What is the ideal family?

[CriticalThought]

Incorrect. Bonobos are not our closest genetic relatives. The homo genus has several branches (neaderthals, homo erectus, etc.) which are our closest relatives, and so far no evidence has been shown that there was homosexual behavior in their societies.

Let me correct my wording. Our closest living genetic homonid relative. It is a bit difficult to observe behaviors in extinct species, and thereby collect evidence as to their sexual habits. Therefore, citing an absence of evidence as to our dead relatives does not negate that homosexuality is widely expressed in several different species of primates in addition to humans.

Also, bonobos are unlikely to be the branch from which the homo genus evolved from.

That is difficult to determine. However, we can be pretty certain it is the ancestors of either orangutans or chimps.

Not only that, but these same bonobos also engage in heterosexual sex. None only engage in homosexual sex. They are not completely homosexual. Homo sapiens sapiens is the only species that has "homosexuality for life" behavior.

Aside from some European polecats and sheep, I'm not aware of any animals that exhibit homosexuality for life like humans. However, you are incorrect. Exclusive, life long homosexual pair bonding has been observed in at least two other species of animals. I'm not mentioning penguins, because they generally only form such pair bonds in captivity and even though they may last for months, they usually do end.

Not only that, but the children are receiving mixed or incorrect ques in which a majority of the population does not behave and needs to behave in the opposite way in order to continue to exist. Homosexuality can never be portrayed as "normal" because if it was "normal" we'd become extinct.

Interesting view. Let's extend it to other human behaviors and conditions.

We should not allow priests and nuns to be viewed as "normal" because they are celibate and we cannot survive if everyone is celibate.

We should not allow infertile couples to marry or be viewed as "normal" because we cannot survive if everyone is infertile.

We should not allow elderly couples to marry or be viewed as "normal" because we cannot survive if everyone is elderly.

We should not allow couples who choose not to have children to marry or be viewed as "normal" because we cannot survive if everyone chooses not to have children.

Hm...somehow your logic does not pan out.

In fact, it seems pretty absurd because elderly couples, infertile couples, and couples that choose not to have children, all do not contribute to the reproduction of the species and yet they are allowed to marry and are even seen as normal. Furthermore, priests and nuns are not shunned for choosing a life of celibacy.

I think you are demonstrating a clear bias towards gays with your logic. Care you explain why Mr. "Social Moderate"?

 

[roguenuke]

Not only that, but the children are receiving mixed or incorrect ques in which a majority of the population does not behave and needs to behave in the opposite way in order to continue to exist. Homosexuality can never be portrayed as "normal" because if it was "normal" we'd become extinct.

Why does everyone bring this up when discussing homosexuals and children? Why in the world would you guys believe that even if everyone became homosexuals hundreds of years down the road (although the chances of this happening are extremely slim), do you imagine that they will also completely forget biology altogether and just settle with the extinction of their species instead of using technology (in vitro, sperm banks, surrogates) or just suck it up and have sex just for procreation? Even some heterosexual couples where the husband is infertile will sometimes turn to another man just to try to get the wife pregnant without the cost of in vitro. Do you assume that there will be no bisexuals? Do you think that gays don't have a desire to procreate just because they are more attracted to members of their own sex? This doesn't even make sense, since there are many gay men and women out there who are trying to have and/or raise children now.

 

[roguenuke]

BTW, I believe the most ideal family with children is one with a lot of love and support, and no actual emotional or physical abuse or neglect, toward any member in that family. It doesn't matter if it is just the biological parents of the children, adoptive parents of any genders/sexualities, step-families, or extended families.

I know from experience both from my childhood and since having my own children that it is certainly a lot easier if there are more able-bodied adults that love the children and respect each other, but I don't think it is absolutely necessary to have more than two adults raising the children. I do believe that whoever the parent/parents are should ideally have the absolute final say when it comes to raising their children, but having support can certainly help, especially single parents or two working parents.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

I've noticed that there are different perceptions of what constitutes a good family.

Conservatives tend to have a structural definition of the ideal family. This is usually, one man married to one woman and with two or more children.

Progressives tend to have an operational definition of the ideal family. This is usually a couple who form a committed, stable, and loving relationship with one another and can do the same for any children they may have.

What your argument fails to acknowledge is that the further the family strays from the conservatives' "structural" ideal, the less likely it is to live up to the progressives' "operational" ideal. The very concept of a "blended" family speaks to the fact that it is less committed and stable than a "traditional" family; someone who is divorced once is far more likely to do so again. Step-parents are statistically more likely to be abusive or neglectful than biological or adoptive parents-- as are the "significant others" of a single parent. Progressives' support for non-traditional family structures is based on belief in an ideal-- "all you need is love"-- that borders on the delusional. Children need much more than love to grow up healthy and strong; they need stability and guidance and attention, and these things are best provided for within the framework of an unbroken marriage.

In fact, the "traditional" family is rare in this day an age. Very few families of that structure survive because the parents either never get married, get divorced, remarry, etc.

This is what your artilce says..."Married couples with their own children made up 40.3% of households in 1970 but only 24.1% in 2000." Go back and read how the Census Beuru defines "family household". The definition of family that conservatives advocate makes up less than 25%.

And society bears the cost of these moral failings. This is not an argument against the structure of traditional marriage, but the most compelling argument for it.

 

[TaskmasterX]

Let me correct my wording. Our closest living genetic homonid relative. It is a bit difficult to observe behaviors in extinct species, and thereby collect evidence as to their sexual habits. Therefore, citing an absence of evidence as to our dead relatives does not negate that homosexuality is widely expressed in several different species of primates in addition to humans.
That is difficult to determine. However, we can be pretty certain it is the ancestors of either orangutans or chimps.

Right. So don't include evidence that you can't be sure is applicable to the discussion. If you don't know if bonobos are part of homo sapiens sapiens ancestral line AND if you can't account for other more recent species behavior that IS part of our evolutionary line, then don't use it at evidence for your argument.

Aside from some European polecats and sheep, I'm not aware of any animals that exhibit homosexuality for life like humans. However, you are incorrect. Exclusive, life long homosexual pair bonding has been observed in at least two other species of animals. I'm not mentioning penguins, because they generally only form such pair bonds in captivity and even though they may last for months, they usually do end.

Right. None of which are ancestors or even closely related to us.

Interesting view. Let's extend it to other human behaviors and conditions.

We should not allow priests and nuns to be viewed as "normal" because they are celibate and we cannot survive if everyone is celibate.

We should not allow infertile couples to marry or be viewed as "normal" because we cannot survive if everyone is infertile.

We should not allow elderly couples to marry or be viewed as "normal" because we cannot survive if everyone is elderly.

We should not allow couples who choose not to have children to marry or be viewed as "normal" because we cannot survive if everyone chooses not to have children.

Hm...somehow your logic does not pan out.
In fact, it seems pretty absurd because elderly couples, infertile couples, and couples that choose not to have children, all do not contribute to the reproduction of the species and yet they are allowed to marry and are even seen as normal. Furthermore, priests and nuns are not shunned for choosing a life of celibacy.

I think you are demonstrating a clear bias towards gays with your logic. Care you explain why Mr. "Social Moderate"?

LOL. First, half of your examples are very poor ones:

We should not allow infertile couples to marry or be viewed as "normal" because we cannot survive if everyone is infertile.

We should not allow elderly couples to marry or be viewed as "normal" because we cannot survive if everyone is elderly.

In these examples these people have no control over their "condition" that prohibits them from procreating. Infertile couples still have the instincts to procreate, regardless of their condition and are "normal" in trying to find other ways to do so. Also, I've never said anything against anyone getting married. I've only spoken out against certain people raising children. Anyone should have the right marry. But, anyone who wants to adopt kids should show evidence of being together for at least 3 years (to show that they are at least capable of making short-term commitments). So now we're down to two of your examples:

We should not allow priests and nuns to be viewed as "normal" because they are celibate and we cannot survive if everyone is celibate.
We should not allow couples who choose not to have children to marry or be viewed as "normal" because we cannot survive if everyone chooses not to have children.

Yes. Priests and nuns are trying to shun their "normal" instincts based on their beliefs, and as a showing of their utter and total commitment to being a voice for their "god". These people would fall under the same example as your last example of people not choosing to have kids. Also, priests and nuns have shown a tendency to sway towards "normalcy" (it's difficult to ignore their instincts regardless of what their "god" is telling them to do) by breaking their pledges of celibacy.
And as for people who choose not to have kids, well the reason for this is possibly they are believers in what I've been saying all along in that not everyone should be having kids. So I would call them "Normal". Maybe they don't like kids, or can't afford to raise kids, or prefer to devote their lives to god (at the same time they are fighting their instincts to procreate). Would you want any couples in these conditions popping out babies?
It would seem it is your logic that isn't panning out. Just because I have "conservative" views on one social issue causes you to question my claim of social moderacy? Care to try again?

 

[TaskmasterX]

Why does everyone bring this up when discussing homosexuals and children? Why in the world would you guys believe that even if everyone became homosexuals hundreds of years down the road (although the chances of this happening are extremely slim), do you imagine that they will also completely forget biology altogether and just settle with the extinction of their species instead of using technology (in vitro, sperm banks, surrogates) or just suck it up and have sex just for procreation? Even some heterosexual couples where the husband is infertile will sometimes turn to another man just to try to get the wife pregnant without the cost of in vitro. Do you assume that there will be no bisexuals? Do you think that gays don't have a desire to procreate just because they are more attracted to members of their own sex? This doesn't even make sense, since there are many gay men and women out there who are trying to have and/or raise children now.

Right. I don't see a disagreement here. It is impossible that homosexuality will become a majority or even a significant fraction of our population. Our genes prohibit this from happening. So to continue to perpetuate the idea that homosexuality should be considered normal, when it never can be, is flawed. It is instinctual to want to procreate. So yes, gays wanting have children are just following their instincts regardless of their choice in sexual partners.

 

[cpwill]

I've noticed that there are different perceptions of what constitutes a good family.

Conservatives tend to have a structural definition of the ideal family. This is usually, one man married to one woman and with two or more children.

Progressives tend to have an operational definition of the ideal family. This is usually a couple who form a committed, stable, and loving relationship with one another and can do the same for any children they may have.

hmm, interesting. now, it's worth pointing out that those two definitions are not mutually exclusive. it is, in fact, precisely for the goal of ensuring loving relationships and care for the children that conservatives tend to put in familial bonds. I don't think there is any conservative out there who will tell you that adoptive families don't love their children, you will find, in fact, that many churches urge adoption. my wife and I have considered it ourselves, though we will probably wait until later in life.

the only real change, in fact, that's worth noting, is that you have removed the gender qualification.

which is a bit self-serving, and a bit inaccurate. a better way of putting it might be that Americans have that structural idea of the ideal family as a marriage of a loving mother and a father raising children whom they love and care for; while Progressives make the structural change that it need not be a man / woman pairing, or even a pairing at all.

So what is your definition of the ideal family?

it's close to the one listed above, except that i tend to want more room for extended family; for involved grandparents, aunts'/uncles/cousins and the like.

 

[CriticalThought]

What your argument fails to acknowledge is that the further the family strays from the conservatives' "structural" ideal, the less likely it is to live up to the progressives' "operational" ideal.

That is the assumption that a lot of social conservatives like to make. However, it is not indicative of reality. The further we get away from a tribe structure in general, the more we lack social cohesion. The nucelar family is an articial construction of the indusstrial revolution. It is by no means a morally superior institution. It was simply the best family structure for surviving in an industrialized world.

 

[cpwill]

That is the assumption that a lot of social conservatives like to make. However, it is not indicative of reality.

really.


how are the children raised in - say - those single-parent families turning out?

 

[CriticalThought]

It would seem it is your logic that isn't panning out. Just because I have "conservative" views on one social issue causes you to question my claim of social moderacy? Care to try again?

Your position isn't conservative, it's inane. You want to deny certain people the right to raise kids if they lack the instincts or desire to procreate. And you find that to be a logical argument.

Furthermore you betray your bias. You argue "control" of condition, which indicates that you view gays making a choice regarding their sexual attractions, and you seek to treat gays as not "normal" which indicates a desire to stigmatize them. Your satelite example, as silly and irrelevant as it was for this thread, further illustrates a politicized bias. I'm not sure why someone who consideres themselves to be a "social moderate" has such a bias against gays, but it isn't based on any rational. We don't deny people rights or stigmatize them in this country simply on the basis of their instincts or desires.

Nonetheless, your "if everyone was gay then we would cease to exist" argument as a moral imperative has been refuted. Even if homosexuality were a choice, we do not condemn other people for choosing cleibacy or not having children. Your own arguments illustrate that most people will still choose to have children because of their instincts. You refuted your own argument. You have also illustrated a desire to interefere in the lives of gays that is not based on sound rational. That would indicate that you are more of a tyrant than a moderate or conservative.

 

[CriticalThought]

really.


how are the children raised in - say - those single-parent families turning out?

You ignored the rest of my post. Go back, read it, and respond in full or get the hell out of my thread. I'm not going to respond to people who take my posts out of context.

Hint: The nuclear family is structurally inferior to extended and/or tribal families.

Hint: I didn't argue structure is not important, only that the social conservative structural definition (nuclear family) is stupid.

 

[reefedjib]

You ignored the rest of my post. Go back, read it, and respond in full or get the hell out of my thread. I'm not going to respond to people who take my posts out of context.

Hint: the nuclear family is structurally inferior to extended and/or tribal families.

Hint: I didn't argue structure is not important, only that the social conservative structural definition is stupid.

They are not inferior to single parent families.

 

[CriticalThought]

They are not inferior to single parent families.

If I were to rank families based on structural advantages alone, it would probably look like this...

single parent family < two parent family < extended family < tribal family

As far as gender, I have yet to see evidence that indicates that a same sex family is inferior to an opposite sex family.

Furthermore, it is possible that a child raised by a single parent could be better off than one raised by two. Such as example may be a financially independent single parent versus an abusive and neglectful couple. Structure alone cannot determine whether a family can provide well for a child.

 

[reefedjib]

If I were to rank families based on structural advantages alone, it would probably look like this...

single parent family < two parent family < extended family < tribal family

As far as gender, I have yet to see evidence that indicates that a same sex family is inferior to an opposite sex family.

Furthermore, it is possible that a child raised by a single parent could be better off than one raised by two. Such as example may be a financially independent single parent versus an abusive and neglectful couple. Structure alone cannot determine whether a family can provide well for a child.

Other than creating a confusing environment relating to the roles men and women play in a relationship, I would agree.

WTF is a tribal family and why do you think it is superior to a two parent family or an extended family?

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

Other than creating a confusing environment relating to the roles men and women play in a relationship, I would agree.

WTF is a tribal family and why do you think it is superior to a two parent family or an extended family?

I think a tribal family is one of a close nit community.
Neighbors helping with kids and all that.

 

[reefedjib]

I think a tribal family is one of a close nit community.
Neighbors helping with kids and all that.

That is a broader organizing principle than a family.

 

[CriticalThought]

Other than creating a confusing environment relating to the roles men and women play in a relationship, I would agree.

The confusion argument is the stupidest and most unfounded garbage of an argument that anyone presents on this issue and I feel great embarrassment for whoever makes it.

I have asked numerous times what can a child learn from a mother that they can't learn from a father and vice versa. Nobody ever provides a rational response. Basically, all you or anyone is arguing is that children need to learn "gender" not that any gender has anything that it can teach the child that the other gender can't. And the fact is, children learn gender roles from their peers, the media, mentors, etc. just as much as they learn it from parents. The assumptoin that children will be confused about gender is not supported by any evidence. If anything, the opposite is true. Children who are raised by same sex couples have greater awareness of gender differences.

WTF is a tribal family and why do you think it is superior to a two parent family or an extended family?

The tribal family is the natural family structure of primates. All human civilizations originated as tribes, clans, and villages. It is the default structure if you take away our post agricultural technology. They consist of several extended families, usually numbering less than 150. Not unsurprisingly, our brains are evolutionarily wired so that we can only remember about that number of people. Everyone in the tribe is charged with protecting and nurturing children, even if they are not genetically their own. The basis for a modern human's concern for other people's children is left over from this tribal mentality. The paternal instinct, "save the women and children" is also based on tribal mentality, because women and children are essential for the survival of the tribe. Even lesser primates have large scale war aimed specifically at capturing the females of the other group.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

That is a broader organizing principle than a family.

Just clarifying, not saying I necessarily agree with his order of good.

 

[reefedjib]

Just clarifying, not saying I necessarily agree with his order of good.

Gotchya. I am currently struggling to avoid infraction points for calling someone an idiot...

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

Gotchya. I am currently struggling to avoid infraction points for calling someone an idiot...

rof Cooler heads prevail.

His putting the importance of the tribal structure isn't wrong, but in my opinion, out of order.

The immediate family is always superior, to the community family.
My opinion of course.

 

[Barbbtx]

Gay people can do a good job of raising kids. They can provide a loving, secure environment.
A single parent can do the same.
However an "ideal" family in my opinion is a man and woman, happily married, secure financially, a few biological kids and a dog.
Living, biological grandparents, aunts and uncles, cousins.

I know I'll be jumped on about adoptions, step kids etc. But please realize I'm looking at the word "ideal", and as there is no such thing as an ideal family.

 

[reefedjib]

rof Cooler heads prevail.

His putting the importance of the tribal structure isn't wrong, but in my opinion, out of order.

The immediate family is always superior, to the community family.
My opinion of course.

Whew, thanks. The urge passed. :mrgreen:

I think there are differences in scale. Aside from the fact that he wants us to revert to a pre-industrial, hell pre-evolutionary family structure, it is simply wrong. The tribal community is made up of families. That these families are traditionally the mother and father, assisted by the extended family is something we have lost. We have lost the cohabitation of the extended family (blame Social Security for that). We have lost the two parent family as out-of-wedlock child bearing and divorced families proliferate. We have lost the immediate care a two parent family with a SAHM gives now that both parents work. The result is some badly raised kids and the increase in developmental problems of kids attests to this. The answer is not to revert to primate "family" structures. The answer is to stop getting divorced, bearing children out of wedlock and working too hard to achieve the american dream at the expense of the kids.

 

[CriticalThought]

The immediate family is always superior, to the community family.
My opinion of course.

I'm in a position where my opinions are shaped by the facts. No matter how close nit or functional an immeidate family may be, if it exists within a community that is unheatlhy and dysfunctional, then in a matter of time, so will be the immediate family.

Imagine if you move to a neighborhood where people are selling drugs on the corner, there are prostitutes conducting business on the streets, crime is rampant, and everyone is so scared of everyone else, that nobody knows their neighbor. How well do you think children will do growing up in that situation no matter how well their parents raise them? What kind of friends and role models will those childre likely encounter?

Compare that to a community where every neighbor knows the other neighbor's name, where they meet for block parties and pot lucks, where everyone is looking out for everyone else's kids, where if a child skips school or is misbehaving then a parent hears about it from several different people before the child ever even gets home. How well do you think children will do in that environment?

The old saying, "It takes a village to raise a child" has more merit than most people are willing to admit. Largely because they were probably raised in dysfunctional communities themselves and have no conception of what a good community family can do for a child.

 

[CriticalThought]

reef, when you are ready to stop trying to ignore me, then I will be happy to chat with ya. Until then, stop being sore because I called your confusion argument stupid.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

Whew, thanks. The urge passed. :mrgreen:

Moderator's Warning:

Remember that even third person inferences, can be considered personal attacks, let's not do that and all will be well.

I think there are differences in scale. Aside from the fact that he wants us to revert to a pre-industrial, hell pre-evolutionary family structure, it is simply wrong. The tribal community is made up of families. That these families are traditionally the mother and father, assisted by the extended family is something we have lost. We have lost the cohabitation of the extended family (blame Social Security for that). We have lost the two parent family as out-of-wedlock child bearing and divorced families proliferate. We have lost the immediate care a two parent family with a SAHM gives now that both parents work. The result is some badly raised kids and the increase in developmental problems of kids attests to this. The answer is not to revert to primate "family" structures. The answer is to stop getting divorced, bearing children out of wedlock and working too hard to achieve the american dream at the expense of the kids.

It doesn't necessarily have to be like that, but I think the community/tribe has a positive role to play.
It passes on cultural practices and norms.