I don't get it.

[Susan]

OK, here's something I've sort of been puzzling over today. Beware, this post comes from a liberal slime and as such is probably going to aggravate everyone here.

I've noticed the trend of pro-family conservative organizations to be stating how horrible, depraved, and utterly evil life is. Basically, according to an informal overlook of these sites and articles, society is crumbling into a hopeless mess of sin and degradation. According to these, everything from homosexuals to television to what cereal I ate for breakfast last week is engaged in a massive movement to destroy Godliness, love, innocence, morality, and let your pet Scripture-citing parrot out never to be seen again.

However, these same organizations also encourage, rather than celibacy and abstinence, that people get married and have (often large) families, and that somehow, people who are not in a family are less worthy of respect and less stable, caring individuals than those who are in families-among other things.

Here is where I see the disconnect between these positions: If modern life is indeed as horribly corrupt and sinfully dangerous for everyone as the pro-family organizations proclaim it to be-WHY bring more children into it? So they can sin? So they can be corrupted and live in this miserable world that's either on its last legs or close to it? So they can suffer tribulation and pain?

I personally don't see why they aren't encouraging people to adopt and raise children that are already here rather than have their own kids. . .or why they aren't encouraging celibacy and abstinence if they seriously believe things are as awful as they are. I mean. . .why bring children into such an awful life? Isn't that a selfish desire of the parents?

 

[SqueezetheShaman]

And if they really cared about society, they would promote having NO children, and adopting the kids who need homes, remember, the ones they didn't want aborted, instead to live in a life of poverty and abuse.

 

[theeyesoftammyfaye]

I personally don't see why they aren't encouraging people to adopt and raise children that are already here rather than have their own kids. . .or why they aren't encouraging celibacy and abstinence if they seriously believe things are as awful as they are. I mean. . .why bring children into such an awful life? Isn't that a selfish desire of the parents?

because they don't know what they're talking about. or maybe they want to make sure they have a large christian army of young ones to carry on the spewing of "the world is evil and immoral and the end times are near" rhetoric. actually i just think they don't know what they're talking about.

 

[msjones21]

Susan....



I *heart* you. You have just summed up so eloquently my entire opinion about the pro-"family" movement. I'm of the opinion that family is what you make of it. It could be a man and his beloved dog (no, I don't mean marrying the dog). It could be an aunt and uncle raising their sister or brother's children. It could be two heterosexual parents with 2.5 kids and an SUV who live in the suburbs. It could be a husband and wife. It could be a husband and wife with their cats. It could be two gay men or two lesbian women. It could be homosexual couples who have children. Family should not be defined as a man and woman in their first and only marriage who have 3 kids, a Golden Retriever, and SUV, and live in the suburbs and other living arrangements are abnormal or a detriment to society. I would take it as a slap in the face if somebody told me my relationship wasn't "good enough" to make a positive contribution to society.

 

[Spike~]

Option 4 for me.

 

[SqueezetheShaman]

I meant to answer your poll too...I had always said I wouldn't have my own kids, since there were too many kids who need a home. Life and irresponsibility gave me my beautiful 2boys and now we aren't ready to dish out the money needed for adopting more. But it is something we will do within the next couple of years. If everyone opened their home to children who needed one, we would not have such a problem in the world with unwanted kids.

 

[Blemonds]

OK, here's something I've sort of been puzzling over today. Beware, this post comes from a liberal slime and as such is probably going to aggravate everyone here.

I've noticed the trend of pro-family conservative organizations to be stating how horrible, depraved, and utterly evil life is. Basically, according to an informal overlook of these sites and articles, society is crumbling into a hopeless mess of sin and degradation. According to these, everything from homosexuals to television to what cereal I ate for breakfast last week is engaged in a massive movement to destroy Godliness, love, innocence, morality, and let your pet Scripture-citing parrot out never to be seen again.

However, these same organizations also encourage, rather than celibacy and abstinence, that people get married and have (often large) families, and that somehow, people who are not in a family are less worthy of respect and less stable, caring individuals than those who are in families-among other things.

Here is where I see the disconnect between these positions: If modern life is indeed as horribly corrupt and sinfully dangerous for everyone as the pro-family organizations proclaim it to be-WHY bring more children into it? So they can sin? So they can be corrupted and live in this miserable world that's either on its last legs or close to it? So they can suffer tribulation and pain?

I personally don't see why they aren't encouraging people to adopt and raise children that are already here rather than have their own kids. . .or why they aren't encouraging celibacy and abstinence if they seriously believe things are as awful as they are. I mean. . .why bring children into such an awful life? Isn't that a selfish desire of the parents?

Your entire post is one big strawman unless you can document that pro family organizations are actually making the claim you attribute to them.

 

[tulc]

"I had kids, and now want as many grandchildren as possible"
Susan you forgot an option!
tulc(who thinks grandkids are a lot of fun!)

 

[Polycarp1]

I vote an unreserved "Other" (an option you didn't leave, Susan! [insert finger-shaking smiley here]).

While it was not a case of absolute sterility, my wife and I knew from the day we got engaged that it was very unlikely that we would be able to conceive. We tried anyway, fruitlessly. And we devoted our free time in the first 16 years of our marriage to volunteer work and other community service, through our church and outside it. Then we had opportunity to make a home for three troubled teenage boys, one a homeless neighbor boy and the other two his cousin and the cousin's best friend. And as far as I'm concerned, I have three wonderful sons, three terrific daughters-in-law, and eight spectacular grandkids (well, seven great ones and one holy terror that I love anyway!).

And I believe firmly that God has all things under control, despite our abilities to mess things up, and can always bring good out of evil -- especially if we're willing to cooperate in the effort, but eventually even if we don't.

And for six weeks in 1998, we were part of an extended household that included: the mother of one of our boys, her fiancé (marriage planned as soon as dragged-out divorce papers from a long-dead marriage were finalized), her former boyfriend whom they were helping recover from alcoholism, two of her sons (one being one of our boys, the other his little brother), our boy's wife, her brother (another of our boys) and his wife (who was, coincidentally, the mother's niece), three children from each marriage, the third of our boys, who was her son's best friend, and ourselves, all in one large old farmhouse. And this constituted a wonderful extended family, in which every part could count on every other part for what they needed, and was willing to help when their help was needed. The former boyfriend, myself, and the oldest boy among my "grandkids" (aged 5) together built a deck outside the back door -- and the boy was not merely an honorary "helper," but performed a half dozen useful tasks that he could handle at his age, such as pulling loosened nails out of the scavenged planks we were using for deck floor, saving us two adults quite a lot of work.

Added in edit: Noting tulc's post, I can say that grandkids are even more fun when they're your first direct connection with raising small children, having gotten your own kids as teens!

 

[Susan]

I forgot the "other" option.

 

[SqueezetheShaman]

I vote an unreserved "Other" (an option you didn't leave, Susan! [insert finger-shaking smiley here]).

While it was not a case of absolute sterility, my wife and I knew from the day we got engaged that it was very unlikely that we would be able to conceive. We tried anyway, fruitlessly. And we devoted our free time in the first 16 years of our marriage to volunteer work and other community service, through our church and outside it. Then we had opportunity to make a home for three troubled teenage boys, one a homeless neighbor boy and the other two his cousin and the cousin's best friend. And as far as I'm concerned, I have three wonderful sons, three terrific daughters-in-law, and eight spectacular grandkids (well, seven great ones and one holy terror that I love anyway!).

And I believe firmly that God has all things under control, despite our abilities to mess things up, and can always bring good out of evil -- especially if we're willing to cooperate in the effort, but eventually even if we don't.

And for six weeks in 1998, we were part of an extended household that included: the mother of one of our boys, her fiancé (marriage planned as soon as dragged-out divorce papers from a long-dead marriage were finalized), her former boyfriend whom they were helping recover from alcoholism, two of her sons (one being one of our boys, the other his little brother), our boy's wife, her brother (another of our boys) and his wife (who was, coincidentally, the mother's niece), three children from each marriage, the third of our boys, who was her son's best friend, and ourselves, all in one large old farmhouse. And this constituted a wonderful extended family, in which every part could count on every other part for what they needed, and was willing to help when their help was needed. The former boyfriend, myself, and the oldest boy (aged 5) together built a deck outside the back door -- and the boy was not merely an honorary "helper," but performed a half dozen useful tasks that he could handle at his age, such as pulling loosened nails out of the scavenged planks we were using for deck floor, saving us two adults quite a lot of work.

Added in edit: Noting tulc's post, I can say that grandkids are even more fun when they're your first direct connection with raising small children, having gotten your own kids as teens!

No wonder you handle bickering here with such finesse!

 

[revolutio]

I know I won't score any browney points for this but I can't think of a more miserable experience than having a child depend on me. Right now I have absolutely no plans for children nor to run the risk of getting them. I don't have a problem with raising a child in this world I just have no wish to.

The world isn't that bad, it is pretty awful, but I just don't care as a whole. I will do what I can to make people's lives better on a small scale and maybe on a larger scale if some sort of inspiration strikes.

 

[UberLutheran]

...they would enter their teens when I was 62; be in full-fledged adolescence when I was 64; entering college when I was 67; graduating from college when I turned 72; and marrying when I was about 75.

Nahhhh: I'm too old to be willingly subjecting myself to this. Besides, staying home with children would mean I couldn't chase severe thunderstorms and tornadoes.

 

[Susan]

...they would enter their teens when I was 62; be in full-fledged adolescence when I was 64; entering college when I was 67; graduating from college when I turned 72; and marrying when I was about 75.

Nahhhh: I'm too old to be willingly subjecting myself to this. Besides, staying home with children would mean I couldn't chase severe thunderstorms and tornadoes.

You're a storm chaser? Wow! That must be very exciting.

 

[tulc]

We had our first when we were 21 (my wife and I are the same age) our second at 24, we were grandparents at 45 and 48. Life is good!
tulc(a very young grandfather)

 

[Larry]

I'm sorry. I did not even read the entire OP. I could not get past Susan's "liberal slime" remark. This does not come across as very loving or Christian. And, I am suprised that a CF staff member would make remarks like that.

 

[UberLutheran]

You're a storm chaser? Wow! That must be very exciting.

And occasionally exceedingly dangerous -- like the time I was travelling a back road to Fort Worth and found myself driving towards a tornado which was heading towards me!

And of course, the road went two directions: towards the tornado, and away from the tornado.

I stopped, got my pictures -- and then got the h*** out of there!

 

[theeyesoftammyfaye]

uberlutheran: where do you live that you can do storm chasing? growing up in oklahoma, i know its a huge activity there...so it'd make sense if you lived there =)

 

[Susan]

I'm sorry. I did not even read the entire OP. I could not get past Susan's "liberal slime" remark. This does not come across as very loving or Christian. And, I am suprised that a CF staff member would make remarks like that.

What, it's against the rules to insult oneself?

 

[theeyesoftammyfaye]

^
|----------- liberal slime



(okay thats suppose to be an arrow pointing at my name but it looks weird)