Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
IMO, we are already there. Look at the number of kids raised in daycare. The kids are put in daycare as soon as possible so mom can go back to work. For the most part the kids are in transit or in daycare 12 hours a day. Factor in sleep time and kids are with their parents only a few hours a day.
What's the point of having kids if you intend to give them over to somebody else to bring up?
Many say both parents have to work due to the economy. If that's true, then the village raising the kids is due to the USA economic system, not the communist.
What's the difference in utilizing daycare at 6 weeks and kindergarten at 5 years. Does the public school system also raise our children then. Does a parent/guardian have to be with a child 24/y to actually raise them?
Look at the riots, they are 98% white. These riots are being run by Marxists and anarchists, and of course attracting the criminal element to loot, murder and harm people.
Look at the riots; perps are mostly male. So, what's your theory on that?
Ohh please, where have you been. Remember everything is racist.
About it.
With this weird new shift from the far left crowd saying that you are either racist or anti-racist, nothing in between. I wouldn't be surprised if anything is now racists. I'm kidding, but not by much.
I meant people since time began have lived in non-traditional family circumstances. My above post about biblical characters, etc. explains that. Not everybody was raised or can be raised by a two parent household. Guess there are no degenerates in the country? LOL. I have no idea how medieval people lived, and neither do you. And we all know what the oldest occupation is, right?
I never claimed every single person was raised in a two-parent household. But it was obviously heavily frowned-upon until fairly recently. The nobility may have gotten a pass, but the common man did not. People born out-of-wedlock were called bastards, and were basically second-class citizens not entitled to inheritances.
Rural people fall into two categories, farmers and everyone else. Farmers are overwhelmingly religious and nearly 100% of the time live in traditional families. And everyone else are basically opportunists, who sell their labor, sell drugs, make moonshine, and whatever else. They are no better than ghetto trash. But those rural people would have also been farmers in the middle-ages because there weren't tractors to do the work.
As for the "oldest profession", do you honestly think women were whoring themselves out in medieval villages? No. Brothels are and have always been a city thing. Wherever there are cities, there are whores.
A family is a family no matter what its make up. You want a traditional family with a mom, dad and 2.4 kids? Have at it. There is no one going to stop you.
Your opinion on loyalty and devotion to God, family, etc. versus the loyalty to state (whatever the hell that is) is just that. An opinion. We all have them.
I've seen lots of two parent nuclear families that leave a lot to be desired.
Spoken as a true Marxist. The state becomes the source for stability and faith in an authoritarian socialist regime; that is one of the reasons that such entities always ban the church.
This may be hard to grasp, but who do you think is in a better position to provide better and more appropriate guidance for kids- the parents or the state?
Remember the Marxist, "it takes a village" BS from Clinton. This is really what the left believes and feels as though the central government not only has the right, but the duty to intervene in the family and the development of children.
The Marxists, as begun through the Frankfurt School, target the three pillars of the west:
The family
The church
The middle class
.
The Family is alive and well, just not in the configuration that you prefer.
The Church is declining along with all other types of superstitious belief.
The Middle Class has been the victim of Republican tax schemes, under whom the rich get richer, the poor get poorer, and middle class people fall into lower class.
I never claimed every single person was raised in a two-parent household. But it was obviously heavily frowned-upon until fairly recently. The nobility may have gotten a pass, but the common man did not. People born out-of-wedlock were called bastards, and were basically second-class citizens not entitled to inheritances.
Rural people fall into two categories, farmers and everyone else. Farmers are overwhelmingly religious and nearly 100% of the time live in traditional families. And everyone else are basically opportunists, who sell their labor, sell drugs, make moonshine, and whatever else. They are no better than ghetto trash. But those rural people would have also been farmers in the middle-ages because there weren't tractors to do the work.
As for the "oldest occupation", do you honestly think women were whoring themselves out in medieval villages? No. Brothels are and have always been a city thing. Wherever there are cities, there are whores.
I'm probably as liberal as you can get just about and I have no problem with a traditional two parent household. I don't think they should be dismantled. I do have a problem when people, and I'm not saying you, claim that people are "less than" if they're not raised in a traditional home. I am aware of the history of kids born out of wedlock. They no longer face that problem today. I really don't know, nor have I ever cared about the history of brothels. My only point in bringing up the way distant past was my address to a poster about God and traditional families, etc. I was pointing out that even men who were considered Godly didn't have traditional families.
I really don't care who does or doesn't have a traditional family. My biggest problem is when others start defining what a family is. The OP sounded like they were worried that someone was going to take away the traditional family. Nobody is going to do that no more than somebody would force a non-gay person to gay marry.
I guess in a nutshell I don't see an assault on traditional family. Live and let live, people. Just do your best. Be kind. Love each other and your families. Don't hurt others. That's about all we can do as a society.
Spoken as a true Marxist. The state becomes the source for stability and faith in an authoritarian socialist regime; that is one of the reasons that such entities always ban the church.
This may be hard to grasp, but who do you think is in a better position to provide better and more appropriate guidance for kids- the parents or the state?
Remember the Marxist, "it takes a village" BS from Clinton. This is really what the left believes and feels as though the central government not only has the right, but the duty to intervene in the family and the development of children.
Why is everyone a MARXIST with you people? The majority of Americans support BLM. The majority of Americans favor Medicare for All. The majority of Americans support citizenship for the Dreamers. By your metrics, the majority of Americans are marxists. So why don't you just move away from this marxist hellhole then?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm kidding, but not by much.
