Hypothetical: Non-Theist despite evidence

[JohnMichaels]

The focus is on the decline of the traditional family via the sexual revolution, and thus focuses exclusively on heterosexual couples.

First, this video should be updated. They said never before in history “economic prosperity accompanied by depopulation” this was made before things went down, apparently.

Also, they trolled out a lot of “experts” to talk about things outside their field. I wouldn’t have cared accept they try to hide it really covertly

Steve Nock, Ph.D…
professor of sociology and director of the marriage matters project
University of Virginia

his name & university are in BOLD text, his area of expertise is very faded text, I have to squint to see it

Right away they pretty much say they’re going to be stating their opinions. A guy says, & I quote

There’s not much quibble, not much controversy among people…in the know

So then, people who agree with us…are all in agreement…brilliant

Some woman from Latvia paints a horrible picture of her country from 1989-2002, I’ll get into that later in my notes, since she comes up twice.

All in all I tried to not kill the messenger, & just focus on what they were saying. I wrote a lot of notes, took a lot of time to clean them up also. In them, I’m not really talking to you as much as I am aloud. I tried not to take that out of the notes as I feel it adds the emotional reaction I had at the time of first viewing. I may watch it again, though

Also, they mention in passing we need a wall to keep out Mexicans. Who says that? I wanna make them a state

There was a great focus in the beginning about ease of divorce, the divorce revolution, sexual revolution…etc etc, the causes or whatnot. I want to talk about those separately and individually both as it pertains to the video, and otherwise. The video sounds like the one I showed you. At one point the comment is made (In this video) That in the US, women are smarter than men…and we want to take them out of the workforce? egad man!

Anyways, these are the notes I took while watching, so they should somewhat be in order? maybe. (I tried to clean them up, if you can’t understand them quote & I will clarify):

A Little past 20m the unemployment rate among youth in Italy is mentioned. It is high nearly 40%
The lead in was the common misconception that the youth will prosper from the decline in population. the reference was Italian youths not being employed.
I failed to see how encouraging them to get married and produce more children would increase their employment.
It was more convincing earlier when showed empty homes in Russia (go figure)
They tried to say economic solutions won’t work, referencing Russia’s attempt to pay people to conceive not being successful…but no mention of Italy, only
“Other governments are trying economic solutions.”
How about this one? By Italy…

policymic.com/articles/46423/italy-unemployment-rate-why-italy-s-new-government-must-focus-on-its-youth

(obviously this came after the documentary, but It’s a case of other solutions)

---

The documentary then goes on to claim as fact 2/3 of U.S. households are without children.
He’s citing an annual report, and specifically the one from 2007 which i cannot find.
Released annually by David Popenoe, one loan Sociology professor. But alright.
How many square miles was his sample radius? Or am I to believe he polls the entire country? Don’t know. couldn’t find out when I went to the the reports website.

---

Conclusion is we need more babies, but how? certainly not just any ol babies. I mean, look at the GPA of kids who don’t grow up in a married family home!
Statistics show a .3 better GPA than others listed (yet the color bars make it look like massive differences)
If that doesn’t show we need to produce more babies our way, nothing does. (my little annoyed humor)
Studies show you are less likely to go to jail if your parents don’t divorce. if they divorce, a little more likely, but then if you get step-parents…HIGHER still your chances to go to jail. the moral here, obviously is to not be divorced ever. I’m shocked! (mind you there were working off a release from 1998…wonder why they didn’t get anything more recent…The “likely to get expelled from school” report was from 1996)

---

They talked about children out of wedlock in correlation to these numbers. I mean, it’s not like they aren’t just stating the obvious even if the numbers are old. Children who grow up in traditional families do better. I guess provided the family isn’t a poor family, & they mention that in regards to poor families having lots of children whereas better income families have less children. (YOU alluded to this earlier, If I recall) But still, it’s a form of natural selection. It suggest those who have to start off at a disadvantage have a tougher time. Who can argue?

I love the Chinese man in the suit, with books behind him telling me what he found. Don’t even know his name. No mention of his degree, University…nothing
It’s like those 2am lawyer commercials. The more Law books they got stacked on their desk, the better lawyer they must be!

Part (1/2)

 

[JohnMichaels]

Part (2/2)

Now a psychologist comes on, and he says everyone agreed it was about income, not the family.
Everyone who looked at the reports. Or at least he alludes that the majority concluded it that way.
He then says, people who disagreed said no you have to consider love. which…wow…
Now he proclaims that eventually, the top people! the best number-crunchers…social scientists…started to come around…
And now, a decade to 15 years later the verdict is in among the top academic’s he doesn’t name. He doesn’t name anyone. Or show a chart…just spouts off…oook…
What I can conclude from this, is you can’t just look at the numbers. You have to look behind the numbers. As he said. So, this isn’t about pure statistics, obviously

---

(Here I’m just making musing on what I’ve seen so far)
They’re doing a good job tying all this together into divorce/marriage/sex before marriage by saying couples who only have ever had sex with each other stay married more often than couples with other sex partners. It’s like…claiming they don’t know their partner isn’t doing it right, since it’s all they know.

I can empathize with that. I knew a man once, who owned a Dog. This man was retired, but a busy man. Flea Markets, odd jobs for people, anything to be out of the house and stay gone. He hated to be home. I always felt so bad for his dog, though. Having to spend all day every day it’s entire life in his kitchen.
Explaining this once to a friend, in contrast with how I treat my own pets my friend told me
“To that dog, that is life. it doesn’t know any different”

This video suggests an enclosed life, to me, in that regard…

---

Finally the brief mention homosexual marriage. Made sense the way they used it.
The man said the people who are arguing with emotion (he didn’t use that word) staking a morality claim in this…are the one’s fighting for it? Basically he was distinguishing him, and his lot, with people emotionally fighting this battle. He says that him and his lot who look at only the statistics and try not to invoke morality on it - are in agreement. Imploring us to just look at the data.

Well, He needs to have a conversation with that other guy earlier in this video who said to insert love into the statistics. So now, if the statistics don’t show what they want, consider the love. But, if the statistics don’t require love because they agree, lets just look at the data alone. Besides that, 20m ago I was being told to consider love BECAUSE the numbers didn’t agree, & now somehow the numbers do agree. How can they argue both sides of this?

---

The Latvian politician is back telling her sad tale of woe. Poor her. Lets not forget the real issue with Latvia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_migration_rate
and recognize they just brought her in cause her story fit, even if causes didn’t

---

This video claims in 2006, in a German Province, 220 schools were forced to close. I could find no documentation on this. I reached out to a friend of mine in Germany and she said she recalls a lot of schools closing, but thinks it was from a period leading up to 2006, and that it was all over Germany, not one Province. She is not certain however, so I consider this point a wash.

---

Now we’re getting religious. although, I couldn’t argue the point people of faith have larger families than secular couples do. So alright

You’ll have to ignore my earlier notes on Italy as this guy just said “You look at Italy, they’re doing well” He’s not letting me have any fun! Though, it was kinda stupid for the video to somewhat dismantle it’s own argument?

Finally, the video ends arguing both sides as their own, again. First, they said they blame the technological age for this in part, so I’m sitting here going
“hmmm, these guys are against the modern world…ok, so they want western decline”
then the next guy ends the movie saying it’s going into decline…so…what’s his problem then? He’s getting what he wants…​

Overall I found this to be a cliffhanger. It shows us this decline, which even when they admit the population goes through peaks & valleys, they’re gonna try to project the numbers out over a long stretch anyway. Not a mathematician in the bunch, but who’s counting?

THEN it offers no solution. No framework. Nothing. Just “Wouldn’t it be nice”?
Is there a part 2 I should be checking out where they outline the solution? Or was that not the point of you showing me the doc? Anyways. I hope you made it through all this and don’t think I’m too crazy

Cheers!

 

[prodigalson2011]

First, this video should be updated. They said never before in history “economic prosperity accompanied by depopulation” this was made before things went down, apparently.

Also, they trolled out a lot of “experts” to talk about things outside their field. I wouldn’t have cared accept they try to hide it really covertly

Steve Nock, Ph.D…
professor of sociology and director of the marriage matters project
University of Virginia

his name & university are in BOLD text, his area of expertise is very faded text, I have to squint to see it

Almost all of those interviewed were sociologists and economists; the topic of the documentary deals specifically with sociology and economics, and there’s a lot of overlap between the two fields in general. I’m not sure why you think they’re talking about things outside their field? Also, were you watching the documentary in full screen? Because I first saw this film on a full size TV screen and had no problem reading their titles. I did not get the impression that they were trying to obscure their titles at all.

Right away they pretty much say they’re going to be stating their opinions. A guy says, & I quote

So then, people who agree with us…are all in agreement…brilliant

The guy who said this is Phillip Longman, who is a highly respected demographer. There are disagreements between people in every field: science, economics, politics, etc. ad infinitum. When someone says that there’s not much disagreement between people “in the know” of a particular field (in this case, demographers), I would take that to mean that it’s pretty damn reliable. Kind of in the same way a biologist might say that there’s very little disagreement among scientists about evolution.

Some woman from Latvia paints a horrible picture of her country from 1989-2002, I’ll get into that later in my notes, since she comes up twice.

Alright. Moving on then …

Also, they mention in passing we need a wall to keep out Mexicans. Who says that? I wanna make them a state

They did not say that we need to do that. They said that it’s an opinion you commonly hear expressed in the United States, which is true.

There was a great focus in the beginning about ease of divorce, the divorce revolution, sexual revolution…etc etc, the causes or whatnot. I want to talk about those separately and individually both as it pertains to the video, and otherwise. The video sounds like the one I showed you. At one point the comment is made (In this video) That in the US, women are smarter than men…and we want to take them out of the workforce? egad man!

They did not say that women are smarter than men, they said that women are now typically more educated than men. Subtle as it may be, it’s an important difference. The former implies that women are inherently more intelligent than men (and that’s just reverse sexism–do I sense the looming spectre of matriarchal oppression?) The latter implies that, for whatever reason, women are currently more inclined to pursue higher education.

And you’re overgeneralizing; no one in the documentary says women need to be taken out of the workforce, full stop.

A Little past 20m the unemployment rate among youth in Italy is mentioned. It is high nearly 40%
The lead in was the common misconception that the youth will prosper from the decline in population. the reference was Italian youths not being employed.
I failed to see how encouraging them to get married and produce more children would increase their employment.
It was more convincing earlier when showed empty homes in Russia (go figure)
They tried to say economic solutions won’t work, referencing Russia’s attempt to pay people to conceive not being successful…but no mention of Italy, only
“Other governments are trying economic solutions.”
How about this one? By Italy…

policymic.com/articles/46423/italy-unemployment-rate-why-italy-s-new-government-must-focus-on-its-youth

(obviously this came after the documentary, but It’s a case of other solutions)

It’s a case of a hypothetical solution. Politicians come up with ideas that don’t really work all the time. I’m not saying it won’t work; I’m just saying that at this stage it’s not much of a counterargument.

(continued…)

 

[prodigalson2011]

(…continued)

The documentary then goes on to claim as fact 2/3 of U.S. households are without children.
He’s citing an annual report, and specifically the one from 2007 which i cannot find.
Released annually by David Popenoe, one loan Sociology professor. But alright.
How many square miles was his sample radius? Or am I to believe he polls the entire country? Don’t know. couldn’t find out when I went to the the reports website.

You mean… this one?

And it’s not just David Popenoe:

*AResearch Advisory Board made up of the following distinguished academic and social science experts guides the work of the National Marriage Project:

Don S. Browning, Alexander Campbell Professor Emeritus of Religious Ethics and the Social Sciences, University of Chicago

William J. Doherty, Professor of Family Social Science and Director of the Marriage and Family Therapy Program, University of Minnesota, and former President of the National Council on Family Relations

Amitai Etzioni, University Professor,George Washington University, founder and head of the Communitarian Network, and former President of the American Sociological Association

William A. Galston, Senior Fellow, the Brookings Institution; former Professor and Director of the Institute for Philosophy and Public Policy, School of Public Affairs, University of Maryland, and domestic advisor to President Clinton

Neil Gilbert, Milton and Gertrude Chernin Professor of Social Welfare and Social Services, University of California at Berkeley

Mary Ann Glendon, Learned Hand Professor of Law,Harvard University

Norval D. Glenn, Ashbel Smith Professor of Sociology and Stiles Professor of American Studies, University of Texas at Austin

David G. Myers, John Dirk Werkman Professor of Psychology, Hope College

Alice S. Rossi, Professor Emerita of Sociology, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, and former President of the American Sociological Association

Isabel Sawhill, Vice President and Director,Economic Studies Program, the Brookings Institution, and President, the National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy

Linda J. Waite, Lucy Flower Professor of Sociology, University of Chicago, and former President of the Population Association of America

Judith S. Wallerstein, Founder, Judith Wallerstein Center for the Family in Transition, Corte Madera, CA, and Senior Lecturer Emerita, University of California, Berkeley

James Q. Wilson, Professor Emeritus of Management, University of California at Los Angeles, and Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences; former Henry Lee Shattuck Professor of Government, Harvard University, and President of the American Political Science Association

Alan Wolfe, Professor of Political Science and Director of the Center for Religion and Public Life, Boston College, and Contributing Editor, The New Republic*

Conclusion is we need more babies, but how? certainly not just any ol babies. I mean, look at the GPA of kids who don’t grow up in a married family home!
Statistics show a .3 better GPA than others listed (yet the color bars make it look like massive differences)
If that doesn’t show we need to produce more babies our way, nothing does. (my little annoyed humor)

The whole focus of the documentary is the dissolution of the nuclear family, so obviously the “how” is a return to the traditional family model.

(continued…)

 

[prodigalson2011]

(…continued)

Studies show you are less likely to go to jail if your parents don’t divorce. if they divorce, a little more likely, but then if you get step-parents…HIGHER still your chances to go to jail. the moral here, obviously is to not be divorced ever. I’m shocked! (mind you there were working off a release from 1998…wonder why they didn’t get anything more recent…The “likely to get expelled from school” report was from 1996)

There may have been no more recent studies available on the exact subjects they were referencing. Your comments here have taken on the tone of a reductio ad absurdum. The point is that divorce is generally a bad thing and it takes a toll on children. The moral is that people should take their marriages more seriously and should, thus, consider their choice of spouse more seriously. But in an emotionally driven society where marriage is all about “romance” and divorce is two steps away from a drive through industry, the fact is many people don’t. I’ve seen it happen numerous times throughout my relatively short life. And more and more, people think marriage is “outdated”; a “relic of the past”; a “worthless institution.” The point, or the moral, if you will, is that they are about as far from objective reality as possible. Our technology may have changed alot in the past century, but human nature: not so much. I may have employed this quote before on this thread–I do so often–but it bears repeating: “Never take a fence down until you know why it was put up.”

They talked about children out of wedlock in correlation to these numbers. I mean, it’s not like they aren’t just stating the obvious even if the numbers are old. Children who grow up in traditional families do better. I guess provided the family isn’t a poor family, & they mention that in regards to poor families having lots of children whereas better income families have less children. (YOU alluded to this earlier, If I recall) But still, it’s a form of natural selection. It suggest those who have to start off at a disadvantage have a tougher time. Who can argue?

Indeed. Who can argue? It would seem, then, that we have a moral responsibility, as a society, to encourage, reinforce and protect the traditional family, would it not?

I love the Chinese man in the suit, with books behind him telling me what he found. Don’t even know his name. No mention of his degree, University…nothing
It’s like those 2am lawyer commercials. The more Law books they got stacked on their desk, the better lawyer they must be!

Surely you don’t mean Dr. Jianguo Liu, Rachel Carson Chair in Ecological Sustainability and Directory of Sustainability at Michigan State University? Not that Chinese man?

Can’t blame you for missing that one, though. They only kept his name on the screen for like 15 seconds. (Sorry. I can’t pass up a perfect chance to be a complete smart-a**. Not trying to be offensive, but I probably am anyway.)

(continued…)

 

[prodigalson2011]

(…continued)

Now a psychologist comes on, and he says everyone agreed it was about income, not the family.

Yes.

Everyone who looked at the reports. Or at least he alludes that the majority concluded it that way.

No. If you listen carefully here, he says that was the opinion of most professors of the social sciences, but that that opinion was not supported by the data. And that, in fact, the more the data was reviewed, the more they changed their minds. He specifically says they arrived at the current conclusion by following the data.

He then says, people who disagreed said no you have to consider love. which…wow…
Now he proclaims that eventually, the top people! the best number-crunchers…social scientists…started to come around…
And now, a decade to 15 years later the verdict is in among the top academic’s he doesn’t name. He doesn’t name anyone. Or show a chart…just spouts off…oook…
What I can conclude from this, is you can’t just look at the numbers. You have to look behind the numbers. As he said. So, this isn’t about pure statistics, obviously

That’s not what he said. What he said is that the data itself showed that family structure and the quality of the marriage are statistically significant factors.

They’re doing a good job tying all this together into divorce/marriage/sex before marriage by saying couples who only have ever had sex with each other stay married more often than couples with other sex partners. It’s like…claiming they don’t know their partner isn’t doing it right, since it’s all they know.

Or maybe it’s because they base their relationship on something deeper than how much sexual pleasure they get out of it? Just sayin…

I can empathize with that. I knew a man once, who owned a Dog. This man was retired, but a busy man. Flea Markets, odd jobs for people, anything to be out of the house and stay gone. He hated to be home. I always felt so bad for his dog, though. Having to spend all day every day it’s entire life in his kitchen.
Explaining this once to a friend, in contrast with how I treat my own pets my friend told me
“To that dog, that is life. it doesn’t know any different”

If we were to compare the ratio of unhappy dogs to unhappy modern Americans, I think you wouldn’t feel so bad for the dog.

This video suggests an enclosed life, to me, in that regard…

My parents have been together for 40 years now, have never had other sexual partners, and to this day still write each other love letters for their birthdays. My dad writes a poem for my mom every year at Christmas and every year while she reads it she beams, through tears, from ear to ear. She was a stay-at-home mom from the time my oldest sibling was very young until I (the youngest) was old enough to stay home alone, and I can probably count on one hand the number of days my mom seemed truly unhappy, and it never had anything to do with her “enclosed life.” She was and remains one of the sweetest, most humorous, cheerful, smart, creative and all around loving women I know.

So, I beg you: don’t pity her. Pity instead the generations of young women who think the only way they can find fulfillment in life is through a better orgasm and a higher salary, and who never find any lasting satisfaction in either.

Finally the brief mention homosexual marriage. Made sense the way they used it.
The man said the people who are arguing with emotion (he didn’t use that word) staking a morality claim in this…are the one’s fighting for it? Basically he was distinguishing him, and his lot, with people emotionally fighting this battle. He says that him and his lot who look at only the statistics and try not to invoke morality on it - are in agreement. Imploring us to just look at the data.

Well, He needs to have a conversation with that other guy earlier in this video who said to insert love into the statistics. So now, if the statistics don’t show what they want, consider the love. But, if the statistics don’t require love because they agree, lets just look at the data alone. Besides that, 20m ago I was being told to consider love BECAUSE the numbers didn’t agree, & now somehow the numbers do agree. How can they argue both sides of this?

As I already pointed out, the psychologist’s factoring in of “love” was not an emotional argument; it was, at worst, a poor choice of words. What Dr. Regnerus is talking about is the completely emotional argument for homosexual marriage: “They love each other, why shouldn’t they be able to marry?” It is a position based purely on feelings. What the psychologist (Mr. Fagan) is referring to is the research data in regards to family structure and the emotional stability/quality of the marriage. He never said the numbers didn’t agree; he said the professors hadn’t looked at the numbers. My guess is that the research was still in its infancy at the time (late 80s.)

(continued…)

 

[prodigalson2011]

(…continued)

The Latvian politician is back telling her sad tale of woe. Poor her. Lets not forget the real issue with Latvia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_migration_rate
and recognize they just brought her in cause her story fit, even if causes didn’t

Source?

This video claims in 2006, in a German Province, 220 schools were forced to close. I could find no documentation on this. I reached out to a friend of mine in Germany and she said she recalls a lot of schools closing, but thinks it was from a period leading up to 2006, and that it was all over Germany, not one Province. She is not certain however, so I consider this point a wash.

I haven’t been able to find an independent source on this, either.

Now we’re getting religious. although, I couldn’t argue the point people of faith have larger families than secular couples do. So alright

Mmhmm.

You’ll have to ignore my earlier notes on Italy as this guy just said “You look at Italy, they’re doing well” He’s not letting me have any fun! Though, it was kinda stupid for the video to somewhat dismantle it’s own argument?

I think you’re taking it that out of context. The rest of that line was something to the effect of “but they’re nowhere near what they used to be.” i.e., They are declining.

Finally, the video ends arguing both sides as their own, again. First, they said they blame the technological age for this in part, so I’m sitting here going
“hmmm, these guys are against the modern world…ok, so they want western decline”
then the next guy ends the movie saying it’s going into decline…so…what’s his problem then? He’s getting what he wants…

You’re funny, but inaccurate. Recognizing the technological age as a contributing factor to decline does not mean that they want our technological society to decay. It is not technology itself, but the social attitudes that have developed along with it that are the problem. The technological revolution, I would argue, has given many people a false sense of social progress and a corresponding complacency. In addition, the way in which we have built our societies around our technology also contributes to the depersonalization of society as a whole, the destabilization of community (how many of us really know our neighbors anymore?), all the way on down to the deconstruction of the family. The solution is not necessarily to get rid of the technology, but to rethink the way we structure our lives around it.

Overall I found this to be a cliffhanger. It shows us this decline, which even when they admit the population goes through peaks & valleys, they’re gonna try to project the numbers out over a long stretch anyway. Not a mathematician in the bunch, but who’s counting?

There were several economists (including a Nobel Prize winner):

Contemporary economics uses mathematics. Economists draw on the tools of calculus, linear algebra, statistics, game theory, and computer science.[79] Professional economists are expected to be familiar with these tools, while a minority specialize in econometrics and mathematical methods. (from the Wikipedia entry on “Economics”)

THEN it offers no solution. No framework. Nothing. Just “Wouldn’t it be nice”?
Is there a part 2 I should be checking out where they outline the solution? Or was that not the point of you showing me the doc?

The solution has already been offered. It’s simple in theory, but as difficult in practice as the parts of the solution (individual people) have a tendency to be. The solution is a return to traditional values and thus the traditional family. At this point, that’s going to entail either a) a major “evangelization” of our culture, which has become not only cold but hostile to such a value system or b) a major economic and political collapse (with who knows what else thrown into the mix) and a little bit of social anarchy. Western civilization (specifically Christian civilization) was born from the ashes of the Roman Empire. Look at the resurgence of religion in post-Soviet Russia.

Anyways. I hope you made it through all this and don’t think I’m too crazy

Cheers!

I don’t think you’re crazy at all… just wrong. lol

But, seriously, I greatly appreciate your willingness to engage in a real discussion, and even moreso your over-and-above effort. This has been a good, thought provoking conversation so far. For me, at least.

 

[JohnMichaels]

Almost all of those interviewed were sociologists and economists; the topic of the documentary deals specifically with sociology and economics, and there’s a lot of overlap between the two fields in general. I’m not sure why you think they’re talking about things outside their field? Also, were you watching the documentary in full screen? Because I first saw this film on a full size TV screen and had no problem reading their titles. I did not get the impression that they were trying to obscure their titles at all.

They had the sociologists explaining the “numbers” I know they were just reading the script, I just found it Ironic. I did not watch it in full screen, but if i seen every other line of text including every line on every chart or graph, except the ones I said I squinted to see - it still seems odd.

The guy who said this is Phillip Longman, who is a highly respected demographer. There are disagreements between people in every field: science, economics, politics, etc. ad infinitum. When someone says that there’s not much disagreement between people “in the know” of a particular field (in this case, demographers), I would take that to mean that it’s pretty damn reliable. Kind of in the same way a biologist might say that there’s very little disagreement among scientists about evolution.

Did you see the way he said that? Did he seem very confident, or did he kind of slip it out? All I was saying.

They did not say that women are smarter than men, they said that women are now typically more educated than men. Subtle as it may be, it’s an important difference. The former implies that women are inherently more intelligent than men (and that’s just reverse sexism–do I sense the looming spectre of matriarchal oppression?) The latter implies that, for whatever reason, women are currently more inclined to pursue higher education.
And you’re overgeneralizing; no one in the documentary says women need to be taken out of the workforce, full stop.

Sensing a who what?
And I disagree. Kay Hymowitz said “The more successful women become in the workplace before they have their children, the higher the opportunity costs when they have their kids. So it’s harder to leave work”
That sounds to me like she is asserting it would be a delinquency on a requirement
The lead in to this, was a cause was women entering the workplace. What conclusion would you think I should draw from that?

You mean… this one?

And it’s not just David Popenoe:

He releases it. I checked that report, also. Thanks for finding it!
I enjoyed his charts of unmarried women in the US. From 2001 or 2003, where the starting age is 15! (oh, in the notes it’s actually 14. why say 15? makes it sound less creepy)

The whole focus of the documentary is the dissolution of the nuclear family, so obviously the “how” is a return to the traditional family model.

You’re still skipping a step. If you’re starving, I can tell you the solution is to eat a meal. I’ve not really told you how to get that meal.

**There may have been no more recent studies available **on the exact subjects they were referencing. Your comments here have taken on the tone of a reductio ad absurdum. The point is that divorce is generally a bad thing and it takes a toll on children. (lots of other stuff)

Not that I didn’t read it all, just don’t want to re-quote it all. The point I was trying to make, is in bold, though I would have finished the thought with “…that made the point they wanted to make”

Indeed. Who can argue? It would seem, then, that we have a moral responsibility, as a society, to encourage, reinforce and protect the traditional family, would it not?

Traditional family is not an “It” you know. It’s something that occurs, or does not.
However, when laws are suggested preventing traditional families from forming, I will protect it as you say!

Surely you don’t mean Dr. Jianguo Liu, Rachel Carson Chair in Ecological Sustainability and Directory of Sustainability at Michigan State University? Not that Chinese man?

Maybe? Check 36:44-37:39, tell me if you seen a name.

No. If you listen carefully here, he says that was the opinion of most professors of the social sciences, but that that opinion was not supported by the data. And that, in fact, the more the data was reviewed, the more they changed their minds. He specifically says they arrived at the current conclusion by following the data.
That’s not what he said. What he said is that the data itself showed that family structure and the quality of the marriage are statistically significant factors.

To Be Continued…

 

[JohnMichaels]

Right here…

Lets end the debate! he said:

• in 1990 the vast majority of academics in the social sciences held, not that the data held, but the people in the social sciences, professors, held that really family didnt make too much difference, the big issue was the income in the family. then the more you looked at the data, others were saying "no, the structure makes a difference. And what’s behind the structure, which is the love, the belonging or the rejection. That makes a difference. That started an academic debate.
  Those who investigated who were…on the other side of the debate actually gradually…the really good number-crunchers: The top social scientists, followed the data and a decade to fifteen years later, the verdict is in among the top academics. Marriage does make a difference*

So then, he is saying all the professors & scientists willfully went against the data. Quite the allegation - I’ll need evidence of that
However, if the data did indeed show as he claims why the claims of looking beyond the data? Silly right? I thought it was.
He isn’t saying that, over 15 years the data changed. He’s saying they changed their minds. based on the same data?
If that makes sense to you, fine. But I think he was making it up.

Or maybe it’s because they base their relationship on something deeper than how much sexual pleasure they get out of it? Just sayin…

Maybe? Right? Each person has a unique experience. Good call!
BUT, I didn’t bring it up sir, the man in the video did. He said people with only 1 partner are more satisfied “Sexually & emotionally” & I commented that, they don’t know any better on part 1…and you can’t claim they do. so there I won one :extrahappy:

My parents have been together for 40 years now, have never had other sexual partners,
So, I beg you: don’t pity her.

Who said I pity anyone? I pity the dog who stays locked in a kitchen. I don’t assume your Mother or anyone stays locked up at home and never experiences the world. For all I know your mother & father traveled or who knows what they did to experience life. But it was their choice, & I applaud that. :clapping:

What Dr. Regnerus is talking about is the completely emotional argument for homosexual marriage: “They love each other, why shouldn’t they be able to marry?” It is a position based purely on feelings.

Yes, he said looking at the data they all agree about the troubling waters. So, what data? Data supports anti-gay marriage? Or are they lumping it in with divorce, etc (the other stuff in the video) ?

Source?

Well, Latvia declared it’s independence from Russia in 1989 so, I highly doubt the decline of the traditional family was the cause of the population decline, more like…all the other stuff!

You’re funny, but inaccurate. Recognizing the technological age as a contributing factor to decline does not mean that they want our technological society to decay…the way in which we have built our societies around our technology also contributes to the depersonalization of society as a whole. The solution is not necessarily to get rid of the technology, but to rethink the way we structure our lives around it.

I can argue the good or bad of what this implies, but for now just say it’s more wishful thinking.

The solution has already been offered. It’s simple in theory, but as difficult in practice as the parts of the solution (individual people) have a tendency to be. The solution is a return to traditional values and thus the traditional family. At this point, that’s going to entail either a) a major “evangelization” of our culture, which has become not only cold but hostile to such a value system or b) a major economic and political collapse (with who knows what else thrown into the mix) and a little bit of social anarchy. Western civilization (specifically Christian civilization) was born from the ashes of the Roman Empire. Look at the resurgence of religion in post-Soviet Russia.

How about if just none of that stuff with very loose evidence just doesn’t happen? We ever consider that? I can find very little current research about this, you?
Either way, like I said, no solutions. Everyone isn’t going to magically agree with this position but I can still argue some of it’s merits I suppose. I just expected some kind of plan is all.

But, seriously, I greatly appreciate your willingness to engage in a real discussion, and even moreso your over-and-above effort. This has been a good, thought provoking conversation so far. For me, at least.

I always bring my A GAME!!

 

[prodigalson2011]

They had the sociologists explaining the “numbers” I know they were just reading the script, I just found it Ironic. I did not watch it in full screen, but if i seen every other line of text including every line on every chart or graph, except the ones I said I squinted to see - it still seems odd.

I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree here. One thought I had is that the considerable length of many of their academic titles may have played a role in that choice of format, as well.

Did you see the way he said that? Did he seem very confident, or did he kind of slip it out? All I was saying.

Well, I think it’s important to remember that this was really just a “soundbite”, completely isolated from its original context. As to the way he said it, I found his manner of speaking to be consistently “nervous,” so I wouldn’t give it too much consideration. I get the impression that he’s just a nervous person, but I don’t think that detracts from his credibility.

Sensing a who what?

It was a joke.

And I disagree. Kay Hymowitz said “The more successful women become in the workplace before they have their children, the higher the opportunity costs when they have their kids. So it’s harder to leave work”
That sounds to me like she is asserting it would be a delinquency on a requirement
The lead in to this, was a cause was women entering the workplace. What conclusion would you think I should draw from that?

There are shades of grey here. Especially in our post-industrial society, where a single income often just doesn’t cut it. So in many cases, women have to work. The bigger problem, though, is that we have our priorities backwards.

As Chesterton said, "Progress should mean that we are always changing the world to fit the vision, instead we are always changing the vision [to fit the world].” In this particular case, “The question he dreads is ‘Why has not the workman a better wage? Why has not the slum family a better house?’ His way of escaping from it is to suggest, not a larger house but a smaller family. The landlord or the employer says in his hearty and handsome fashion: ‘You really cannot expect me to deprive myself of my money. But I will make a sacrifice, I will deprive myself of your children.’”

There are a lot of very wealthy, very influential people who have been promoting a program of eugenics and depopulation for a long time, and that is an unarguable fact. Should we just go along with it like lambs led to the slaughter? Should we not rather fight back?

But, not to digress from the discussion at hand, for the modern married couple, what does this mean? It may mean having a smaller family; but it may also mean sacrificing luxuriance for the sake of children. For the married couple who sees the evil of contraception, it means self-control and the practice of NFP. In many cases, it will mean that the woman will have to work for an indefinite amount of time.

In cases where a career is not a necessity, I believe (and I think the Church backs me up on this) that the decision to work or not work should be made very conscientiously. There is no relationship like that between mother, or father, and child. Day care cannot provide a child with the kind of emotional, moral and mental development that a parent can. Even a stay-at-home dad, I would argue, is superior to other alternatives. I don’t think that ever would, or should, become the standard, simply because men and women have different natures and women are usually much better nurturers than men.

He releases it. I checked that report, also. Thanks for finding it!
I enjoyed his charts of unmarried women in the US. From 2001 or 2003, where the starting age is 15! (oh, in the notes it’s actually 14. why say 15? makes it sound less creepy)

:doh2: You remain quite the character. And you’re welcome.

You’re still skipping a step. If you’re starving, I can tell you the solution is to eat a meal. I’ve not really told you how to get that meal.

You can leading a starving man to a meal, but you can’t make him eat. The directions are in the answer itself. We must simply work to change our own attitudes and those of our society as a whole. How do we do that? Exactly as we are doing here: through reasonable conversation, personal reflection, etc. The problem is that this must take place on an individual level (i.e. a change of heart.) We can’t force people to do the right thing. We could, of course, but that would create a totalitarianism just as bad as, if not worse than, the situation we are trying to remedy.

Nevertheless, the steps to be taken are implicit in the conclusion. Legally reinforce and protect marriage; don’t make divorce an easily obtainable fix. Make people understand that there are consequences to their decisions, and if they decide to get married, it’s not something they can just pay a small fee and be done with. I am certain people would think about marriage much more carefully and take it much more seriously. Don’t dilute the meaning of marriage, making it all about the couple’s feelings rather than the building, binding and protecting of the nuclear family (which is exactly what gay marriage does). This serves to further unravel the fabric of the institution and pollute society’s understanding of it. The list could go on and on, but it all boils down to a return to traditional values and the reeducation of society.

(continued…)

 

[prodigalson2011]

(…continued)

Not that I didn’t read it all, just don’t want to re-quote it all. The point I was trying to make, is in bold, though I would have finished the thought with “…that made the point they wanted to make”

Well, it wouldn’t make much sense to show studies that had nothing to do with the point they were trying to make, would it?

Traditional family is not an “It” you know. It’s something that occurs, or does not.
However, when laws are suggested preventing traditional families from forming, I will protect it as you say!

The traditional family is an “it”: it is an ideal; a model. We have a responsibility to protect that ideal. And while laws are not (yet) being suggested to prevent them from forming, laws are being passed which are intended to slowly erode it. If you doubt it, I’d recommend reading up on the history of the ACLU (“The ACLU vs. America” is a great start), and communist organizations in general. The family, to such “progressive” organizations, is a major enemy. Marx stated it quite plainly; abolition of the family was an important component of his Communist Manifesto: “Abolition of the family! … The bourgeois family will disappear, in the course [of history] as its supplement [private property] disappears, and both will vanish with the destruction of capital.” - The Communist Manifesto, Chapter 2

And the latest attack on the family? Gay marriage. Is this just a religious conspiracy theory? What if I told you that many prominent gay activists since the beginning of the gay rights movement have said as much themselves? Just last year a well known LGBT activist/author had this to say:

*A 2012 video of a speech made by a gay and lesbian activist is just starting to gain some legs, and is in fact confirming what many opponents of same-sex marriage have been saying all along — that gay marriage diminishes and even destroys the concept of marriage.

Masha Gessen, author and LGBT activist, delivered her remarks almost a year ago at the Sydney Writer’s Festival while participating on a panel titled, “Why Get Married When You Can Be Happy?”

Gessen shot out of the gate by stating that “it’s a no-brainer” that gays and lesbians should be allowed to marry. But then she immediately followed this up with, “I also think equally it’s a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist.”

This received prolonged, spirited applause.

“Fighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we’re going to do with marriage when we get there,” she continued.

Gessen’s thoughts mirror those of another gay activist, Doug Mainwaring. Speaking on behalf of the National Capitol Tea Party Patriots at the National Mall when the Supreme Court was hearing oral arguments on the Defense of Marriage Act, Mainwaring said, “Same sex marriage will not redefine marriage — it will un-define it, and unravel it, and in so doing will un-define children.”

Michael Bronski is another gay who recently argued against the concept of gay marriage in a column on Belief.com.

But what distinguishes Gessen’s remarks from the others is the fact that although she supports gay marriage, she nonetheless admits that the concept is a lie.* (bizpacreview.com/2013/04/29/lesbian-activist-says-gay-marriage-is-a-lie-to-destroy-marriage-65379)

This is only the most recent admission I could find. Consider also that the ACLU, who has openly declared war on the family, has been a driving (even formative) force behind the movement from the beginning.

Maybe? Check 36:44-37:39, tell me if you seen a name.

No, they don’t show his name at 36:44, but that’s because he first shows up at 36:00. His name is visible from 36:03-36:18.

(P.S. I have to leave right now, but I’ll finish replying to your second post later this evening or tomorrow.)

 

[prodigalson2011]

Right here…

Lets end the debate! he said:

…

So then, he is saying all the professors & scientists willfully went against the data. Quite the allegation - I’ll need evidence of that
However, if the data did indeed show as he claims why the claims of looking beyond the data? Silly right? I thought it was.
He isn’t saying that, over 15 years the data changed. He’s saying they changed their minds. based on the same data?
If that makes sense to you, fine. But I think he was making it up.

Again, that’s not what I took from this. The way I understood what he said was that the research on the issue was in its infancy, and the more different “numbers crunchers”, etc. investigated independently the more they came to a consensus. The shift in family dynamics has been gradual and it’s entirely probable that conclusive research may not have begun to come around until around the time he cites, and it would have taken time for individual social scientists, etc. to independently investigate and review and come to such a consensus. There will always be strong resistance to a paradigm shift in any field (look how long it took the mainstream scientific community to come around to the big bang theory: over half a century!), so what he said does not strike me as being unlikely at all, so I see no reason to think he’s just fabricating a story.

Maybe? Right? Each person has a unique experience. Good call!
BUT, I didn’t bring it up sir, the man in the video did. He said people with only 1 partner are more satisfied “Sexually & emotionally” & I commented that, they don’t know any better on part 1…and you can’t claim they do. so there I won one :extrahappy:

Well, it seems to me that if they’re happier than their “more experienced” counterparts, then they do know better. I think the obvious conclusion is that turning sexual relationships into a quest for the greatest level of physical gratification is a losing game. “It’s never enough,” as the saying goes.

Who said I pity anyone? I pity the dog who stays locked in a kitchen. I don’t assume your Mother or anyone stays locked up at home and never experiences the world. For all I know your mother & father traveled or who knows what they did to experience life. But it was their choice, & I applaud that. :clapping:

You compared the dog to the “traditional woman (or man?)” who has only one sex partner throughout their life. The implication is that you feel towards such people as you do the dog.

And, just for the sake of reference: barring a stay in Germany while my father was in the army when they were very young, my parents rarely traveled. Real “vacations” were a once in a childhood experience in my household. Even during the time they stayed in Germany, my parents were dirt poor. After that, my dad repaired air conditioners while my mom stayed home and raised us kids. Why is “experiencing the world”, which neither knows or cares about you, supposed to be so much better than spending your time with your family, particularly children, to whom you are everything? It’s an entirely first-world notion that reeks of the same spiritual restlessness and discontent as the rest of modernity.

Yes, he said looking at the data they all agree about the troubling waters. So, what data? Data supports anti-gay marriage? Or are they lumping it in with divorce, etc (the other stuff in the video) ?

Being a one hour documentary, they couldn’t cram everything into it, and gay marriage was not the focus of this film. But there is plenty of data to support the anti-gay marriage position.

Well, Latvia declared it’s independence from Russia in 1989 so, I highly doubt the decline of the traditional family was the cause of the population decline, more like…all the other stuff!

Doubts do not a case make.

I can argue the good or bad of what this implies, but for now just say it’s more wishful thinking.

Wishful thinking as far as it becoming a reality, sure. But it’s neither illogical or impossible.

How about if just none of that stuff with very loose evidence just doesn’t happen? We ever consider that? I can find very little current research about this, you?
Either way, like I said, no solutions. Everyone isn’t going to magically agree with this position but I can still argue some of it’s merits I suppose. I just expected some kind of plan is all.

To my understanding, this was the first in a series of films on the topic. So perhaps some proposed solutions may be forthcoming? We’ll see, I guess. In any case, I think a simple look at the world around us is just about all the evidence I need. It seems that, ironically, despite our progress in civil rights, etc., society is becoming more and more callous towards human life in general. It looks to me like a self-destructive super-organism, slowly committing suicide in the same way a despairing drug addict slowly kills himself through ever greater highs. The way I see it, our culture has become so despairing of the absurdity of its nihilistic condition, it is trying to deaden the pain through the destructive escapism of hedonism.

Right or wrong, that’s my honest assessment of our situation.

 

[JohnMichaels]

Alright, First let me get rid of these horrible biased arguments

The traditional family is an “it”: it is an ideal; a model. We have a responsibility to protect that ideal. And while laws are not (yet) being suggested to prevent them from forming, laws are being passed which are intended to slowly erode it. If you doubt it, I’d recommend reading up on the history of the ACLU** (“The ACLU vs. America” is a great start**)

This is all you just giving me propoganda. I considered 1 of 3 reasons for this

1. You think I won’t research sources
2. You haven’t researched the sources
3. You don’t care how biased, in which case ready yourself for Rachel Maddow quotes…and neither of us want that!

But lets start with the book you suggested, written by Craig Osten (Author) , Alan Sears (Author)
Quick search for Alan…
Currently Sears is the president, CEO, and general counsel of the Alliance Defense Fund
hmmm, what is that? Well, apparently…
Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF, formerly Alliance Defense Fund) is an American conservative Christian nonprofit organization

cmon son… I at least tried to give you links from middle sites…

And the latest attack on the family? Gay marriage. Is this just a religious conspiracy theory? What if I told you that many prominent gay activists since the beginning of the gay rights movement have said as much themselves? Just last year a well known LGBT activist/author had this to say

This was my favorite. At first, I thought you were quote minning, but NO…pasted the whole hatchet job article.

Masha Gessen said what she said…I heard the speech. I can’t figure out what the lie is. She’s being very open personally. What’s the lie then? The line by Doug Mainwaring. Gay activist. Not gay RIGHTS activist, just a gay man against gay rights. Trot those out all day long and say they’re blowing the lid off something, and I laugh. I wanted to write this section SO bad the night you wrote it, but I wanted to wait until I was ready to reply to all.

You compared the dog to the “traditional woman (or man?)” who has only one sex partner throughout their life. The implication is that you feel towards such people as you do the dog.
my parents were dirt poor. After that, my dad repaired air conditioners while my mom stayed home and raised us kids. Why is “experiencing the world”, which neither knows or cares about you, supposed to be so much better than spending your time with your family

Noooooo, I said…

For all I know your mother & father traveled or who knows what they did to experience life

You even quoted me. And what you described sounds like a life experience to me. Same as the one my Mother had.

Doubts do not a case make.

I don’t have to prove Latvia’s decline is based on any one thing. I gave a contributing factor. The film claims all the problems are based on the decline of the traditional family. They’re lying. I don’t have to prove I’m right, when I’m not making a claim, to prove them incorrect.

Again, that’s not what I took from this… so I see no reason to think he’s just fabricating a story.

Clearly we disagree. He comes off as molding the facts to make his case. Overall it doesn’t detract from the film. The scare tactic does. This could have been the same film showing all the information on children…and NOT the scare tactic I don’t believe at the start…and I’d have thought a lot more of it. These people try too hard.

Well, it seems to me that if they’re happier than their “more experienced” counterparts, then they do know better.

Not the implication I made.
You’re saying "I tried coke, don’t need to try pepsi, coke is better hands down.
All I’m saying, is he said satisfied. You’re changing the words to make “Satisfied” into emotional. he already listed emotional.

There are shades of grey here. Especially in our post-industrial society, where a single income often just doesn’t cut it. So in many cases, women have to work. The bigger problem, though, is that we have our priorities backwards.
In cases where a career is not a necessity, I believe (and I think the Church backs me up on this) that the decision to work or not work should be made very conscientiously. There is no relationship like that between mother, or father, and child.

What if the child is 6 and goes to school and the Mother works during those hours?
What if the woman’s children are of varying degree in age? Say, 3, 7, 15. And the eldest fancies taking care of the younger ones for Mom while Mom works a part-time job to get out of the house?

What if…a couple marries, both with careers, then has children? This is the main point the woman (Kay Hymowitz) made. That sounded to me like child-rearing is responsibility. That comes off as no choice.

Nevertheless, the steps to be taken are implicit in the conclusion. Legally reinforce and protect marriage; don’t make divorce an easily obtainable fix.

I wanted to get into this divorce topic. Your suggestion to no-fault divorce?
Sorry I took so long to reply. If I skipped anything bring it back up, I’m sure I left something out with all the thoughts I’ve had over the last week+

Cheers!

 

[prodigalson2011]

Alright, First let me get rid of these horrible biased arguments

To be fair, every argument is biased. It is biased in the direction of its conclusion. The fact that an argument appears to be biased does not mean it is false. But more on that shortly…

This is all you just giving me propoganda.

It’s a nice buzz word, but in a debate, it’s about as productive as calling your interlocutor a Nazi. The implication, I suppose, is that I’m deliberately spreading falsehoods to further my cause.

I considered 1 of 3 reasons for this

1. You think I won’t research sources

No, by all means, I hope you do. An uninformed debate is an exercise in futility.

1. You haven’t researched the sources

It’s a bit vague to say “the” sources, as though there is some definitive set of sources on a given topic. I have researched sources that look at the issues at hand from different angles, and I happen to think that the evidence weighs in favor of the position to which I hold. If I present data which you think is erroneous, incomplete or otherwise inconclusive, I encourage you to show me data to the contrary.

1. You don’t care how biased, in which case ready yourself for Rachel Maddow quotes…and neither of us want that!

Again, I’ll come to the topic of bias shortly, but here I’ll just say: yes, please leave Rachel Maddow out of this.

But lets start with the book you suggested, written by Craig Osten (Author) , Alan Sears (Author)
Quick search for Alan…
Currently Sears is the president, CEO, and general counsel of the Alliance Defense Fund
hmmm, what is that? Well, apparently…
Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF, formerly Alliance Defense Fund) is an American conservative Christian nonprofit organization

cmon son… I at least tried to give you links from middle sites…

This is what is known as the psychogenetic fallacy. If you are not familiar, this fallacy (also known as Bulverism) can be expressed in the following syllogistic formula:

*You claim that A is true.
*Because of B, you personally desire that A should be true.
*Therefore, A is false.

In short, just because a person is biased towards a particular worldview does not mean that the claims they make are false. In the case of Messrs. Sears and Osten, they make no bones about their ideological commitment, but that does nothing to detract from the documented facts about the ACLU they present in their book. The fact that Mr. Sears is an Evangelical Christian does not change the fact that the ACLU has, on multiple occasions, defended child pornographers. The list could go on.

But the point is simply this: you cannot dismiss a source simply because it is biased. By your logic, we should immediately discount all reports of human rights violations from watchdog groups. They’re clearly biased against totalitarian regimes to begin with. Any books on the Holocaust written by Jews should be immediately discarded. They have a vested interest in proving that the Nazis were horrible.

This was my favorite. At first, I thought you were quote minning, but NO…pasted the whole hatchet job article.

Masha Gessen said what she said…I heard the speech. I can’t figure out what the lie is. She’s being very open personally. What’s the lie then?

You must not have listened very closely, because Ms. Gessen stated very clearly what the lie was: the widely believed lie that the purpose of the gay marriage movement is not to radically alter and eventually destroy the institution altogether. Mind you, this is not to say that every person involved in the movement, whether gay or straight, has this as a goal or is even aware of it, but that the very radical groups who engineered it are and do.

The line by Doug Mainwaring. Gay activist. Not gay RIGHTS activist, just a gay man against gay rights. Trot those out all day long and say they’re blowing the lid off something, and I laugh. I wanted to write this section SO bad the night you wrote it, but I wanted to wait until I was ready to reply to all.

I will admit, the particular article I linked was not the best choice–it was simply the first one I found; the story was reported in countless different sources–but the important thing was the words of Ms. Gessen herself, not the attached commentary.

(continued…)

 

[prodigalson2011]

In any case–and this is the important point–Ms. Gessen’s proclamations are hardly original. They echo quite loudly the 1971 Manifesto of the Gay Liberation Front:

*The oppression of gay people starts in the most basic unit of society, the family, consisting of the man in charge, a slave as his wife, and their children on whom they force themselves as the ideal models. The very form of the family works against homosexuality…

…Reforms may makes things better for a while; changes in the law can make straight people a little less hostile, a little more tolerant-but reform cannot change the deep-down attitude of straight people that homosexuality is at best inferior to their own way of life, at worst a sickening perversion. It will take more than reforms to change this attitude, because it is rooted in our society’s most basic institution-the Patriarchal Family…

…It is because of the patriarchal family that reforms are not enough. Freedom for gay people will never be permanently won until everyone is freed from sexist role-playing and the straightjacket of sexist rules about our sexuality. And we will not be freed from these so long as each succeeding generation is brought up in the same old sexist way in the Patriarchal family…

…We must aim at the abolition of the family, so that the sexist, male supremacist system can no longer be nurtured there.*

And there it is, in all its naked glory: an open confession from the outset of the gay rights movement’s intent to destroy the traditional family. And what is the root of the traditional family? Marriage.

And, to that point, these ideas themselves echo those of Marx and, particularly, one of his leading disciples, Friedrich Engels. In one telling passage of his “Origins of the Family…”, Engels writes:

"…the first condition for the liberation of the wife is to bring the whole female sex back into public industry, and that this in turn demands the abolition of the monogamous family as the economic unit of society. "

“With the transfer of the means of production into common ownership, the single family ceases to be the economic unit of society.”

So here we have two different groups with two different goals, but who see a common necessary means to each of their ends.

Noooooo, I said…

You even quoted me. And what you described sounds like a life experience to me. Same as the one my Mother had.

You said that after the fact. The original post in question clearly made a connection between lifelong monogamy and the housebound dog. I appreciate the concession, though.

I don’t have to prove Latvia’s decline is based on any one thing. I gave a contributing factor. The film claims all the problems are based on the decline of the traditional family. They’re lying. I don’t have to prove I’m right, when I’m not making a claim, to prove them incorrect.

But you are making a claim. You’re claiming they’re lying, nor have you provided any evidence to support your alternative hypothesis. Also, I think it’s an exaggeration to say they’re claiming that the decline of the family is the cause of all of Latvia’s problems. I don’t recall anyone making so explicit and broad a claim.

Clearly we disagree. He comes off as molding the facts to make his case. Overall it doesn’t detract from the film. The scare tactic does. This could have been the same film showing all the information on children…and NOT the scare tactic I don’t believe at the start…and I’d have thought a lot more of it. These people try too hard.

I suppose we’ll just have to agree to disagree on this point, then.

Not the implication I made.

Au contraire, mon frere. That is indeed the implication you made. You said that people with one partner are “more satisfied” because they don’t know any better.

You’re saying “I tried coke, don’t need to try pepsi, coke is better hands down.”

This is an invalid comparison, for several reasons. To name a couple:
a) people are not products
b) whether one drinks Coke or Pepsi has no lasting or significant psychological, emotional, economic or social impact on one’s life.

All I’m saying, is he said satisfied. You’re changing the words to make “Satisfied” into emotional. he already listed emotional.

I don’t remember exactly what was said, but that was the implication, and I don’t know what you mean by “He already listed emotional.” Could you clarify?

What if the child is 6 and goes to school and the Mother works during those hours?
What if the woman’s children are of varying degree in age? Say, 3, 7, 15. And the eldest fancies taking care of the younger ones for Mom while Mom works a part-time job to get out of the house?

As I said, it’s not a black and white issue. There are obviously a wide range of possibilities to be considered. I would say that the most important time for the mother to be home with her children are in the early formative years (the first 3-5 years of the child’s life), when some of the most important emotional and psychological development takes place. This is the time when a mother is most needed.

What if…a couple marries, both with careers, then has children? This is the main point the woman (Kay Hymowitz) made. That sounded to me like child-rearing is responsibility. That comes off as no choice.

You think parents don’t have a responsibility to raise their children? I would say that if they don’t want to raise them, they should give them to somebody who does. That’s a very sad thought, though.

I wanted to get into this divorce topic. Your suggestion to no-fault divorce?

I’ll come back to this later.

 

[JohnMichaels]

just…really quick…

But the point is simply this: you cannot dismiss a source simply because it is biased.

Didn’t dismiss anything. Didn’t even read the book, so how could I judge it’s contents?

I made a comment that the author’s point of view would be biased, which you seem to agree with. Why you wrote all that is beyond me.
I may have watched a youtube video, but I’m not reading a book to further this debate

 

[prodigalson2011]

just…really quick…

Didn’t dismiss anything. Didn’t even read the book, so how could I judge it’s contents?

I made a comment that the author’s point of view would be biased, which you seem to agree with. Why you wrote all that is beyond me.
I may have watched a youtube video, but I’m not reading a book to further this debate

Yes, you did dismiss it. You were implying that it was a poor reference or invalid source because its author was a conservative Christian. Whether you read it or not is beside the point. If you weren’t passing judgment on it, then why did you bother to write *all that? *

And I didn’t expect you to read it to further the debate. I merely recommended it as a good source to read if you were interested in the topic.

So… right back atcha.

 

[DanAl]

I’d like to start with homosexuality but It’s complex. From my research there have been multiple stances

1. God Hates them
2. God loves them so long as they don’t practice homosexual behavior
   If there are others please list them

Wouldn’t one and two mean that God is changeable? Why should we accept that?

It gets more complex in regards to gay marriage/civil unions

1. They shouldn’t be allowed to do either
2. They can have civil unions, but do not change the definition of marriage

A practicing catholic will only accept step one.

I’d also like to ask if the Church has an official position on what causes homosexuality?

The church has no official opinion on what causes homosexuality as far as I know.