Comments about ‘Robert Bennett: The two-parent family is good economics’

Return to article »

Published: Monday, April 28 2014 12:00 a.m. MDT

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended

Married two parent families do make economic sense - regardless of the gender of the parents. Which makes one wonder why Utah and the DesNews are fighting so hard to prohibit some children that option and opportunity.

Additionally, studies have shown that comprehensive sex education reduces teen pregnancy and out of wedlock births at a significantly higher rate than abstinence only sex education - and yet this proven method is highly opposed by conservative groups.

We know what the problems are, we know the solutions to those problems, but some would rather sit around and complain than actually take the steps necessary to solve the problems because the solutions do not fit their narrow paradigms.

Seattle, WA

A strong argument for marriage equality!

Cleveland , OH

Thus, Mr. Bennett supports the case for same-sex marriage. Gay and Lesbian couples who are raising children without the legal protections and benefits of marriage are disadvantaged - and that harms the children. Disallowing SSM will not magically put those kids into OSM families, it just means they will continue to be raised in families the state is relegating to second class status.

Thank you, Mr. Bennett, for your support.

Here, UT

So, the rich increasing their wealth by about 500%, the middle class' stagnant income is all the fault of single parent households and divorces?

"Income inequality", Bob, is much more than the difference between the income of men and women, it's about how much of the wealth is now flowing up to the very top instead of being shared amongst the actual working people in this nation.

One of the biggest determining factors of the economic level of a person will be how young they are when they have their first child. It is certainly better to have a two parent family, Bob, but when both parents are required to work multiple jobs to make ends meet, the child, effectively, is raised without a parent at all.

gramma b
Orem, UT

This is not an argument for same-sex "marriage." It is an argument for children's biological parents to get married.


On of the primary reasons 2-parent families are more economically viable then single-parent families is because they have two incomes. I thought conservative Republicans didn't believe in that?

The Hammer
lehi, utah

When the Gay community stands up for abstinance until marraige then people might start taking them serious when they seek the benefits of marraige. Unfortunately they dont lean that way and most people see them as an entitled group of people that want to force other people to give them benefits based upon a shacked up status and when they dont bare the sacrifice that a traditional marriage bares.

seattle, WA

This is indeed a good argument for same sex marriage. And serves as a lesson to heterosexuals.

It takes considerable time and energy (and sometimes money) for a same sex couple to have children. As a general rule, almost any two people of the opposite gender can hook up and make a baby. A same sex couple will have to spend considerable efforts to bring life into the world as a same sex couple. Same sex couples generally have to think long and hard about this effort, unlike their heterosexual siblings.

I wonder if heterosexual couples had to do the planning, and engage in the expense and legalities of having children, would there be so many broken homes for kids? Maybe if heterosexuals spent half the time a same sex couple did, they might have better long term outcomes for their marriage and their children.

Salt Lake City, UT

Senator Bennet's profound editorial sates "the traditional two-parent family is still the most basic building block of a just society". Obviously, he is referring to the traditional mother and father two parent family. Until we recognize that this model is the best model for rearing children and creating the best opportunity for a good econonic foundation we are kidding ourselves. Any other social model has proven to be inferior. This is one of many important reasons why we should favor traiditonal marriage between a man and a woman because it fosters the best building block for a stable society.

Candied Ginger
Brooklyn, OH

The Hammer
"When the Gay community stands up for abstinance until marraige..."

My partner and I have been together for over 5 years. We have adopted two children. We live in an apartment but are actively looking for a house. We have two cars, purchased jointly. We have joint bank accounts. Our friends, neighbors, family, medical providers, dry cleaner, and the barista at Starbucks all know we are a committed couple. We are not "shacked up" and we are doing everything a "traditional marriage" does.

And the state of Ohio - like the state of Utah - wont let us get married.

We want the legal protections for our relationship that you get for yours - only you have said we can't have, and then criticize us for doing our best to have the relationship anyway.

Your argument comes down to: "You're not allowed to get married. How dare you have intimate relationships without being married? Because you did that, you don't really want to get married."

See? Silly, isn't it.

Candied Ginger
Brooklyn, OH

gramma b
"This is not an argument for same-sex "marriage." It is an argument for children's biological parents to get married."

I am sure that was the point he wanted to make.

But my family - our children - would benefit if my partner and I were allowed to legally marry. And us getting married would not harm any hetero couples in any way.

It gives stability and legal protection for couples and will encourage gay and lesbian couples to be more stable. That in no way harms are hetero neighbors, but it does benefit marriage as an institution.

And, as more gay and lesbian couples see long-term, stable married relationships as an option, they will be able to form families where the children experience that kind of stable, loving home.

This article really does support SSM as well as OSM.

Seattle, WA

@The Hammer
I don't understand how you can rationalize condemning gay people for "shacking up" and not waiting until marriage when they don't have the legal right to marry. I'm sure you can see the dilemma this presents.
I know a lot of gay people in Utah. They value faith, fidelity, and family. Many of them are staying celibate. Many are trying to marry opposite sex spouses. Many others find authenticity and fulfillment in a committed relationship with the same sex. They want to be married. They flocked to the courthouse to marry when they had the right. They want families. Salt Lake City has a higher percentage of same-sex couples raising children than any other metro area in the country. They are good people who share your values.
It might be easier for you to characterize them as something else, but it is not the reality.

Mike Richards
South Jordan, Utah

Bob Bennett is a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. As far as I know, he accepts the doctrine of the Head of that Church, Jesus Christ. As far as I know, he fully understands and accepts "The Family: A Proclamation to the World". I have never heard him speak against that Church, its doctrine or the revelations given to the world through that Church. The Creator's doctrine defines marriage as between a man and a woman. The Creator's doctrine defines "Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose."

Yesterday I played "Peek-A-Boo" with a grandson who is almost a year old. He thinks that if he can't see someone, that that person does not exist. That is the same logic that many use to tell us that God does not exist. They would have to say the same thing about love, or about pain. Neither of those things can be seen. Their effects can be seen, just as the effects of God's presence can be seen by those who are not playing the childish game of "Peek-A-Boo".

Orem, UT

From the article: "However, there is a statistic outside of the political debate that strongly suggests that the problem does not lend itself to any of the proposed solutions."

Unfortunately, the statistics cited by Mr. Bennett are not "outside the political debate". They are at the center of it. There are many government policies that have led directly or indirectly to the breakdown of the traditional family structure. We have developed a culture of selfishness where the well-being of children takes a back seat to the needs/wants of the adults.

We live in a society that tries very hard to legislate and throw money at "solutions" which are largely aimed at minimizing the natural consequences of irresponsible behavior. In the vein of "tolerance" we now accept and promote actions that lead to poverty and broken homes.

Springville, UT

I really don't know anyone who would disagree with Sen. Bennett. The question is how do we deal with the many families that don't fit the stereotypical traditional model? Those people are there for a multitude of reasons, and we should not ignore or marginalize them. I've never known life to be perfect, anywhere. This includes the cocoon of religious societies where variety is intentionally suppressed and swept under the rug. In the end, I'm not really sure what the point is of this op-ed piece.

Springville, UT

Let me add: The Senator states "Getting kids to stay in school and to stop producing children outside of marriage would not only help close the income gap but also solve a whole host of other problems." I agree. But his party won't allow that to happen. The underfund education, cut programs to lift people up, oppose sex education and contraception, and fight every other attempt to address these issues. So, Senator, will you put your money where your mouth is and start speaking out against the GOP?

Here, UT

Mike Richards says:

"Yesterday I played "Peek-A-Boo" with a grandson who is almost a year old. He thinks that if he can't see someone, that that person does not exist. That is the same logic that many use to tell us that God does not exist. They would have to say the same thing about love, or about pain. Neither of those things can be seen. Their effects can be seen, just as the effects of God's presence can be seen by those who are not playing the childish game of "Peek-A-Boo"."

The flaw in your logic is that eventually your grandson grows up and can see you're really there. God NEVER shows up.

@The Hammer;

Equality will prevail.

Cleveland , OH

@Mike Richards:

My grandchildren live in Georgia. They believe in an invisible being who watches everything they do and then rewards them according to how well they follow the rules. There is a lot of information about this being - descriptions of his origin, his history and treatment of his people through the ages, pictures and songs and stories about him.

Of course, all the belief in the world does not make "Santa Claus" real, even if he was based on some part on the real life Saint Nickolas.

It would be unkind, when they are young, to try and tell the grandchildren that their invisible being does not actually exist and most of the stories are put in place by the-powers-that-be (mom and dad) to coerce them into behaving.

At the same time, I don't think they should demand that other kids should be required to follow my daughter's rules because "Santa will punish them if they don't."

Intended or not, Bob Bennett makes a good argument for comprehensive sex education starting in middle school, access to birth control, and marriage for same-sex-couples.

Bountiful, UT

An argument against raising taxes on the wealthy is that they already pay a lot compared to everyone else.

This wouldn't be the case however, for the corporate elite if executives and CEO's didn't get 500+ times what everyone else is making at a company.

Yes capitalism is great, but it needs government regulation so that it works for all people, not just the few at the top.

Karen R.
Houston, TX

"The statistical proof is clear: the traditional two-parent family is still the most basic building block of a just society."

It is clear from the comments that "traditional" is now often heard as a code word meaning "anti-SSM." This is how I heard it too. Was its use even necessary? There are some good points in this piece. We do need to address ways to stabilize families and promote marriage (or some type of long-term commitment), particularly when children are involved. Surely we can have this conversation whether or not the SSM issue is settled.

In any case, "traditional," however it was meant, isn't the proper word for this sentence. Following the reasoning of the article, the author should have used the word "stable." STABLE families are foundational. And if we absolutely must categorize things - even though it adds nothing to the discussion - then it can be said that both "traditional" and "nontraditional" families can be stable. See? Nothing added. Now, can we get back to the discussion that DOES need to be had?

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments