No. Black Lives Matter Is Not Trying to Destroy Your Nuclear Family

Status
Not open for further replies.
The horse left the barn on that one when they posted those statements on their webpage and appeared in the interview where the one went on about “trained Marxists”. I’m pretty sure they were seeking to appeal to the left and not caring what the moderate-to-right thought.

The idea of black lives mattering is okay with me. The organization BLM, which has little structure or leadership, is just no good in my eyes, and trying to say “oh they really meant this or that” to redeem it is too little too late. The corporate donors I know will not touch that organization. They’ll donate to other nonprofits working for racial justice, but not BLM.
 
Last edited:
Yes to the above.

The fact remains BLM says it wants to “disrupt” the “nuclear family.” They could have said a million positive things in lieu thereof. For starters, how about, “we condemn black fathers who make babies then leave,” “we condemn the culture of fatherless homes,” etc. Nope - BLM wants to “disrupt” the nuclear family, AKA have a network of “aunties” raise kids because the dads have vanished.

Efforts to say, “well, BLM really means something else,” is using verbal (and mental) gymnastics to make their (awful) message palatable.
 
Last edited:
When they self described themselves as “Marxists” they sealed that deal.
Communism is against the “nuclear family” your lives and those of your children belong to the state. And you have no rights. Not even the right to life.
Any one stating the contrary is a liar or a fool.
Millions of human lives taken by this “philosophy” are the proof.
Peace!
 
I don’t see any credibility in the article. It starts out saying they find no evidence, then they go on to provide said evidence. The writers apparently don’t even recognize that the absence of fathers is detrimental to children, so I can’t take them seriously.

I’m not very familiar with politifact but from what I’ve read here it seems like they are either pushing an agenda or they are just clueless. Either way, it seems like there is nothing factual about what they put out.
 
Last edited:
Also, it’s a fact that surrounding the statement about disrupting the nuclear family on their webpage is a lot of stuff about a “queer-affirming network” and “dismantl(ing) cisgender privilege” and “uplifting Black trans folk” etc. It seems pretty likely that part of the nuclear-family disruption is going to include families with two mommies and two daddies and a parent changing genders and so forth. This is all going way beyond the pale of it takes a village to raise a child.

The terminology used like “Western-prescribed” and “comrades” also makes it pretty clear they’re getting at something beyond just not wanting moms to have to work double shifts.
 
Tis_Bearself said:
trying to say “oh they really meant this or that” to redeem it is too little too late.
Click to expand...
Resentful members of the Right went onto their website and deliberately truncated a statement of theirs in order to make it look like they were saying something they didn’t. So it looks to me like BLM is defending itself, rightfully, not “redeeming itself.”
Tis_Bearself said:
The terminology used like “Western-prescribed” and “comrades”
Click to expand...
I started this thread to address the accusation that they’re going to “destroy” families, (not even a word they use), and will leave the stuff about Marxism for another thread or discussion.

Believe it or not, Catholics are under no moral obligation to live in a “Western-prescribed nuclear family.” Single parenthood and multigenerational households are also the norm. I would, frankly, be elated to see the nuclear family structure challenged (not “destroyed”) because it can lead to too much isolation, which the Politifact link (anyone read it?) discusses.

Catholics don’t have to support the BLM organization on the grounds of their support for LGBTQ households, but that is tangential to them posing any threat to my family.
 
Regarding your statements about Catholics having no moral obligation to live in a nuclear family, I’m not sure what you’re getting at, since I didn’t mention Catholics in my post. Many if not most people also don’t get full choice over their family structure; spouses leave or die, children don’t get to pick their parents, and we don’t fault people morally for things that are beyond their control.

My point is that this website is very definitely pushing just about every kind of family model other than the traditional male dad + female mom + kids model. I will be honest and say I personally don’t care much about that, for a variety of reasons, but there are a great many other Catholics, as well as a good many Protestants, who do care and who think that the moral decline of society is caused by the disruption of the nuclear family in the ways BLM is strongly indicating on its website. If you want to advocate for that, fine, but it’s not going to go over well with the average Catholic.
 
Last edited:
To be honest, what does the organisation even do in the first place?

People say they’re destroying the nuclear family or at least aim to, but what exactly are they doing to achieve this?

OR what are they doing to achieve justice that requires an organisation?

I’m all for BLM as a social issue but I think the hysteria against + support for it is unnecessary? But then again I genuinely do not know the actual stuff that they’re doing beyond the usual spouting of beliefs.
 
Last edited:
Lea101 said:
To be honest, what does the organisation even do in the first place?

People say they’re destroying the nuclear family or at least aim to, but what exactly are they doing to achieve this?

OR what are they doing to achieve justice that requires an organisation?

I’m all for BLM as a social issue but I think the hysteria against + support for it is unnecessary?
Click to expand...
This is also a good point. BLM doesn’t seem to do anything other than agitate and go on marches whenever there’s a major violent occurrence it can use as its springboard to do so.

As a slogan, it’s great. As an actual organization, it’s pretty useless except for marches and perhaps letting people who don’t usually get to speak have the soapbox for 15 minutes.

Again, there are other groups actually out in the community doing stuff on a regular basis, as in all the time, not just when we have a widely publicized case of possible police brutality.
 
Last edited:
blackforest said:
Single parenthood and multigenerational households are also the norm. I would, frankly, be elated to see the nuclear family structure challenged (not “destroyed”) because it can lead to too much isolation
Click to expand...
Let’s drill down on that.

The “nuclear family structure” traditionally means “1 mom and 1 dad, (happily) married to each other.” You’d be “elated” to challenge that? Really? Do you seriously think it’s better in any way to have a single parent, i.e., parents unmarried or divorced? Kids are going to see “less isolation” with 1 parent than 2? Is there any reliable and peer-reviewed data you could point to, suggesting it’s better to be raised by unmarried parents? Or by, say, a collection of “aunties” who may or may not have any bio relationship, because your bio dad fled before you were born?

“Multigenerational” families where grandma & grandpa live under the roof of mom, dad & babies might be considered part of a nuclear family, or it might not - but it’s certainly not, and not ideal, if the reason for them doing so is because grandma & grandpa are broke because they live in a backward nation filled with grinding poverty.
 
VonDerTann said:
You’d be “ elated ” to challenge that?
Click to expand...
I’d be elated to challenge the isolation. I’m quite happy having a husband and children.
Lea101 said:
People say they’re destroying the nuclear family or at least aim to, but what exactly are they doing to achieve this?
Click to expand...
I have no idea. I support the movement. I don’t support the organization. I did want to clarify that the organization isn’t trying to “destroy” the nuclear family.
 
If I were rich, I’d give to that and countless other causes that I find meaningful.

For the time, I concentrate my dollars on a Catholic ministry in Latin America.

I don’t give to the BLM organization.
 
Last edited:
I have no problem with trying to reduce “isolation” (whatever that means), but the answer isn’t to “disrupt the nuclear family and replace it with trans families; gay families; single parent families and an odd-lot assortment of pseudo-families including aunties.” Really, that’s what BLM stands for: Heck, they say it point blank. “Disrupt” is very close to “destroy.” If you want to decide BLM means something else, I can’t stop you, but your doing so is based on your own interpretation of what BLM itself says.
 
Last edited:
I did, before I commented. In fact, I went to BLM’s website months ago & lifted their professed desire to disrupt the nuclear family, and I was possibly the first poster on this entire board to note same.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top