Aren't we meant to be supportive here?
Which is the why the question of
why this is a problem was raised.
I'm a traditionalist when it comes to moral and many social issues, I see the nuclear family as the bedrock of a free market capitalist system. I see nothing wrong in having governments prefer it and discourage other family arrangements. That means things like preventing divorce and getting rid of no fault divorces, allowing abstinence sex education to be taught in schools (I do not object to contraceptives, however message should be at least waiting to have sex until you are 18), teaching that it is okay to be still a virgin at an advanced age and many great people in history were, among other things. I believe these measures can help us make inroads into social disadvantage in our societies.
You will probably find it odd these views coming from somebody who will be single for probably nearly all his life. However that is what I believe in and stand by it.
I agree on most of these, but it's not like
schools are telling kids that it's NOT ok
to be a virgin.
I think marriage should simply be eliminated,
in favor of negotiated partnerships. Churches
can do what they please, but I don't see why
the state should but its nose in anyone's private
business.
I've wondered about non-traditional family groups, like the ones Heinlein postulated in 'The Moon is a Harsh Mistress', and how they'd function both internally and in interaction with society, and what benefits and disadvantages they could have over the nuclear family in different environmental and societal settings.
Given that the breakdown in family life
coincides, more or less, with the ADOPTION
of the nuclear family, I would guess that just
about anything would be better.
Before the 1950's, families meant more than
mom, dad, and some brats. Like the concepts
in "It Takes a Village," it's clear that this is simply
not enough, especially when wages haven't kept
up to allow for a non-working spouse.
