Family structure counts

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • LValfre CHICAGO, IL
    June 11, 2012 10:16 p.m.

    In regards to how important family structure is: It's parenting that's the most important. These studies are all skewed. Look at the parenting in the majority of single young mothers with no fathers in poverty stricken areas where the situation is most prominent. There's often horrible, if any, parenting and the rough streets are raising these kids. They overwhelmingly make up the data.

    These situations are most prominent when there's horrible parenting.

    There are PLENTY of single mom's and dad's who've raised outstanding kids. The structure didn't hold them back. They stepped up and were a parent.

    I've met one gay couple in my life with an adopted son. This kid didn't even have his own parents and now he has 2. It's different, I admit. But this kid is well raised, a great student, also a piano student, and overall just a happy kid.

    A homosexual family is better than a broken family or none at all. Good parents, whether gay, straight, or all alone, will always be better for a child than bad parents.

  • Kazmom PRICE, UT
    June 11, 2012 2:53 p.m.

    There may be an ideal way to raise a family, but the facts are we don't live in an ideal world. While we are arguing about what is "best" for children, how many children are being left in the worst situations? My three little girls all have various problems that we are addressing. Are their problems due to (1) being abandoned at birth and spending 7 months laying in crib, (2) bouncing through 3 foster homes before finding a permenant one, or (3) the biological mother's own mental health and drug use problems. The more simplistic (if not the more accurate) answer is that their problems can be attributed to being raised by myself as a single mother.

    Certianly I can agree that a functional traditional family is the ideal. But where does that leave those children for which the ideal is not available? Is it helpful to spend so much energy disparaging families that differ from that ideal, rather than helping to improve the outcomes for children who have no other options.

  • Twin Lights Louisville, KY
    June 11, 2012 2:19 p.m.


    Theoretically there is nothing that a man can teach a child that a woman could not. But in practice I think there is much a child can learn only from a father or from a mother.

    In my experience with raising kids and watching my friends raise them (many not LDS), this has always been true.

  • J Thompson SPRINGVILLE, UT
    June 11, 2012 12:28 p.m.


    You're the only poster that is talking about averages. You're the only poster who is bashing religions because members of those religions don't fully live up to the doctrines taught by their church. You're virtually the only one that is saying that God is wrong because you consider your upbringing to be better than average.

    How about stepping back from your decidely biased opinions long enough to examine the facts?

    God knew what he was doing when he defined the family. He knew what environment would best prepare his children for their life's work. He knew that a GOOD mother and a GOOD father would properly teach and properly prepare their children for life.

    You have every right to be proud of a parent who raised you, but you are totally mistaken in your belief that God's plan is inferior to your life experiences.

  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    June 11, 2012 11:49 a.m.

    How motivating is Mike Lee?

    He leaves his family to fool around in Washington and has proven unable to pay for the bills. As a result, he has had to short sell his home.

    Mike? Where were you when your children needed your support? What kind of an example are you giving your children by failing to meet the obligations you made to your bank?

    Mike Lee might have a straight sexual orientation but he is not a leader nor is he contributing positively to the family structure.

    We need to concentrate less on sexual orientation and titles and careers and focus more on being real leaders, developing character, and assisting our families by meeting their emotional, spiritual, and physical needs. Preaching leadership, financial management, and living within our means while doing the exact opposite is exactly what we need to avoid.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    June 11, 2012 10:28 a.m.

    @Mike Richards
    You know I never said that traditional families aren't better ON AVERAGE. See that's the key. Kids don't get the average family, they get one family. What I'm saying is that the best thing for kids is to have good parental situations which is more frequent but not exclusively with traditional family arrangement. You are the one ignoring the wife beaters, the child abusers, the traditional families that are awful. I'm not even arguing with God, goodness I want to have one of those 50+ year marriages with kids someday. I'm not justifying anything. You're sticking to a rigid rule that isn't even a rule (I'm so glad I know decent LDS members who aren't theocrats who seek to bludgeon everyone with their faith), ignoring the fact that some traditional families are not good environments for raising kids, and you assert that your belief is Gods'. That's just arrogant and sounds like the Pharisees. Guess what, ideal isn't something humans do very well. Sometimes the non-traditional household is better than some traditional households are. That's just reality, and I won't ignore it.

  • JP71 Ogden, UT
    June 11, 2012 9:04 a.m.

    A family with a Father and Mother raising children is an essential building block in society. Any other type of arrangement will slowly erode society.

  • J Thompson SPRINGVILLE, UT
    June 11, 2012 7:55 a.m.

    Are we talking about the "exceptions" where a death has occurred, or are we talking about making a 'choice' about what constitutes a family?

    People usually rise to the occasion when a death occurs. The remaining parent shoulders the double burden and moves on. Relatives often assist. The children learn to handle additional responsibilities faster than children in a "mom and pop" family. Everyone works together and life goes on.

    What about a "family" when the "parents" have chosen to "marry" someone of the same sex? What choice does the child have in that kind of "family"?

    Who is the role model for a woman when both "parents" are male?

    Who is the role model for a man when both "parents" are female?

    Is the child supposed to figure things out for himself? Is he supposed to know how to act, how to think, how to grow up to fill his role in society when there is no role model?

    Children can't be expected to learn difficult things when there is no teacher. A family with a father and a mother provides the role models for the children. Any other type of family handicaps the children.

  • Midvaliean MIDVALE, UT
    June 11, 2012 6:54 a.m.

    This is life. Who has the fabled nuclear family. Many for sure, but many don't. It was their lot to not have a mom and a dad. My mom passed away when I was very young. So I didn't get the "life" talked about here either (ie a mom and a dad).
    Each person has their own trials and tribulations in life. Is life with a loving homosexual couple better than life in the orphanage? Is it better than a broken home with a mom and a dad?
    Lets get kids out of abusive homes where their lives are at stake. Otherwise I think its better to have kids in loving homes. Despite the details.
    There might be a "best" way to raise kids. That doesn't mean we legislate it. There are way too many of us who won't get the "best" way.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    June 10, 2012 10:49 p.m.


    Your argument is with God; it's not with me. I didn't make the rules; however, because I have much more confidence in God than I have in you, I'm going to stay on His side in this matter. He told you and he told me that the ideal way to raise a family was by doing what he told us to do. You can take issue with that. You can claim to have more knowledge than our creator. You can tell us that you have more experience than God, but I will have to wonder why you would have that kind of attitude.

    We have two choices. We believe God and do what he tells us to do or we can reject God and do whatever we please. There is no other choice. Joshua explained the principle thirty-five hundred years ago. Things have not changed. There are still people who pretend that God does not exist and that they can do whatever they want. They can, but they will face the same consequences now as people did then.

    Children need parents who love and respect God. They deserve good parents. I care. Do you?

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    June 10, 2012 9:04 p.m.

    @Mike Richards
    "Believe me, the moderators would not allow my diatribes to be posted."

    Nor mine so I'm trying this again.

    "Anyone, including you, who excuses inappropriate behavior, for any reason, when it comes to raising a family should be ashamed."

    You are the one who is attacking good parents who happen to be in non-traditional situations while asserting that traditional families are ideal which is a justification of the horrible parents who happen to be in traditional families. You're the one excusing inappropriate behavior. You should be ashamed since you grade parents on the average in their demographic while I'm judging parents on ability to parent.

    "that an ideal family has a father and a mother and that they are centered on God with Christ as their model"

    First off, that's bigoted against non-Christians. Secondly, the least educated, most obese, highest STD, highest teen pregnancy, shortest life expectancy, most poor, highest divorce states are in the Bible belt, so based on your logic, since on average they do worse, maybe we should be against them parenting. Of course, I know averages aren't applicable to individual families and imagine many are wonderful parents.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    June 10, 2012 7:00 p.m.

    Diatribe? You think that I wrote a diatribe? Believe me, the moderators would not allow my diatribes to be posted.

    Anyone, including you, who excuses inappropriate behavior, for any reason, when it comes to raising a family should be ashamed. Children are not pawns to be used to justify selfishness or self-centerness.

    God told us through his prophets, that an ideal family has a father and a mother and that they are centered on God with Christ as their model. What is so hard to understand about that? Who would tell us that God was wrong with that model? Who would tell us that any other form of family is BETTER than the form that God authorized?

    People fail, but that his not God's fault. He told us to be obedient to him and to his Son, Jesus Christ. Our lack of obedience is not his fault; it is our fault. The degree to which we willingly disobey their laws is the degree to which we are at fault.

    Yes, SOME single parent families can provide a good environment, but many cannot and do not. Instead of looking for the exception, why not prove God right.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    June 10, 2012 5:27 p.m.

    @Mike Richards
    Kids don't live under averages. Some "ideal" households have terrible parents and some "non-ideal" households have great parents. My parents divorced yet they did just fine raising myself and my sister. I consider your diatribe to be a hate-filled attack against families like mine with the suggestion that what is best for the kids is a situation that on average is better rather than what is really best for kids which is great parenting, regardless of the situation it's under.

  • John C. C. Payson, UT
    June 10, 2012 4:56 p.m.

    Perhaps we should study the influence of parental promiscuity on the growth and development of children. If a parent cannot show enough restraint and loyalty to be true to a spouse, how can a child believe that parent will remain loyal to the children?

    Then study the propensity of same-sex couples to be true to each other compared to traditionally married couples. Perhaps include same-sex married couples in states where it is legal and opposite-sex unmarried couples. I believe same-sex couples are far more likely in general to be promiscuous.

    Is the philosophy, "If it feels good, do it," any way to raise a child?

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    June 10, 2012 12:46 p.m.

    @Nan BW
    "let's say, a boy, who will provide the male role model that sons have always needed?"

    I'm curious, what exactly does a boy need to learn that only a male can teach?

    @Mike Richards
    Averages mean nothing for individual families. Okay let's pretend that on a scale of 1-10 5 sets of straight married parents have scores of 9 8 8 6 4 (avg: 7) and 5 sets of gay married/civil union'd parents have scores of 9 7 7 4 3 (avg: 6). If you were establishing rules on this that means you're suggesting the crappy straight parents have more of a right to raise kids than the good same-sex parents. You say the ideal is straight parenting, I disagree, I think the idea is the best parents regardless of situation. My parents divorced but they still did a great job raising my sister and I. Under your logic crappy parents staying together ranks higher than my parents.

  • Mukkake Salt Lake City, UT
    June 10, 2012 12:09 p.m.

    [God instituted families. He told us through "The Family - A Proclamation to the World". It begins: "We, the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, solemnly proclaim that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to the Creator’s plan for the eternal destiny of His children."]

    So God refers to "himself" as "We, the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints"?


  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    June 10, 2012 10:39 a.m.

    when people defend their choice of lifestyle by telling us that raising children in their family is comparable to step-families and single-parent families, they are telling us that their concern is for themselves and their chosen lifestyle instead of being concerned with what is best for the children.

    We could all chose a non-ideal situation and use it for comparison to justify anything that we favored. All that would do is tell the world that we had compromised the ideal and substituted it with the non-ideal.

    God instituted families. He told us through "The Family - A Proclamation to the World". It begins: "We, the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, solemnly proclaim that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to the Creator’s plan for the eternal destiny of His children."

    There we have the ideal. Anything else is non-ideal and NOT the best solution for the parents or for the children.

  • Kalindra Salt Lake City, Utah
    June 10, 2012 8:33 a.m.

    @ Nan BW: So, only fathers can motivate boys in the classroom? Really?

    To the Editorial Board: The study in question did not say that lesbian families were comparable to single-parent families. It said they were comparable to step-families and single-parent families.

    There is a big difference there.

    Let's address the issue honestly, please.

  • liberal larry salt lake City, utah
    June 10, 2012 8:27 a.m.

    An interesting fact is that of the ten states with the lowest divorce rates (2010 statistics) only two of them voted for McCain in the last presidential elections. Those two states were Utah and North Dakota.

  • Bebyebe UUU, UT
    June 10, 2012 8:19 a.m.

    A sample size of one is not statistically significant. You'll have to find another reason for your prejudice.

  • Nan BW ELder, CO
    June 10, 2012 7:23 a.m.

    If you have a same sex couple of two women raising, let's say, a boy, who will provide the male role model that sons have always needed? I knew a couple of nice amiable women who were doing this, and the boy lacked motivation in the classroom setting. He was one of the least motivated boys I saw as a teacher. He was pleasant and talented, but had no get up and go. This is anecdotal, yes, but of big concern. Certainly there are other potential male role models for boys in this circumstance, but having this just isn't as effective as having a male role model at the supper table every night, or there to play games on Saturday afternoon, or regular male contact.