While I have no problem with gay marriage and same sex couples figuring out the massive complexity of raising children, the male and female married with children model will always be the platinum situation. Just like I don't have any problem with females pursuing career over family, the female that chooses marriage and family is the platinum situation.
Evolutionary biology does not shift on the demand of the progressive agenda. Female mothers and male fathers that are married make for the most well-adjusted children that in turn make the best population for society. The stats prove it.
That does not mean that we don't accept non-traditional family situations. It just means that we have to accept that traditional is the premium target and our public policies should always support moving to that as the goal.
Well-adjusted parents are the key to bringing up well-adjusted children. Whether a parent is well-adjusted, in my experience of seeing many parents and their children over decades, does not correlate in any way with whether they have had children via your "platinum model" or not.
There are many examples of well-adjusted adults raised by imperfect parents. The statics are very strongly correlated with greater success attributed to a female mother and male father that stay married. It is victim mentality that destroys the path to being well-adjusted. Everybody experiences adversity and challenges growing up. But once someone slides down that slippery slope and warm blanket of blaming others, like blaming parents, for their disappointments in life, they are doomed to be always less than they could otherwise be. That is what Democrats exploit for their political power. They sell a victim narrative that is like a drug to anybody that can slip into a malcontent mindset and blame others. I find that the elite Democrats are quite frequently in fealty with the victim groups that they exploit for politics in that they are also malcontents. It is all proven by studies that the "D" in Democrat seems to mean "depressed". However, some are perfectly happy in their elite status but only by their victim advocacy identity that they know is destructive but are so greedy for power and money derived from it, that they moralize it.
OK, you started calmly and then just went off down the usual route of world salad and prejudice. Let's go back to your first point - any chance if some citations to support your statistics claim?
Note that the feminized state of the social sciences causes them to hide the data evidencing that a married female-mother and male-father family results in the greatest advantage for their offspring to be successful. They use the term "biological parents" or "natural parents" to obfuscate the data proving the superior female/male parent situation.
We are talking big datasets here, not the observation of exceptions that those opposing reality use as weapons in the info wars. You can have married female-mother and male-father that are crappy parents and create terrible offspring. You can have single parents that create wonderful offspring. But there is no argument against the point that married female-mother and male-father is the platinum situation and deserving of support from our public policy and societal encouragement. There is really no effective replacement for what is missing in non-traditional family situations. Females generally cannot do the father role, and males generally cannot do the mother role. And both are required in most cases for children to develop fully.
So, I had a look and you won't be surprised to hear that I found it deeply flawed. The biggest issue is that the work was funded by the Ruth Institute, a well-known hate group pushing extreme Catholic doctrine. A second reason to mistrust the authors is when they state the data shows "without qualification" what they wanted to show in the first place. No scientist of any integrity, social or otherwise, would use such language. Data interpretation always leaves room for doubt - that they dismiss this suggests clearly that they have used the data to serve their agenda.
There you go. Demand cites and then go to work to discredit them because they conflict with your secular religion of absurd leftism and Orange Man Bad hate. You people are always predictable and reliable in your desperation to never admit that you learn a damn thing except things that confirm your brilliance. I walk all over people like that in my career... they have so many blind spots I can send them careening into a wall of their own making.
It is critical for families to be supported by good jobs with adequate and steady income. If young people cannot get such jobs they are unlikely to marry and/or have children. The same is true if they have to work 2 jobs to make ends meet.
In addition one of the best policies would be a national program of child care which could enable married people to plan for the expenses of raising children with a higher level of economic security.
Family is not an artificial social construct, subject to politics du jour, nor an accident of culture. The nuclear family is the foundational, genetically inherited organizational structure of the human species. The human family is a suite of inherited survival adaptations—pair‑bonding, female dispersal, gender‑differentiated roles, and kin selection—that enabled humans to raise vulnerable offspring, share resources, and build social stability.
Humanity exists because the human family became a genetic biological fortress that out-competed the solitary predators and the loosely linked harems of our primate past to become the dominate specie on Earth. When societies build policies that contradict the evolved architecture of the human species, they take civilizational risks. Our social policies and teachings must remain aligned with the eons of successful traits of the human nuclear family.
An extreme and immoderate aversion to the sacred and the thwarting of the connection of the sacred to the culture of the West appears to be the underlying motif of oikophobia; and not the substitution of Hellenic Christianity by another coherent system of belief. The paradox of the oikophobe seems to be that any opposition directed at the theological and cultural tradition of the West is to be encouraged even if it is "significantly more parochial, exclusivist, patriarchal, and ethnocentric". (Mark Dooley, Roger Scruton: Philosopher on Dover Beach (Continuum 2009), p. 78.)
The term also occasionally appears in psychology with the more literal sense of a fear of home.
Scruton defines it as "the repudiation of inheritance and home," and refers to it as "a stage through which the adolescent mind normally passes." Roger Scruton, ''A Political Philosophy'', p. 24.
According to Scruton, culture is the ethical transmission "how to feel" passed down from one generation to the next. Virtue is taught through imitation of the heroes, gods and ancestors not by mere copying but through the imagination and "moving with them" which high culture provides. The repudiation of a common tradition blocks the individual's path to membership in the "original experience of the community". Instead of apprehending spiritual and intellectual received wisdom as an epiphany the 'anti-culture' of repudiation produces mere nihilism, irony and false gods. Roger Scruton, ''Culture Counts'' (Encounter Books, 2007), pp.36-9.
While I have no problem with gay marriage and same sex couples figuring out the massive complexity of raising children, the male and female married with children model will always be the platinum situation. Just like I don't have any problem with females pursuing career over family, the female that chooses marriage and family is the platinum situation.
Evolutionary biology does not shift on the demand of the progressive agenda. Female mothers and male fathers that are married make for the most well-adjusted children that in turn make the best population for society. The stats prove it.
That does not mean that we don't accept non-traditional family situations. It just means that we have to accept that traditional is the premium target and our public policies should always support moving to that as the goal.
Well-adjusted parents are the key to bringing up well-adjusted children. Whether a parent is well-adjusted, in my experience of seeing many parents and their children over decades, does not correlate in any way with whether they have had children via your "platinum model" or not.
There are many examples of well-adjusted adults raised by imperfect parents. The statics are very strongly correlated with greater success attributed to a female mother and male father that stay married. It is victim mentality that destroys the path to being well-adjusted. Everybody experiences adversity and challenges growing up. But once someone slides down that slippery slope and warm blanket of blaming others, like blaming parents, for their disappointments in life, they are doomed to be always less than they could otherwise be. That is what Democrats exploit for their political power. They sell a victim narrative that is like a drug to anybody that can slip into a malcontent mindset and blame others. I find that the elite Democrats are quite frequently in fealty with the victim groups that they exploit for politics in that they are also malcontents. It is all proven by studies that the "D" in Democrat seems to mean "depressed". However, some are perfectly happy in their elite status but only by their victim advocacy identity that they know is destructive but are so greedy for power and money derived from it, that they moralize it.
OK, you started calmly and then just went off down the usual route of world salad and prejudice. Let's go back to your first point - any chance if some citations to support your statistics claim?
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8033487/
Note that the feminized state of the social sciences causes them to hide the data evidencing that a married female-mother and male-father family results in the greatest advantage for their offspring to be successful. They use the term "biological parents" or "natural parents" to obfuscate the data proving the superior female/male parent situation.
We are talking big datasets here, not the observation of exceptions that those opposing reality use as weapons in the info wars. You can have married female-mother and male-father that are crappy parents and create terrible offspring. You can have single parents that create wonderful offspring. But there is no argument against the point that married female-mother and male-father is the platinum situation and deserving of support from our public policy and societal encouragement. There is really no effective replacement for what is missing in non-traditional family situations. Females generally cannot do the father role, and males generally cannot do the mother role. And both are required in most cases for children to develop fully.
Thanks, but there's really no need to tell me how to read academic publications. I've read in the thousands and can manage on my own.
Just softening the battlefield for the expected bomb lobs.
So, I had a look and you won't be surprised to hear that I found it deeply flawed. The biggest issue is that the work was funded by the Ruth Institute, a well-known hate group pushing extreme Catholic doctrine. A second reason to mistrust the authors is when they state the data shows "without qualification" what they wanted to show in the first place. No scientist of any integrity, social or otherwise, would use such language. Data interpretation always leaves room for doubt - that they dismiss this suggests clearly that they have used the data to serve their agenda.
There you go. Demand cites and then go to work to discredit them because they conflict with your secular religion of absurd leftism and Orange Man Bad hate. You people are always predictable and reliable in your desperation to never admit that you learn a damn thing except things that confirm your brilliance. I walk all over people like that in my career... they have so many blind spots I can send them careening into a wall of their own making.
The Heritage Foundation is “a MAGA think tank”?
It is critical for families to be supported by good jobs with adequate and steady income. If young people cannot get such jobs they are unlikely to marry and/or have children. The same is true if they have to work 2 jobs to make ends meet.
In addition one of the best policies would be a national program of child care which could enable married people to plan for the expenses of raising children with a higher level of economic security.
Family is not an artificial social construct, subject to politics du jour, nor an accident of culture. The nuclear family is the foundational, genetically inherited organizational structure of the human species. The human family is a suite of inherited survival adaptations—pair‑bonding, female dispersal, gender‑differentiated roles, and kin selection—that enabled humans to raise vulnerable offspring, share resources, and build social stability.
Humanity exists because the human family became a genetic biological fortress that out-competed the solitary predators and the loosely linked harems of our primate past to become the dominate specie on Earth. When societies build policies that contradict the evolved architecture of the human species, they take civilizational risks. Our social policies and teachings must remain aligned with the eons of successful traits of the human nuclear family.
An extreme and immoderate aversion to the sacred and the thwarting of the connection of the sacred to the culture of the West appears to be the underlying motif of oikophobia; and not the substitution of Hellenic Christianity by another coherent system of belief. The paradox of the oikophobe seems to be that any opposition directed at the theological and cultural tradition of the West is to be encouraged even if it is "significantly more parochial, exclusivist, patriarchal, and ethnocentric". (Mark Dooley, Roger Scruton: Philosopher on Dover Beach (Continuum 2009), p. 78.)
The term also occasionally appears in psychology with the more literal sense of a fear of home.
Scruton defines it as "the repudiation of inheritance and home," and refers to it as "a stage through which the adolescent mind normally passes." Roger Scruton, ''A Political Philosophy'', p. 24.
According to Scruton, culture is the ethical transmission "how to feel" passed down from one generation to the next. Virtue is taught through imitation of the heroes, gods and ancestors not by mere copying but through the imagination and "moving with them" which high culture provides. The repudiation of a common tradition blocks the individual's path to membership in the "original experience of the community". Instead of apprehending spiritual and intellectual received wisdom as an epiphany the 'anti-culture' of repudiation produces mere nihilism, irony and false gods. Roger Scruton, ''Culture Counts'' (Encounter Books, 2007), pp.36-9.