Destruction of the Family in the US

  • Thread starter Thread starter DCNBILL
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
SWolf said:
I used to think that, and now find it hard to believe. The vows husband and wife say to each other are explicitly clear what the duties of marriage are.

One could argue they just think it’s words they say, but then I don’t see how more marriage prep would not seen just as “something you just go through.” The best it can do is make the some of the lukewarm think it’s not worth it and just find some protestant pastor to marry them in a park.
Click to expand...
The words of the Marriage Rite are one thing but the understanding of the Sacramental Marriage covenant is something quite different and I think has been lacking.

The new “model” for marriage preparation is to pair the couple with a “stable” Catholic couple as a mentors that not only follows them through the prep but continues to be of assistance after the marriage as well. We are just beginning to use this method so I do not have any stats or even anecdotal data to report but I think that it will be an improvement, at least I hope so.
 
DCNBILL said:
The words of the Marriage Rite are one thing but the understanding of the Sacramental Marriage covenant is something quite different and I think has been lacking.

The new “model” for marriage preparation is to pair the couple with a “stable” Catholic couple as a mentors that not only follows them through the prep but continues to be of assistance after the marriage as well. We are just beginning to use this method so I do not have any stats or even anecdotal data to report but I think that it will be an improvement, at least I hope so.
Click to expand...
This I can get behind. All your hard work is appreciated.
 
To anyone, what makes a collection of people a “family”?

Is having a traceable common ancestor a requirement to be part of one’s family?
 
ThinkingSapien said:
To anyone, what makes a collection of people a “family”?

Is having a traceable common ancestor a requirement to be part of one’s family?
Click to expand...
Regarding your last question. When I was growing up, I had many relatives who had since died. Creating a Family Tree is popular among some. Knowing who your ancestors were is of great value. It is part of your national and cultural heritage. If possible, they should not be forgotten.

Ed
 
ThinkingSapien said:
To anyone, what makes a collection of people a “family”?

Is having a traceable common ancestor a requirement to be part of one’s family?
Click to expand...
I think that is part of what gives one a self identity.

I have known numerous adopted people who all wanted to find out who their birth parents (mother) were (was), even though they grew up in a loving environment with a supportive family. They wanted to know “who they were.”
 
SWolf said:
Marriage prep is not the problem. Social acceptance of divorce is the problem.
Click to expand...
Idk. I large share of people lack the skills or resolve for life long relationships.
Marriage can be restored if we remove birth control, remove no-fault divorce, remove the divorce financial windfalls, criminalize adultery, and bring back the heavy social stigma of divorce.
Click to expand...
However, that is a tough pill to swallow, even for many Catholics.
Click to expand...
I hear this from many here, but it sounds like a recipe for trouble. Divorces are on the decline but that’s in part due to fewer marriages in the first place.

What you suggest might result in a further reduction in marriages as it would not lessen the risks in marriage but would simply change them. Arguably it would make marriage riskier with possible criminal penalties for adultery.
 
DCNBILL said:
I have known numerous adopted people who all wanted to find out who their birth parents (mother) were (was), even though they grew up in a loving environment with a supportive family. They wanted to know “who they were.”
Click to expand...
I’ve also known of those that know the identity of a parent (usually, but not always the father) that was not a willing participant in their lives that they don’t consider to be part of their family despite being a genetic ancestor. Then there are also those that may have a relationship with their respective family but also consider another to be part of their family because of a long lasting close emotional tie. Without taking divorce or recent changes in marriage laws into considerations it seems that the usage of the word “family” hasn’t been entirely strict. I took a look through the OED and found that in earlier usage the word could be used to speak of collections of people that had long term commitments to each other, including servants of the household.

But I admit, my question is more on curiosity the semantic applied to the word “family.” I suppose what is being questioned in this thread is the reduction in popularity of parents engaging in life long marriages and cohabitation with each other for life and their offspring until adulthood regardless of which term is being applied to it. There’s a book called “Going Solo:The Extraordinary Rise and Surprising Appeal of Living Alone” that concentrates “Singletons” (people that choose to never be married) and their motivations.
 
boomerang said:
Another thing that may have contributed to the demise of the family is welfare and lack of jobs. Women on welfare get paid more money with each child they have. This takes the place of a father’s income, hence no father is needed (financially anyway). Then the lack of jobs in some areas ensures that the father will not be able to contribute even if he wanted to. The state ends up becoming the “father.”
Click to expand...
Ahh yes because love of course doesnt matter. Ignorant people who post such things have never been on public assistance. Why don’t your try it and report to us how wonderful it is…
 
lileli said:
Ahh yes because love of course doesnt matter. Ignorant people who post such things have never been on public assistance. Why don’t your try it and report to us how wonderful it is…
Click to expand...
We are discussing the destruction of the family. If a father’s income is not needed, then there is less incentive to get married. That’s not ignorant. That’s a fact. Fewer people getting married = less traditional family. Providing public welfare dollars for women who do not marry the fathers of their children hastens the demise of the family and lets the fathers get off scott-free. Love is one thing; responsibility is another.
 
boomerang said:
We are discussing the destruction of the family. If a father’s income is not needed, then there is less incentive to get married. That’s not ignorant. That’s a fact. Fewer people getting married = less traditional family. Providing public welfare dollars for women who do not marry the fathers of their children hastens the demise of the family and lets the fathers get off scott-free. Love is one thing; responsibility is another.
Click to expand...
Number 1, welfare as you know it ended in 1996. Number 2, most people don’t get married because it is extremely expensive to get married. Number 3, just because people are not married doesnt mean they are not together.
 
lileli said:
Number 1, welfare as you know it ended in 1996. Number 2, most people don’t get married because it is extremely expensive to get married. Number 3, just because people are not married doesnt mean they are not together.
Click to expand...
  1. As long as the state supports unwed mothers, there’s little incentive for them to get married, and for the fathers to pay up.
  2. Who says it’s expensive to get married? My wedding cost $150. That was the donation to the Church. Neither of us bought any clothes. We wore what we already had. We didn’t go on a honeymoon, didn’t have any showers or parties. No flowers. We just paid the secretary at the church and that was it.
  3. If this unmarried but “together” couple are self-supporting, fine. But that is not the issue. I’m talking about women who have a child out of wedlock, who get no material support from the father of the child, which forces her to go on welfare, then she continues to have more children with these deadbeat fathers who do not support any of these kids. That’s what I’m talking about. Relying upon social services instead of the rightful father of the kids. There’s no incentive for this mother to ever marry the deadbeat. And why should she? The guys a deadbeat! Quit having kids with him!
I hope this isn’t you. I knew a women (actually several) who had three kids by three different men, no husband, ever. She proudly stated (about her three kids) “I get around!” Someone needs to tell her this is not a badge of honor. If I have insulted you, I apologize. The point of this thread is to figure out why so many people don’t get married, and don’t stay together. I maintain that if the state makes it easy for men and women to never get married, they won’t.
 
boomerang said:
  1. As long as the state supports unwed mothers, there’s little incentive for them to get married, and for the fathers to pay up.
  2. Who says it’s expensive to get married? My wedding cost $150. That was the donation to the Church. Neither of us bought any clothes. We wore what we already had. We didn’t go on a honeymoon, didn’t have any showers or parties. No flowers. We just paid the secretary at the church and that was it.
  3. If this unmarried but “together” couple are self-supporting, fine. But that is not the issue. I’m talking about women who have a child out of wedlock, who get no material support from the father of the child, which forces her to go on welfare, then she continues to have more children with these deadbeat fathers who do not support any of these kids. That’s what I’m talking about. Relying upon social services instead of the rightful father of the kids. There’s no incentive for this mother to ever marry the deadbeat. And why should she? The guys a deadbeat! Quit having kids with him!
I hope this isn’t you. I knew a women (actually several) who had three kids by three different men, no husband, ever. She proudly stated (about her three kids) “I get around!” Someone needs to tell her this is not a badge of honor. If I have insulted you, I apologize. The point of this thread is to figure out why so many people don’t get married, and don’t stay together. I maintain that if the state makes it easy for men and women to never get married, they won’t.
Click to expand...
So it would be better to let these women starve to death since welfare doesnt really exist and has strict limits. Food stamps is a different story but again the answer is income inequality but that is for another discussion…
 
lileli said:
So it would be better to let these women starve to death since welfare doesnt really exist and has strict limits. Food stamps is a different story but again the answer is income inequality but that is for another discussion…
Click to expand...
False dichotomy. There is a thing called “charity” and it’s what all good churches practice. Many people donate to charity, and donations went down when the welfare state was created. Donations will go back up again when the welfare state collapses, because people with consciences take care of their own voluntarily, without the government confiscating wealth to do it.
 
boomerang said:
  1. As long as the state supports unwed mothers, there’s little incentive for them to get married, and for the fathers to pay up.
Click to expand...
Many states require the mother to name the father before receiving assistance. The state then connects the money from the father, even going as far as garnishing wages, suspending passports, and standard debt collection processes.
  1. Who says it’s expensive to get married? My wedding cost $150.
Click to expand...
Excluding the actual wedding there is such immense fiscal risks that decades of child support might be a better deal than a possible divorce that destroys wealth, alimony, and still have child support payments on top of all that. Marriage is inherently the riskiest thing many of us do.
  1. If this unmarried but “together” couple are self-supporting, fine. But that is not the issue. I’m talking about women who have a child out of wedlock, who get no material support from the father of the child, which forces her to go on welfare, then she continues to have more children with these deadbeat fathers who do not support any of these kids. That’s what I’m talking about. Relying upon social services instead of the rightful father of the kids. There’s no incentive for this mother to ever marry the deadbeat. And why should she? The guys a deadbeat! Quit having kids with him!
Click to expand...
In principal it makes sense, but in practice sink or swim leaves a lot of people drowning. For example, before universal lifeline phone service was expanded there were a number stories of families who died in part because they had an emergency a life but has to run down to the fire station or a neighbor because they had no phone service.
 
lileli said:
So it would be better to let these women starve to death since welfare doesnt really exist and has strict limits. Food stamps is a different story but again the answer is income inequality but that is for another discussion…
Click to expand...
What would be best is for women to limit the number of children they have if they are unmarried and cannot afford to care for them. What would be best is for men and women to stop serial cohabitation, to get married and stay married. Anything other than that is part of the problem. We are talking, in this thread, about the demise of the traditional family here. There is no reason for anyone to “starve to death” if they take responsibility for themselves and their progeny.
 
boomerang said:
What would be best is for women to limit the number of children they have if they are unmarried and cannot afford to care for them. What would be best is for men and women to stop serial cohabitation, to get married and stay married. Anything other than that is part of the problem. We are talking, in this thread, about the demise of the traditional family here. There is no reason for anyone to “starve to death” if they take responsibility for themselves and their progeny.
Click to expand...
I completely agree and that is why condoms and birth control are very important.
 
lileli said:
I completely agree and that is why condoms and birth control are very important.
Click to expand...
Yes, birth control is a great thing. As a Catholic I shouldn’t think that way. It is a good thing but it has led to many bad things: promiscuity, casual cohabitation, sexual objectification of women, pornography, fatherless children, and rampant abortions.
 
boomerang said:
Yes, birth control is a great thing. As a Catholic I shouldn’t think that way. It is a good thing but it has led to many bad things: promiscuity, casual cohabitation, sexual objectification of women, pornography, fatherless children, and rampant abortions.
Click to expand...
It is a great thing but leads to all of those problems you listed?
 
boomerang said:
Yes, birth control is a great thing. As a Catholic I shouldn’t think that way. It is a good thing but it has led to many bad things: promiscuity, casual cohabitation, sexual objectification of women, pornography, fatherless children, and rampant abortions.
Click to expand...
I don’t think birth control has lead to any of that really. Sexual objectification of women has been around for over 8000 years at least. Bastard children have also been around. Abortions occurred but were very underground.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top