Activism and Politics > Discrimination
Great article on the reality of "The american family"
Stephe:
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2012/01/changing_reality_american_family.html
"Public discussion about American families often assumes the nation is largely made up of married heterosexual couples raising their biological children. In fact, Census Bureau data show that less than a quarter of all U.S. households fall into this category."
So much for -family values are about embracing heterosexual marriage- The lies have to end NOW!! :)
Jamie D:
--- Quote from: Stephe on January 28, 2012, 12:56:34 pm ---http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2012/01/changing_reality_american_family.html
"Public discussion about American families often assumes the nation is largely made up of married heterosexual couples raising their biological children. In fact, Census Bureau data show that less than a quarter of all U.S. households fall into this category."
So much for -family values are about embracing heterosexual marriage- The lies have to end NOW!! :)
--- End quote ---
Thank you for posting the article, Stephe, but your conclusion is a non sequitur.
From the data presented in the article we can get a better perspective about the traditional, nuclear, American family.
The first statement you quote compares "married heterosexual couples with children" to "households." The former are a subset of the latter, but no valid conclusions can be drawn from that comparison as applied to same-sex and other non-traditional marriages.
The article reports that "just 69 percent of children live with married, heterosexual parents." That leaves 31% of children (a category that does not directly correspond to "households") who live in another arrangement. By following the link to the original data, we find 28% of children live in single-parent households. That just leaves a very few percent of children who live in GLBT families, orphanages, or some other arrangement.
"Households," according to the Census, are the "basic residential unit" which "may or may not be synonymous with family." That means that (according to your quote) more than three-quarters of households are not comprised of married heterosexual couple with children.
That make senses to me, as that could include unmarried heterosexual couples with children; married heterosexual couples whose children have grown and left the household; singles; childless heterosexual couples; all GLBT living arrangements with or without children; and other less common familial relationships.
I don't think your article supports your use of "family values" as a pejorative in the context of heterosexual marriage. Instead, I believe all children should be be in a loving family. The traditional nuclear family has been a successful model. That does not, however, preclude other family models. Such models have existed throughout of all recorded history.
Stephe:
--- Quote from: Jamie D on January 31, 2012, 01:32:03 pm --- The traditional nuclear family has been a successful model.
--- End quote ---
It's been a huge failure as well. I don't think the makeup of the people in the family has much to do with it being successful.
Jamie D:
--- Quote from: Stephe on January 31, 2012, 05:49:25 pm ---It's been a huge failure as well. I don't think the makeup of the people in the family has much to do with it being successful.
--- End quote ---
I am talking about the success of the traditional family over decades and centuries. At one time, it was the backbone of American society.
Families, of all types, deserve to be supported and strengthened. I don't give much credence to the "it takes a village" mentality. Social engineering over the past 50 years has eroded the family and increased all sorts of social ills.
Stephe:
--- Quote from: Jamie D on January 31, 2012, 07:43:56 pm ---I am talking about the success of the traditional family over decades and centuries.
--- End quote ---
I guess turning a blind eye to sexual abuse etc, the "traditional Family" is a success. True they do crank out children where a gay couple won't. I'm not sure what you mean by "social ills" and not sure I care to know.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
Go to full version