep finding one excuse after another to neglect their care.

@ alt134

Don't jump to conclusions because of personal bias. My point is not that non traditional families don't have love. Since I am actually a member of a non traditional family, I should know that they do. However, I am defending the ideal (I emphasize ideal, because I am very familiar it is not always realized) because it is based on love. It ought to be promoted in society. That promotion does not lessen the contributions of other non-traditional families. I am very familiar with the noble sacrifices of single motherhood.

@ spring street

I cite the poets, playwrights, philosophers, and religious traditions have been advocating the idea of having families based on the core of a man-woman and their children for hundreds of years as evidence that the traditional family is not a post world war 2 concept. Perhaps what you see as the traditional "leave it to beaver" household is the traditional family 2.0, but the basic concept of is timeless.