Why is family being pushed so hard?

nimblelynx7 said:Let’s move on. There was likely just as much pushback when we transitioned from tribal communities to the family unit. Back then, the conservatives were against the family; they probably called its supporters "liberal family-oriented fools" who would destroy the human race, all while claiming tribal living was somehow natural and perfect.

7nationarmy said:I suspect you’ve got way too much free time if you're spending it dwelling on nonsense like this. 🙂

But seriously, reading your post reminded me of a recent chat I had with a buddy about capitalism and democracy—he's unhappy with both. I ask him for the millionth time, "Aren't we just witnessing a slow, grinding evolution toward better versions of both?" But no, he’s itching for a revolution, even though he knows revolutions don't actually yield results until there's a massive, natural necessity to force a leap forward. It's just like the whole family debate. Until we start printing kids out of 3D printers, Mom and Dad are the foundation, and the family unit is sacred. No politics, no religious dogma, just the core concept.

nimblelynx7 said:Let’s move on. There was likely just as much pushback when we transitioned from tribal communities to the family unit. Back then, the conservatives were against the family; they probably called its supporters "liberal family-oriented fools" who would destroy the human race, all while claiming tribal living was somehow natural and perfect.

Joseph Wright4 said:🙄 Are you guys kidding me?

That transition you’re describing never even happened. The nuclear family—you know, mom, dad, kids—has always been the basic unit. Even in those tribal settings.
I don't get how you guys see this happening at all.

Gregory Peterson2 said:First off, you've got a point there. 😁

With technological evolution, we could eventually just pop kids out of a test tube—no parents required. At that stage, the traditional family wouldn't even be necessary. Just high-end tech and a solid incubator, and boom: a world full of clones.
So, following your own logic, why should the family be considered sacred?

Exactly! I just don't get this deep-seated fear the conservative crowd has toward change. It’s been happening since humans first walked the earth. They just end up stalling progress. Change is inevitable—it'll happen sooner or later—but by resisting it, we just waste so much precious time.

Joseph Wright4 said:Gregory Peterson2
-you honestly have no clue what you're talking about.
The nuclear family has always been the core building block of society. Everything else just evolves around it.
It’s absurd, and frankly wrong, to claim that tribal organizations were the foundation and that we've somehow shifted down to the nuclear family today. That logic doesn't hold up at all.🙄

I mean, seriously. That's just ridiculous.

Do you even get why those tribal units existed in the first place? The whole premise of this argument is flawed and, honestly, kind of laughable.

Gregory Peterson2 said:First off, you've got a point there. 😁

With technological evolution, we could eventually just pop kids out of a test tube—no parents required. At that stage, the traditional family wouldn't even be necessary. Just high-end tech and a solid incubator, and boom: a world full of clones.
So, following your own logic, why should the family be considered sacred?

Exactly! I just don't get this deep-seated fear the conservative crowd has toward change. It’s been happening since humans first walked the earth. They just end up stalling progress. Change is inevitable—it'll happen sooner or later—but by resisting it, we just waste so much precious time.

JohnDoe-25;49840125 said:

Actually, not really. Back then, kids didn't even have first or last names. It wasn't known, nor did it matter, who their parents were. A mother wouldn't be the one nursing her child; instead, any woman from the tribe would step up. You still see stuff like that in certain tribes in Africa today.

we're saying the exact same thing 😁

I don't get it either. To me, it feels like pure, unadulterated fear of change and whatever comes along with it. Not all changes are good, sure, but conservatives seem to oppose everything without exception just to protect the status quo.

Exactly! Pure fear. I honestly think they're just terrified they won't be able to adapt to the modern world.
History is just one long list of examples like this. Look at how people reacted to the potato in America. The Church—which is basically the face of conservatism—rejected potatoes for the longest time. They claimed anything growing underground was straight from the devil! By clinging to that nonsense, they actually caused massive famines in places like France, which eventually helped spark the revolution.
It’s always some irrational fear of the new.

Joseph Wright4 said:🙄 Are you guys kidding me?

That transition you’re describing never even happened. The nuclear family—you know, mom, dad, kids—has always been the basic unit. Even in those tribal settings.
I don't get how you guys see this happening at all.

Gregory Peterson2 said:First off, you've got a point there. 😁

With technological evolution, we could eventually just pop kids out of a test tube—no parents required. At that stage, the traditional family wouldn't even be necessary. Just high-end tech and a solid incubator, and boom: a world full of clones.
So, following your own logic, why should the family be considered sacred?

Exactly! I just don't get this deep-seated fear the conservative crowd has toward change. It’s been happening since humans first walked the earth. They just end up stalling progress. Change is inevitable—it'll happen sooner or later—but by resisting it, we just waste so much precious time.

nimblelynx7 said:"Quincy:"

Actually, no. Back then, kids didn't even have names or surnames. It wasn't known—nor did it matter—who their parents were. A mother wouldn't be the one nursing them; it would just be any woman from the tribe. You still see that kind of setup in some tribes in Africa today.

I can't wrap my head around it either. It feels like pure, unadulterated fear of change and whatever comes next. Look, I'm not saying every single shift is a good thing, but these conservatives? They’re reflexively against everything just to protect the status quo.

hollowtrucker77 said:okay, fine, let's just say we scrap marriage, relationships, sex, and children altogether and just move straight to test tubes and cloning
🙂
in what sense is that actually evolution, and what's the end goal here?
who actually wins? what does humanity even boil down to at that point?
are those things even humans anymore?

how do you people advocating for this even see yourselves fitting into this scenario?
as owners of a herd, as bipedal creatures with serial numbers stamped on them that you can command and exert total control over?
or do you see yourselves as nothing more than glorified nurseries for cloning cells...

what exactly is the plan, and how does it work?

Joseph Wright4 said:What era are you talking about?? Good grief—you and Gregory Peterson2 are talking such nonsense that I honestly don't believe you actually think this stuff.
Kids obviously had names, and of course people knew who their parents were. It mattered...
Even in those tribes where wet nurses handle things instead of mothers—that doesn't mean parentage isn't important or that kids don't have names. 🙄
(Besides, you're just grasping at exceptions here, and you're totally misinterpreting the whole thing)
This whole setup is so stupid I don't even want to bother commenting anymore, and I'm pretty sure it's on the completely wrong subforum..

Gregory Peterson2 said:"What era?" Please. You see this stuff happening in the 21st century too.
Look, you're just trolling at this point because you clearly haven't brushed up on human history. Honestly, it might be better if you just sat this one out.

Gregory Peterson2 said:First off, you've got a point there. 😁

With technological evolution, we could eventually just pop kids out of a test tube—no parents required. At that stage, the traditional family wouldn't even be necessary. Just high-end tech and a solid incubator, and boom: a world full of clones.
So, following your own logic, why should the family be considered sacred?

Exactly! I just don't get this deep-seated fear the conservative crowd has toward change. It’s been happening since humans first walked the earth. They just end up stalling progress. Change is inevitable—it'll happen sooner or later—but by resisting it, we just waste so much precious time.

ruggedpanther13 said:That’s actually my point. This brand of liberalism is steering us toward some pretty dark, national-socialist style solutions. You’re actually, maybe without even realizing it, hovering right on the edge of that. Of course, your goal isn't building some perfect American nation; your goal is total individual freedom, completely stripped of any boundaries, obligations, or constraints.
The most significant milestone in the life of two adults is bringing children into this world and actually raising them. That’s what we call motherhood and fatherhood—not just "manufacturing" people. Mass-producing humans was a concept pushed by Nazis and liberal technocrats, and I think liberals are dangerously close to drifting that way too. I really hope you guys don't cross that line. Mostly, if only for your own sake.

Let me flesh this out a bit so it’s not just abstract theory.

The issue of disability:

Modern tech makes it easy to screen for disabilities, and if a condition is found, the pregnancy is often terminated. A buddy of mine who works at a hospital told me about a woman who chose an abortion simply because she found out her child would have a malformed arm. So, that poor kid—who would have lived with a disability—wasn't even born; they were eliminated before birth just because of it. The Nazis eliminated them after birth. The underlying justifications are essentially the same.

The issue of "baby factories":

A version of the Lebensborn program is resurfacing in the United Kingdom. The main drivers here are these liberal associations, excitedly announcing to the world that we'll have the first artificial womb within a few years.
It’s a tiny leap from an artificial womb to actual baby factories.

Your tendency to relativize everything is exactly what leads to the questions you're asking.

First off, you have to realize that the Church isn't really talking to you—it's talking to the faithful. You're being invited to reconsider your views.
As for government institutions, they gave up on promoting the traditional family ages ago, so you don't have to worry about that. The Church will do its own thing, and the people who follow it will follow. That doesn't impose anything on you whatsoever.