KJB1 Your statement is false. Most studies done on the subject of same-sex
marriage and its effect on children (and there are not very many yet completed
or even available) have shown similar negative effects on children as being
raised by two parents who are merely cohabitating and are not married. To
suggest there is no negative impact is simply not supported by the data
available and to state these children fare as well as those whose parents are
straight and married is completely false.
Right on, sigmund5! Those are also the jobs (the ones that actually would hire
me bitd) wouldn't let most of us work enough hours to earn benefits.
Because I had a serious health condition, even a convenience store wouldn't
call me back--benefits were one reason I applied. By not giving benefits, they
save money and get people who love to work and are desperate for a job, any job.
But I needed health care. Gee, wonder why I support single payer health
This article either left out a lot, or never had brought in a lot of other
variables. How about health problems? Does anyone mention that getting a job
requires not only a trained and eager employee but a willing employer? How about
the ability to find and afford child care for a single/divorced/widowed/mother?
How about getting that college degree and still not finding a job/being laid
off? Oh, and btw, the majority of folks using government assistance are there,
kicking and screaming, even if it's SSI or a similar program. I know that
for a fact. And if you really think assistance is something people really dream
of, try living on that amount for a few months. Just getting though the
application process is degrading enough. If kids weren't involved, few
would do it. This article as written, brings up more questions than it answers,
and most of the comments, I believe, prove that.
This article and the view that marriages make people rich confuses cause and
effect. People who are poor do the distasteful, low payed and demeaning work
that good middle class and upper middle class won't do. These jobs like
cleaning, laundry food service are necessary for a society and makes the middle
class life of consumption possible. Poor people are working different shifts
and have less time together or with their kids. They are stressed by money
issues and can't afford health and mental care. Please don't reply
with, "I made it out of poverty and these people just need to work harder
and improve themselves to make more money." That response is a bit
disingenious because these jobs have to be done. We have to have poor people.
If interested in helping the poor and strengthening marriages support the
Democratic party whose goal is helping the poor much more than Republicans. You
need to support increased minimum wage, unions and more regulations. More
condescending and self-righteous lecturing doesn't help.
the title of this article is a problem. It really should read men
and women who father children out of marriage pose serious risks to the family.
The babies have no ulterior motives in all this.
This article waits until nearly the end to reveal the primary driver in the
unravelling of the family - economics - but it does nail it, instead of being
just another lecture about moral superiority.The more inequality we
have in economic outcomes, the more society itself is threatened. No longer is
it just the poor kids of the town alcoholic, economic anxiety is creeping deep
into the middle class, causing hesitation in young people to commit to raising a
family within a marriage. The stats are undeniable.The more we let
our economic system devolve into a darwinistic jungle where a smaller and
smaller subset of super-achievers are the optimal economic model for raising
kids, the more of this negative stratification of social situations we'll
have.After WWII, we had much better opportunities for all classes to
thrive and prosper, and the result was great optimism, feelings of security, and
a baby boom. As the average American worker is exposed to cut throat global
competition, and economic anxiety increases, we see breakdowns in the family,
delayed commitment to marriage and kids, etc.The Epimemiologist
Richard Wilkonson impressively correlates economic inequality with a range of
social and health problems.
KJB1 - please site your data. I was raised by a single mother
because of my father's death. She raised us all (4) without gov't help
and working full time on a teachers salary. I think if gov't stepped back
and didn't give so much support to people having children irresponsibly
then people might actually think twice before getting themselves into such
situation. LValfre - I'd be interested to know who sponsored
the study. Probably coffee growers/sellers, etc. Check your source. Just like
one glass of wine a day is good for your heart but guess what so is fresh grapes
and other non-alcoholic items that don't cause addiction and all ages can
It is so funny to read the comments of those who just don't like the
results of the study. Actually, it's really sad.
Pick and choose studies that support what you want to preach. There was a study
in Japan that was unveiled today - "Researchers looked at the coffee
and tea consumption habits of almost 82,369 Japanese adults over 13 years and
found that people who had a cup of coffee every day were 20 percent less likely
to have a stroke (compared to those who didn't drink coffee at all).... the study noted that people who drank four or more cups of green tea
a day were also about 20 percent less likely to have a stroke. Since
the two drinks help prevent strokes in different ways, drinking both can lower
your risk of stroke more than just drinking one or the other, the study authors
explained."Probably won't see this published on this news
board but it's good news for the many coffee and tea drinkers in America
The only real exception I take to the article is the term "priveleged"
in identifying those who wait to get married, wait to have kids, and complete
college etc., before choosing to start their family. I come from such a family
background and I have generated such a family currnelty with my wife. The only
exception is that I would have chosen to have kids if we could have while still
in college (we couldn't due to infertility issues but I digress). I
don't feel particularly "priveleged" as the term seems to me to
imply...as though these things were just handed to me without me having to earn
them. If I am priveleged at all it is because I have wise parents and married a
woman who also had wise parents who instilled in each of us how to make wise
choices that tend to lead to positive consequences in life. If that is being
priveleged then so be it. I tend to think that it is not so much being
priveleged as it is simply being smart and wise and making positive choices
while avoiding stupid ones. Something ALL can do if they choose.
The story is interesting. I would like to see a study, long term study done on
the children of St. George Utah. Some are from families with unmarried mothers
with a whole lot of children, as well as some very young mothers married to
established men. It would make for a very interesting comparison.
"Hymowitz said.....'The evidence is pretty convincing that children
suffer when their parents’ lives are unstable.'”------------Unfortunately, as this article points out and any even
cursory examination of popular culture makes clear, the "evidence" may
be obvious, but it is hardly "convincing".The sad truth is
that more and more people are being persuaded to devalue basic, fundamental,
timeless and necessary rules of nurturing our children, by relentless pressure
from "progressives" to denigrate and dismantle traditional societal
institutions, like marriage and religious devotion.This pressure,
along with the age-old and equally relentless marketing verity that "sex
sells", is a pretty potent and "convincing" combination that, so
far, tells me that we are headed for some very tough times ahead.
I know I shouldn't comment but can't help myself. I can't think
of a time when families weren't struggling regardless of when most children
were born, except for a brief period after WWII when taxes were high and gov
subsidized everything including Utahns - if your folks worked at HAFB, you
remember the annual punch card. Of course that all ended with Reagan the great
and has continued the death spiral forced by the Tea/Gadianton party.This article also mentions women delaying child birth to get an education and
begin earning an income - which is just the opposite of the Utah model which I
believe is get 2 or 3 years of higher ed, find a spouse, start having
It's astonishing that people would be offended by this data. I work in
inner city schools where 3/4 of my students are raised in single parent homes
(mostly mothers), with a grandparent or extended relative, and the repercussions
are horrifying. Many of my students lack motivation to study, suffer from food
insecurity, and have behavior problems at extreme levels that existed at much
smaller levels even ten years ago. Also, the number of unwed teen mothers
continues to be a huge issue. Ernest Bass and the rest of you folks who
criticize this research, please wake up! Our country is falling apart at the
seams due to the disintegration of the married two-parent home. If you
don't believe it, spend some substantial time volunteering in our schools.
This article is a good regurgitation of reports, however is somewhat misleading
in the beginning when discussing the "great crossover". The discussion
regarding the average ages at marriage and at the birth of first child is
written to appear to be stating new findings. "The shift has created
what’s being called a “Great Crossover,” where the average age
of a first birth is actually younger than average age of marriage."
However, based on the included chart, this "crossover" occurred more
than 20 years ago. Rather than taking something that occurred 20 years ago and
adding in a new data point or two (college graduate or not) and making forward
looking statements that can't be guaranteed, I would rather see an analysis
of those who are now 20 in college / work force / etc, and get statistics on
what has occurred so I can learn and make changes going forward (assuming
changes are needed). I'm disappointed that old data is drudged up, made to
look new, and future estimates are made without discussing or applying what has
I don't like this article's sweeping generalizations rehashed from
from a very tentative statistical relationship at the outset. There must be
dozens of other factors that go into the mix, not all of them positively
reflecting on the traditional way of life. The author has clearly cherry picked
the statistics to prove a previously determined outcome. As an apology for the
traditional way of life it is very good, but as a scientific explanation it is
@My Humble Opinion"Are you disputing these facts, or do you simply not
like them?"Neither. I just don't like how some people use
these facts to condemn non-traditional families.
@ atl134:You said "You people are difficult to satisfy. Even the
single mothers who choose life are criticized for "attacking the
family"."I didn't see any attacking of single mothers
in this article. It merely pointed out facts that show that children raised in a
home with a mom and dad who were married before they had children were at an
advantage when compared to children who were not raised in those circumstances.
Are you disputing these facts, or do you simply not like them?
The world wants to mock God's laws and then expects to have a great life.
We will continue to see the quality of life erode as all the people
who are living off of the backs of the stable people increase.Everybody loves Salt Lake City but they forget the struggles of the Pioneers
and people who created this City out of the desert. Now the people who are
bringing down the quality of life want to make fun of the standards that created
such a great place.Where is the respect?
It's sad that our culture/society has come to a point where we need to have
a "study" done before we believe that traditional family life and
marriage, is the best way to raise children. I know several couples who have
actually had children before they got married because of all the government
programs and welfare that is out there now for single moms. Young men
don't "man up" and take responsibility for the child unless forced
to by the courts. The educational aspect of the article is not fully
transparent as, there again, it is easier for a single mom to get
"help" to go to school than it is for a married mom, because of
gov't programs. The child is the key to a lot of free money and reduced
cost programs and "help" and the child is the one who loses the benefit
of being raised by a mom and dad. (I'll probably get slammed for the mom
and dad thing, but throwing the whole gender identity hoopla in the mix,
doesn't help the child either.) God's plan really is the best for
You people are difficult to satisfy. Even the single mothers who choose life are
criticized for "attacking the family".
This gives more credence to traditional biblical values that when ignored en
masse, create negative social consequences that we are already paying for. Maybe
God does know what's best.
So when is the DN going to give equal credence to the numerous studies that say
that kids raised by same sex couples turn out just as well as straight ones?
Otherwise, these kinds of articles just come across as cherrypicking propaganda.
Ernest,So are you claiming scientific research is the cause of
societies ignorance?The article was well written, cited it's
sources, gave the results of the research. If you feel that is inaccurate, then
you may offer up your scientific research to rebuttal this article.Until then, comments like yours is just an opinion created from your web of
thoughts that stem from a few exceptions; rather than the rule.
Sorry Ernest ... I have to concur with SammyB. The article made no judgement of
those who chose to do otherwise. It was reporting factual data, for which
evidently you don't care. As one who came out of such a situation
(parents forced to marry due to my birth -- subsequently divorcing while I was a
youngster, and thus all the inherent disadvantages that came with that
situation, both lack of stable parenting and fiscal difficulties), the road I
had to go down was much more difficult than those of my peers who had that
stability at home. I vowed not to let that be the case when I chose to marry --
the only one of my siblings who did so, and my siblings (and subsequently their
children) have continued that downward trend.Of equal importance, as
Sammy correctly points out, is the societal devaluation of the core family,
something about which we should all be concerned, and conscientiously working to
counter -- advantageous to our own families / children, and to society at large.
ernie,we don't want people to feel guilty for wrong choices. i'm
okay, you're okay and who cares about the little ones? typical liberal
Ernest,Until recently, that narrow worldview was held by the
overwhelming majority of the civilized world throughout history. These results
from extensive studies are important. If someone takes offense from them, then
that is their own issue. Many of us appreciate being informed of this data.As the family comes more and more under attack, we need to have the
courage to remain committed to moral absolutes that were given to us by God and
His prophets without being guilted into staying silence. I saw no finger
pointing or preaching in this article. Good job Deseret News.
These articles the Dnews keeps pushing do far more harm than good. They induce
unecessary guilt into far too many people. The article last week was just
as bad, about working moms. Got new for you D-news, many people from many
backgrounds are still productive members of society. Just because they may not
fit in to your narrow world view doesn't mean they don't offer as much
as you do.