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

[Duke12VonFalkenburg]

They just say Black Lives Matter, which is a phrase that is well known for what it stands for, which is a lot more important than the flaws of the impotent organization of the same name. The movement is grass-roots and decentralized. It does not take orders from any central authority.

What difference does it make? They are using the name and slogan of the founding marxist organization. The more and more people who use both the name and slogan the more influence is gained. The fact that they are not taking orders is irrelevant. Their use of their logo, name, and slogan is giving the original organization influence, free publicity, and funding.

The vast majority of those supporting the movement don’t give a fig about communism or Marxism. They just want to see justice for black people.

This is why they better stop and think. If they dont want to support communist or marxist organizations. They need to change their name for themselves and come up with a different slogan. Because until they do every action they take will be tainted by the marxist organization.

They just want to see justice for black people.

This I have trouble believing. What does looting and burning down your own community have to do with “justice”?

 

[VonDerTann]

I read it all - and as I’ve noted, I was probably the first poster on this board to call people’s attention to BLM’s position, months ago.

“Disrupt” and “destroy” are synonyms. It takes olympic-quality mental and verbal gymnastics to explain why “disrupting” the “nuclear family” is both 1) a good thing, and 2) not “destroying” the nuclear family. You are defending both.

BLM aims to replace the nuclear family with a hodgepodge of unmarried blended families; trans families; gay families; and a “community of aunties,” in lieu of a married mom and dad.

BLM conspicuously never says anything like, “we support our members getting married; doing so before having kids; and staying together.” It’d be so easy.

 

[JimG]

Well, God created human beings male and female, to be helpmates to each other. Man and woman marry, and conceive children, who are born having a mom and a dad. Nuclear family formed. That’s the way it’s supposed to work. And yes, there will be relatives and in-laws and cousins.

Disrupting that plan can only bring chaos and misery.

 

[blackforest]

they have even taken down the webpage or at least the link is 404. I searched for family on the website and there isn’t a similar statement.

I’m can’t say I blame them. It must be tiresome getting deliberately misrepresented so often.

yes, I also suggest people use their basic skills and stop projecting their opinion onto an organization that won’t come out and says what it means.

I can look in dictionaries, too. Disrupt | Definition of Disrupt by Merriam-Webster

1a : to break apart : RUPTUREthree periods of faulting disrupted the rocks— University of Arizona Record

b : to throw into disorderdemonstrators trying to disrupt the meeting

2 : to interrupt the normal course or unity of… disrupted a bridge game by permanently hiding up the ace of spades …— Scott Fitzgerald

Try the bolded. And remember that it comes with consent.

At least on my search engine, MacMillan’s link comes after some scrolling. I hope you didn’t bypass some until you found the more truncated definition you wanted.

“Disrupt” and “destroy” are synonyms.

I don’t see “disrupt” anywhere here.
https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/destroy?s=t

And I don’t see “destroy” anywhere here. https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/disrupt?s=t

BLM aims to replace the nuclear family with a hodgepodge of unmarried blended families; trans families; gay families; and a “community of aunties,” in lieu of a married mom and dad.

Evidence, please? These kinds of families already exist. BLM can’t force my family to become one.

Well, God created human beings male and female, to be helpmates to each other. Man and woman marry, and conceive children, who are born having a mom and a dad. Nuclear family formed. That’s the way it’s supposed to work.

Well, there is also single parenting, widowed parenting, grand-parenting, blended families, and multi-generational families. We pro-lifers would certainly support a pregnant single woman in trouble when she has her baby, knowing full well that she needs a supportive community for the long road ahead of her.

The nuclear family is not the only morally licit option for us Catholics. And I certainly don’t feel that my own nuclear family is superior to them, morally or otherwise.

 

[JimG]

Yes, of course, I’m only saying that a nuclear family is the natural result of marriage. Events like death of a parent can occur, and a single mom may decide to keep her child rather than adopt it to a married couple. I’m just saying that the natural order of things results in families with mom, dad, and kids.

 

[upant]

I’m can’t say I blame them. It must be tiresome getting deliberately misrepresented so often.

how can they be misrepresented when they haven’t defined what they mean? your opinion is as good as anyone else’s. many don’t think it was misrepresented and only BLM can say if it was or wasn’t. they just won’t, which speaks volumes.

Try the bolded. And remember that it comes with consent.

which definition is right? yours or mine? why do you think rupturing, disordering, or interrupting the normal course of a nuclear family is a good thing? where do they mention the father at all individually as they do the mother? the welfare marriage penalty ruptured, disordered, and interrupted the nuclear family and the outcome isn’t working. the welfare marriage penalty does show disrupting the nuclear family destroys it.

I hope you didn’t bypass some until you found the more truncated definition you wanted.

I used mac because it gave a picture of the definition when I linked. I couldn’t get google to show up properly. I would have preferred to use the google one because it says destroy right on the top of the search page.

google it? it is right at the top as a similar def
drastically alter or destroy the structure of (something).

 

[blackforest]

why do you think rupturing, disordering, or interrupting the normal course of a nuclear family is a good thing?

A nuclear family can isolate people and leave them on their own to deal with stressful transitions. Here’s an example of why its good to disrupt that isolation, using the definition that I cited above interrupting the normal course. http://www.uppitysciencechick.com/how_other_cultures.pdf

 

[upant]

A nuclear family can isolate people and leave them on their own to deal with stressful transitions.

are you against nuclear families? is that what this is about? do you think people in a nuclear family don’t have help in their times of need?

 

[VonDerTann]

It’s not open to debate: A nuclear family is preferable to any alternative - blended; gay; trans; whatever. Are some other forms morally acceptable? Sure. Preferable? Nope - not categorically, at least. It might or might not be a good thing to have grandma & grandpa under mom & dad’s roof, but categorically, NO, it is not preferable, across the board: What someone calls “isolation,” others (incuding me!) would call “I don’t want my parents living in my house with my wife and kids, we’d like our own space,” or whatever else.

Isolation? Please. The Bible says we are to leave our parents & cling to our spouses - it does not say, “insist your parents and kids live with you everywhere so you don’t ever feel lonely.”

What I am seeing absolutely comes across as an unreasonable desire to attack the “mom-and-dad are married and live with their children”-family unit, which is astonishing on a Catholic board. We should “challenge” the traditional nuclear family? The nuclear family isolates people?

The nuclear family is the absolute bedrock of a strong society.

No, a family where little Johnny has 2 dads is not superior in any way.

Same if Johnny’s dad walks out…or Johnny’s dad walks out then his mom gets a new boyfriend & they cohabit…or if Johnny’s dad walks out and mom has a bunch of “aunties” (with no biologic connection) check up on Johnny periodically.

What I’m seeing comes across as hating on 2-parent families - to some, it’s wonderful to challenge the need for a 2-parent family and the superiority of that unit to any other “family unit.” I call such challenges madness.

 

[blackforest]

It’s not open to debate: A nuclear family is preferable to any alternative

It is very much open to debate if you cannot substantiate this claim. Please cite some sociological and/or psychological research to back what you’re saying.

are you against nuclear families?

I’m part of one and love it! I’m just not a black and white thinker. I see trade-offs.

It would drive me crazy to live in a multigenerational household, (I’ve stayed in a number of them while traveling), but I can see some advantages, too.

Isolation? Please. The Bible says we are to leave our parents & cling to our spouses - it does not say, “insist your parents and kids live with you everywhere so you don’t ever feel lonely.”

I don’t think BLM said that either.

 

[upant]

I’m part of one and love it! I’m just not a black and white thinker. I see trade-offs.

you appear to be projecting your personal conclusions into the BLM statement. they could have said, in addition to the nuclear family BLM affirms… they didn’t.

 

[VonDerTann]

Nope, sorry, Black - YOU cite some authoritative material that being raised by gays; or a transsexual parent; or by people with no bio relationship is better than having a mom & dad married to one another.

It was you who said you were “elated” to “challenge” the superiority of 2-married-parent families. That comes across as hating on 2-parent families, and I can’t really abide that.

 

[blackforest]

Nope, sorry, Black

Cute word choice for this thread.

YOU cite some authoritative material

Did I hear you say at one point that you’re a lawyer?

Your logical fallacy is burden of proof

being raised by . . . people with no bio relationship

Are you arguing that children raised by step-parents turn out poorly?

It was you who said you were “elated” to “challenge” the superiority of 2-married-parent families.

Not what I said.

 

[VonDerTann]

What I am arguing is that the nuclear family is the best way a family should be configured.

Step parent situations are not the ideal. Many times they are wonderful, particularly where the death of a parent is invoked (as happened to me). Many times they aren’t, particularly when divorce is involved: they lead to confusion; children blaming themselves for their parents’ split, etc., at best. It’s even harder where the step- arrangement is not formalized, ie mom and dad are unmarried and living with others.

Show me a community where traditional marriage is de-valued and not respected, and inevitably I will show you a community beset with all sorts of social problems - Poverty; abortion; gang violence (gangs are surrogate families), etc.

To circle back, BLM has had a million opportunities to say something positive about traditional families - Desperately needed, given the percentage of black babies aborted and born out or wedlock. BLM hasn’t, and has instead advocated for “trans rights,” gay rights, etc., to say nothing of wanting to “disrupt” traditional nuclear families. No wonder the black community in the USA is in such distress: the black family has largely disintegrated, and BLM is greasing the skids for that.

 

[upant]

they, the org, is the face of the movement. you cannot separate the two

Ae Herschel says, when people tell you who they are, you need to believe them.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1306623503622459410

 

[blackforest]

Show me a community where traditional marriage is de-valued and not respected, and inevitably I will show you a community beset with all sorts of social problems - Poverty; abortion; gang violence (gangs are surrogate families), etc.

What is “traditional marriage?” Based on whose tradition? Polygamy? Domestic violence? A husband with one or more mistresses or concubines? Was Brigham Young’s family fraught with poverty, abortion, and gang violence?

Morally, I’m opposed to these arrangements. I just think you may be oversimplifying matters.

I’ve also seen no research-based evidence that children growing up in LGBT-headed households end up “worse off” as a direct result of it.

 

[VonDerTann]

Blackforest, you’re REALLY jumping all over the place: Brigham Young; LGBT marriage; whatever.

The common thread: You seem to really dislike “mom and dad are married to each other, period.”

You want to talk about Brigham Young’s family? Seriously? He had over 50 wives, including girls of 18 while he was in his 40s. Is that what you’re advocating? It appears the answer is “yes.”

FWIW, polygamy has been linked to more mental health problems; more social problems, and lower academic achievement. Feel free to read about it:

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13229400.2015.1086405?src=recsys&journalCode=rjfs20&

 

[Cirdan_XII]

The only “evidence” that has been presented is documents from this one organization, Black Lives Matter, inc. What is missing is evidence that these policy positions have any real penetration into the vast majority of protesters for racial justice.

So in other words the redeeming grace of BLM is that the rank and file members disagree with their leaders?

Yet there is a social movement by the same name that disagrees with both the leaders and the rank and file of the BLM organisation. And these are the good guys.

And when we say that we stand with BLM, what we really mean is that we wholly disagree with anybody calling themselves BLM, but merely agree with what those words actually say?

So if I go to a BLM march I need to be holding a placard that I disagree with all said organizations, including most people in the march, but that i agree with the name of the organisation.

In other words, plenty of true Scotsmen and shades of the People’s Front of Judea?

 

[blackforest]

The common thread: You seem to really dislike “mom and dad are married to each other, period.”

Where did I say that?

You want to talk about Brigham Young’s family ? Seriously? He had over 50 wives, including girls of 18 while he was in his 40s. Is that what you’re advocating? It appears the answer is “yes.”

It sounds like my point flew over, so let’s try this again: Non-nuclear families, contrary to what you’re claiming, don’t always produce

Poverty; abortion; gang violence (gangs are surrogate families), etc.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

So in other words the redeeming grace of BLM is that the rank and file members disagree with their leaders?

They are not the leaders of the “rank and file” of the protests. They are the leaders of that one organization. That is all they lead.