Why is family being pushed so hard?

Gregory Peterson2 said:I honestly don't get why there's this massive push to frame the nuclear family as this ultimate, sacred foundation—this primal human right that supposedly sits above every other type of community. Why is it that the Church is always preaching about the family? Why are all these non-profits and social groups constantly hammering away at the same theme?
What even defines a "family" in today's world?
We’re being conditioned to believe this specific blueprint—mom, dad, and kids living under one roof—is the absolute gold standard for human development. It’s presented as this lofty, divinely ordained ideal that we should all strive for.

Here’s the thing: if we look at history, the traditional nuclear family is actually a relatively recent phenomenon in human evolution. We used to live in tribes; we lived in extended kinship networks (and some people still do!), and now we’ve shifted into these small household units. Personally, I think even this model is starting to fray at the edges as people gravitate toward new ways of connecting, whether that's through same-sex partners, roommates, or chosen families.
And what's the harm in that? Why does the nuclear family have to be the "best"? For all we know, a tribal structure might actually work better! Are we all just going to regress back to prehistoric clans?

Do you see where I'm coming from? I just can't wrap my head around elevating one specific economic and emotional arrangement to such a celestial status. It's just one way humans have figured out how to survive together, not the only way.
Plus, let's be real: dysfunctional families are everywhere. It’s much more common than people care to admit. Yet, people stay trapped in those toxic environments—especially in deeply religious parts of the US—simply because we're taught that the family unit is sacred. There's this intense social pressure to stay put. If you leave, people judge you. They say things like, "They tore the family apart." 😲

I'd love to hear what you all think about this...

Maybe not, but it’s the only way right now. Real change takes a higher level of awareness—less selfishness and more actual connection and empathy. If we could love our neighbor's kid like our own, or treat a neighbor like a brother, things would be different. If we didn't constantly feel the need to outdo everyone else and actually became selfless, the traditional family unit might lose its current importance. Love would just be everywhere. No one would be attacking anyone, and no one would feel the need to protect their own from the rest.

So (assuming we're all thinking good thoughts here! 🙂), we shouldn't be talking about getting rid of families. Instead, we should focus on tightening the bonds within our own communities—like our neighborhoods or the US as a whole—to pave the way for a better society. Otherwise, we're just leaving the door open for abuse.

The family has served as the fundamental building block of society since the very moment the first flicker of intelligence appeared in primates. Even among today's great apes—gorillas, for instance—you see a remarkably distinct social hierarchy... one where the mother acts as the anchor for the offspring while the father handles the hunting and defense against external threats.
To criticize the family unit as the bedrock of our civilization is simply irrational; it leads directly to the dehumanization of society and its eventual devolution.
It is a scientifically established fact that the absence of either a mother or a father within the home increases the frequency of psychological deviations and abnormal behavior in children. If you look at any notorious criminal, any degenerate, any madman, any dictator, or even those widely despised media personalities and vapid celebrities, you will find that 95% of them lacked a stable, traditional family structure. A broken or incomplete family produces a broken and incomplete individual—and I don't think anyone with a shred of common sense would dispute that.
By "broken family," I am also including households where parents simply lack the time to actually raise their children. The result? We end up with adults who grow up to tear down the entire institution of the family, which explains much of what we are seeing today... this flood of people promoting some distorted, hyper-liberal lifestyle where every random person feels entitled to everything and anything.
I won't even bother getting worked up about it, though... nature handles these things quite efficiently. It leaves all those deviants without descendants, or perhaps with an insufficient number of them, effectively cleansing society over a few generations. It is pure mathematics, really. A traditional, right-leaning Catholic family with five children holds a massive statistical advantage over an ultra-modern gay couple with only one or two. It will all balance itself out eventually..... it just takes time....🙂

Has it occurred to anyone here that the push to redefine the family unit—and strip away the undisputed primacy of the nuclear family (parents plus children)—isn't actually an attempt at forced social engineering, but rather just a reaction to an ongoing process?

If you look at the shifting trends in out-of-wedlock births, divorce rates, and so on, the reality seems fairly clear. The nuclear family is becoming an archaism in its own right. It’s a social process that, I guess, is irreversible for several reasons.

The first reason is economic. There really isn't a need to divide roles between a breadwinner and a homemaker anymore; even having two providers isn't always necessary, as a single income can often sustain one or more children. Additionally, the modern American economy demands lifelong learning and extensive initial education, which leaves individuals with less time to devote to family life. We also see frequent relocations for career advancement, which pulls families away from stable environments and creates issues with adaptation or even separation, where parents work or live in different cities. On the other hand, kids spend much more of their time in daycare, schools, and extracurricular activities, which reduces the family's burden regarding childcare, upbringing, and even meals. This leads to a certain alienation and a breakdown of family cohesion, I suppose.

We shouldn't forget that traditional marriage, which served as the foundation of the family in the past, wasn't necessarily based on love, but rather on economic security and interest. Many cultures, including ours, tied wealth and inheritance to marriage. Often, an extended family led by a patriarch would decide on a partner rather than the individual. Such communities actually had a much higher degree of interdependence, and therefore, stability and longevity. Today, that is a rarity. An emotional bond without those other forms of dependency is much more fragile and subject to rapid change—both psychologically and hormonally—especially once the initial period of parental dependency ends (infancy and preschool years). Marriage is no longer the legal or practical foundation of the family. Furthermore, the religious "sanctity" of marriage has faded, since in many places, even basic religiosity has become more of an identity marker than a true belief system (in our case, being Catholic is synonymous with being American, a byproduct of national-religious identification maintained through centuries of external pressures). Meanwhile, the Church, with its archaic views on the family and sexuality (premarital sex, contraception, etc.), is increasingly alienating young people who don't align with such interpretations. The average age of sexual initiation is dropping, and promoting contraception is a necessity given the rise in teen pregnancies and STDs.

The discussion regarding homosexuals is actually quite minor and secondary here; it only gets attention because of the controversy surrounding it and the clear clash of worldviews it represents. In reality, the number of homosexuals is small enough, and the actual problems facing the family are so unrelated to them, that it remains a negligible point used mostly to distract people and bury their heads in the sand.

Anthony Garcia19 said:Maybe not, but it’s the only way right now. Real change takes a higher level of awareness—less selfishness and more actual connection and empathy. If we could love our neighbor's kid like our own, or treat a neighbor like a brother, things would be different. If we didn't constantly feel the need to outdo everyone else and actually became selfless, the traditional family unit might lose its current importance. Love would just be everywhere. No one would be attacking anyone, and no one would feel the need to protect their own from the rest.

So (assuming we're all thinking good thoughts here! 🙂), we shouldn't be talking about getting rid of families. Instead, we should focus on tightening the bonds within our own communities—like our neighborhoods or the US as a whole—to pave the way for a better society. Otherwise, we're just leaving the door open for abuse.

I’m with you on that, but let’s be real: shifting to a higher state of consciousness doesn't just happen by magic. It’s built through how we think. If we convince ourselves that the status quo is the only "right" way and label anything else as crazy or unnatural, then progress moves at a snail's pace.
It’s the same old story. We saw it with civil rights movements, we saw it with racial equality, even back when slavery was the norm.
People always cry foul whenever something changes—calling it "unnatural," saying it goes against God, or saying it's against human nature.
But based on what? Look, we *are* part of nature. Everything we create is an extension of nature. Our technology? Natural. Our breakthroughs? Totally natural.

Okay, I’m exaggerating a bit here, but just imagine a world a century from now where robots raise children. Imagine kids being grown in labs and nurtured by two robots or even just one. Even today, technology plays a huge role in how we're shaped. We use tech to sharpen reflexes, learn languages through gaming or AI, and connect via the internet...
And let's just assume for a second that this works perfectly for their mental development—that they grow up healthy and brilliant.

What would even be missing?

Humans are living organisms, just like cabbage, mushrooms, cats, dogs, or monkeys. We breed them, we cultivate them, we manage them. Yet, because we fancy ourselves "superior beings," we insist that the only valid way to exist is within a traditional family, and that a child can only be conceived through biological means because anything else is "unnatural."

briskdrifter3 said:The family has served as the fundamental building block of society since the very moment the first flicker of intelligence appeared in primates. Even among today's great apes—gorillas, for instance—you see a remarkably distinct social hierarchy... one where the mother acts as the anchor for the offspring while the father handles the hunting and defense against external threats.
To criticize the family unit as the bedrock of our civilization is simply irrational; it leads directly to the dehumanization of society and its eventual devolution.
It is a scientifically established fact that the absence of either a mother or a father within the home increases the frequency of psychological deviations and abnormal behavior in children. If you look at any notorious criminal, any degenerate, any madman, any dictator, or even those widely despised media personalities and vapid celebrities, you will find that 95% of them lacked a stable, traditional family structure. A broken or incomplete family produces a broken and incomplete individual—and I don't think anyone with a shred of common sense would dispute that.
By "broken family," I am also including households where parents simply lack the time to actually raise their children. The result? We end up with adults who grow up to tear down the entire institution of the family, which explains much of what we are seeing today... this flood of people promoting some distorted, hyper-liberal lifestyle where every random person feels entitled to everything and anything.
I won't even bother getting worked up about it, though... nature handles these things quite efficiently. It leaves all those deviants without descendants, or perhaps with an insufficient number of them, effectively cleansing society over a few generations. It is pure mathematics, really. A traditional, right-leaning Catholic family with five children holds a massive statistical advantage over an ultra-modern gay couple with only one or two. It will all balance itself out eventually..... it just takes time....🙂

You can count the animal species that are actually monogamous and maintain some semblance of a family unit on one hand. Please, stop trying to lecture me about animals and family being some evolutionary milestone for apes, because frankly, it’s just not true.

Gregory Peterson2 said:I’m with you on that, but let’s be real: shifting to a higher state of consciousness doesn't just happen by magic. It’s built through how we think. If we convince ourselves that the status quo is the only "right" way and label anything else as crazy or unnatural, then progress moves at a snail's pace.
It’s the same old story. We saw it with civil rights movements, we saw it with racial equality, even back when slavery was the norm.
People always cry foul whenever something changes—calling it "unnatural," saying it goes against God, or saying it's against human nature.
But based on what? Look, we *are* part of nature. Everything we create is an extension of nature. Our technology? Natural. Our breakthroughs? Totally natural.

Okay, I’m exaggerating a bit here, but just imagine a world a century from now where robots raise children. Imagine kids being grown in labs and nurtured by two robots or even just one. Even today, technology plays a huge role in how we're shaped. We use tech to sharpen reflexes, learn languages through gaming or AI, and connect via the internet...
And let's just assume for a second that this works perfectly for their mental development—that they grow up healthy and brilliant.

What would even be missing?

Humans are living organisms, just like cabbage, mushrooms, cats, dogs, or monkeys. We breed them, we cultivate them, we manage them. Yet, because we fancy ourselves "superior beings," we insist that the only valid way to exist is within a traditional family, and that a child can only be conceived through biological means because anything else is "unnatural."

Even newborn animals seem to have more common sense than you do...
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/article/local-news-story-example-link

Zachary Collins2 said:Even newborn animals seem to have more common sense than you do...
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/article/local-news-story-example-link

Go ahead and ask Klepetan what he’s actually up to down in the Deep South during the winter. Honestly, I bet he isn't even thinking about hopping on a FaceTime call with his wife or any other ladies. He's clearly got much bigger fish to fry!

Gregory Peterson2 said:Why would anyone want to abolish anything? We don't need to get rid of a single thing. It’s all about freedom of choice.
Personally, I see myself growing old with my wife, surrounded by kids and grandkids dropping by for a big family dinner on Christmas. That’s what I know. That’s how it was for me, heading over to my grandparents' place for the holidays.

But hey, I wouldn't think twice if my buddy Peter decided to have a kid through IVF using an egg donor, and then raised that child all on his own, just like I’d raise my own biological kid. He doesn't need to live with a partner to do that. As far as I'm concerned, he could live with his mom for all I care.

If this is really the end result of your thought process, what is there even to say?
It’s honestly such a massive waste of time and money spent on people like you.
Goddamned religious types, they don't know anything and can't even handle things without their holy handbooks.

hollowtrucker77 said:If this is really the end result of your thought process, what is there even to say?
It’s honestly such a massive waste of time and money spent on people like you.
Goddamned religious types, they don't know anything and can't even handle things without their holy handbooks.

When you run out of actual arguments, you just resort to trolling.👍

Gregory Peterson2 said:I’m with you on that, but let’s be real: shifting to a higher state of consciousness doesn't just happen by magic. It’s built through how we think. If we convince ourselves that the status quo is the only "right" way and label anything else as crazy or unnatural, then progress moves at a snail's pace.
It’s the same old story. We saw it with civil rights movements, we saw it with racial equality, even back when slavery was the norm.
People always cry foul whenever something changes—calling it "unnatural," saying it goes against God, or saying it's against human nature.
But based on what? Look, we *are* part of nature. Everything we create is an extension of nature. Our technology? Natural. Our breakthroughs? Totally natural.

Okay, I’m exaggerating a bit here, but just imagine a world a century from now where robots raise children. Imagine kids being grown in labs and nurtured by two robots or even just one. Even today, technology plays a huge role in how we're shaped. We use tech to sharpen reflexes, learn languages through gaming or AI, and connect via the internet...
And let's just assume for a second that this works perfectly for their mental development—that they grow up healthy and brilliant.

What would even be missing?

Humans are living organisms, just like cabbage, mushrooms, cats, dogs, or monkeys. We breed them, we cultivate them, we manage them. Yet, because we fancy ourselves "superior beings," we insist that the only valid way to exist is within a traditional family, and that a child can only be conceived through biological means because anything else is "unnatural."

With that kind of mindset, you're putting way too much pressure on thought alone! 😉

Quincy:

I'm just playing devil's advocate here, but imagine a world 100 years from now where robots raise children. Kids created in a lab, raised by one or two robots. Honestly, technology is already shaping how we grow up. We use tech to train reflexes, learn languages (think gaming or AI), and navigate the web... And let's assume for a second that their mental development turns out perfectly fine—that they end up healthy and smart. What would be missing?

Love! 🙂

Quincy:

Humans are living beings just like cabbage, mushrooms, cats, dogs, or monkeys... We breed and raise all of them. But because we view ourselves as these "superior" beings, we insist that family is the only way, and that a child can only be conceived through traditional intimacy because anything else is "unnatural."

I'm with you on the animals, but why drag humans down to their level instead of raising the bar for us? Why project one bad relationship onto the whole human experience?

Anthony Garcia19 said:With that kind of mindset, you're putting way too much pressure on thought alone! 😉

Quincy:

I'm just playing devil's advocate here, but imagine a world 100 years from now where robots raise children. Kids created in a lab, raised by one or two robots. Honestly, technology is already shaping how we grow up. We use tech to train reflexes, learn languages (think gaming or AI), and navigate the web... And let's assume for a second that their mental development turns out perfectly fine—that they end up healthy and smart. What would be missing?

Love! 🙂

Quincy:

Humans are living beings just like cabbage, mushrooms, cats, dogs, or monkeys... We breed and raise all of them. But because we view ourselves as these "superior" beings, we insist that family is the only way, and that a child can only be conceived through traditional intimacy because anything else is "unnatural."

I'm with you on the animals, but why drag humans down to their level instead of raising the bar for us? Why project one bad relationship onto the whole human experience?

Take it easy, you'll get there 😁

Love! 🙂

And even that is up for debate. See, the folks pushing the "traditional family" angle act like biological parents are the only ones capable of truly loving a child they're raising.
Every single day, adoption stories and kids in the foster care system prove them wrong, but hey, who cares? It's all about the biology 🙂

I'm with you on animals, but why drag humans down to their level instead of the other way around? Why project one bad relationship onto the whole species?

You totally misread me there. I'm no anarchist, and I'm certainly not suggesting we live like beasts in the wild. My point—for the millionth time—is simply that the nuclear family isn't set in stone. It hasn't always been the universal building block of society, it isn't inherently sacred, and it definitely isn't the only environment where a healthy human being can thrive.

So, I really have to wonder: why is there such massive fear surrounding the evolution of the family unit? Why the resistance to upgrading our communities and letting things change as people evolve and times move forward? It should be natural, just like everything else.

Gregory Peterson2 said:Take it easy, you'll get there 😁

Love! 🙂

And even that is up for debate. See, the folks pushing the "traditional family" angle act like biological parents are the only ones capable of truly loving a child they're raising.
Every single day, adoption stories and kids in the foster care system prove them wrong, but hey, who cares? It's all about the biology 🙂

I'm with you on animals, but why drag humans down to their level instead of the other way around? Why project one bad relationship onto the whole species?

You totally misread me there. I'm no anarchist, and I'm certainly not suggesting we live like beasts in the wild. My point—for the millionth time—is simply that the nuclear family isn't set in stone. It hasn't always been the universal building block of society, it isn't inherently sacred, and it definitely isn't the only environment where a healthy human being can thrive.

So, I really have to wonder: why is there such massive fear surrounding the evolution of the family unit? Why the resistance to upgrading our communities and letting things change as people evolve and times move forward? It should be natural, just like everything else.

What am I thinking? Trying to build some kind of utopia with my own two hands? Good luck with that.

Quincy:

That’s debatable. People pushing the whole "traditional family" thing seem to act like biological parents are the only ones capable of truly loving the kids they raise.

You mentioned robots earlier. But look, let's set those aside for a second. My take? It all comes down to love. At this level of consciousness, we just can't find that kind of connection without having family to lean on.

Quincy:

You got me wrong. I'm not an anarchist, and I definitely don't think we should all be living like animals. I just want to say—for the hundredth time—that the family unit isn't set in stone. It’s not some universal constant that serves as the bedrock for everyone, nor is it necessarily the only way for a person to grow up healthy and well-adjusted. It makes me wonder, though. Why is everyone so terrified of change? Whether it's evolving our family structures, upgrading how we build communities, or just adapting as life moves forward... people should embrace it. We change, the world changes, and that's just how it works.

Since you’ve got more guts than I do, tell me this: how would you go about making sure a kid—or even an adult—gets enough love in today's world? And I mean outside the family circle, of course. 🤷

I hope you don't honestly think we can make it on our own without that!