[Invictus_88]

Hang on a minute, I'm no expert on the history of the family, but my understanding is that the nuclear family existed in large parts of pre industrial Europe. There were significant differences in family structure prior to industrialisation.

Not so much, no. As far as I can tell, the extended family has been the norm through most of history. (Most of western history, at any rate. I don't know enough about other historical cultures to speak confidently.)

[Rich]

Not so much, no. As far as I can tell, the extended family has been the norm through most of history. (Most of western history, at any rate. I don't know enough about other historical cultures to speak confidently.)

Well this is a subject I'd like to be more versed on, but I'll go out on a limb: I would say rural England for example was based on nuclear families by the the start of the eighteen century. The Russian Mir was not only markedly different to western rural social organisation prior to industrialisation but even to the Ukraine.

[Invictus_88]

Why do you assume that? Rural England, as far as I can tell, seems to have historically tended toward extended families, with uncles and aunts all living in close proximity. Given how little people tended to move about before the industrial revolution, I can't quite envisage space for a nuclear "mom/pop/kid1/kid2" type separation.

It's natural that there would have been a great deal of difference locally and internationally with respect to family arrangements, but I can't think of a time or place when the natural arrangement was something so isolated as the post-industrialised nuclear family.

[Melodramatic]

I doubt it. Hate seems to be reserved for conservatives...

If these do not reflect your views than you are more than qualified to answer my question.

Oh, ok. I don't care .

I mean, whatever works man...

do you think the world would be better off if families in the traditional sense didn’t exist?

No. its not a problem in any way, some people obviously like living that way...

[redcarpet]

It's part of the mythology of Victorian values so I oppose it as a nonsense, unjust, social policy.

[Vera Politica]

The extended household is preferable to the nuclear household, although I imagine the latter is more common among the middle class, especially the professional middle class (who obtain education and work, often, in another city or country from where they grew up).
The extended household is still the best economic and social unit (in today's economy) as it often obviates the need for daycare, can bring in 3-4 incomes, etc. It is the usual model found among 1st and 2nd generation immigrants, but does not last long (esp. if the family pushes for education and professionalism). I've only experienced the extended household (parents + grandparents + uncle w/ sister) and the non-traditional household (single mother). The former confers many advantages but I think you would be hard pressed to find anyone who thinks that non-traditional structures are ipso facto undesirable. They can be desirable in many cases (say there is an abusive relationship in a nuclear structure, etc.)

[yiwahikanak]

I am a huge proponent of traditional Cree kinship systems (our traditional family), and I believe that extended family ties are both healthy and necessary and can be beneficial even to non-aboriginal peoples

[Imperial Spaghetti]

The extended household is preferable to the nuclear household, although I imagine the latter is more common among the middle class, especially the professional middle class (who obtain education and work, often, in another city or country from where they grew up).
The extended household is still the best economic and social unit (in today's economy) as it often obviates the need for daycare, can bring in 3-4 incomes, etc. It is the usual model found among 1st and 2nd generation immigrants, but does not last long (esp. if the family pushes for education and professionalism). I've only experienced the extended household (parents + grandparents + uncle w/ sister) and the non-traditional household (single mother). The former confers many advantages but I think you would be hard pressed to find anyone who thinks that non-traditional structures are ipso facto undesirable. They can be desirable in many cases (say there is an abusive relationship in a nuclear structure, etc.)

I agree with this. I think we need to look beyond traditional family structure (nuclear) and create networks of support that would expand the possibility of escaping the dysfunctional nuclear structure. I think people in developed countries have realized this, and this is why there's "military wives' club" for those who are married to military men and have to move every 2-3 years. In any place they go, they find military families in the same conditions who can offer help and support to each other. I think this is the modern concept of "extended family"--the latter being associated more with poverty and lack of a choice. On the other hand, the concept of "social network of support" indicates that it is a conscious choice of people to band together and be one "extended family." They don't necessarily have to live in the same house, but maybe be in the same neighborhood or have regular meetings to share experiences and solve common problems.

I am a huge proponent of traditional Cree kinship systems (our traditional family), and I believe that extended family ties are both healthy and necessary and can be beneficial even to non-aboriginal peoples

The people I consider my family don't share my genes, and yet they are more important than most of my kin. I agree that we should have extended family ties, but it doesn't have to be family in the strictly consanguineous sense.

[yiwahikanak]

The people I consider my family don't share my genes, and yet they are more important than most of my kin. I agree that we should have extended family ties, but it doesn't have to be family in the strictly consanguineous sense.

Agreed, though kinship need not be limited to blood relations anyway.

In the 'modern' sense, 'family' is more like 'community' anyway. imo.

[Drlee]

The vast majority of conservative thinkers and intellectuals have said yes, and have provided strong arguments to support their assessments.

Interesting. I would dispute both of these assertions. I do not think that the vast majority of "conservative thinkers" believe that liberals hate the traditional family. It may also come as a surprise to you just how many 'intellectuals' ARE liberal and I doubt you would find many of them who "hate the traditional family".

Now you will find a lot of folks like Coulter, Hannity, Beck, Palin and O'rielly who have this belief but I would not classify any of them as a "conservative thinker". The notion that any of these clowns is an intellectual is actually sort of funny. They are talented entertainers employed in the entertainment industry. No more. And they know it. What is sad is that so many so-called conservatives don't.

[JMak00]

Funny how quickly some people glommed on to a totally inaccurate and slanderous description of conservatives and then furthered by citing non-existant hypocrisy. So quick people are to deliberately misrepresent what those they disagree with believe...and for what? What was so difficult in rejecting the premise of the OP's post?

[Kev]

I do not hate the traditional family but it is neither "normal" nor the only type of family that exist. Even when it does exist it is not always "Leave It To Beaver". Having grown up in one, I can fully attest to that. Besides all that, if you look at the animal kingdom, few species exist where a male and a female are mates for life.

[Demosthenes]

I'm not a liberal, though I'm mistaken as one by those of little understanding often enough. I'm also both of the criteria listed.

The real issue is a conservative straw man. "Hayuck, yuck, yuck, Them damn lib'ruls just hate the family!" What does this even mean really? Liberals hate the family? Does it mean you're supposed to hate your own kids? WTF? Really?

They hate... families? Is there no end to the straw men conservatives will try to build to justify their raping of all things? That's all this is, one giant straw man. The only reason they get away with this is because people fall for their little rhetorical traps by trying to justify their own stances, which, no matter well impassioned always end up seeming defensive and hollow.

No, the conservatives need to answer the question as to why they hate babies, and eat them all the time. They've been regularly caught with steak sauce. They are regularly seen with top chefs throughout the land. We know babies disappear all the time in their districts, it's high time someone took them to task for eating all these missing babies!

Come on conservatives, own up, you love eating babies don't you? Why?

[Publicola]

The vast majority of conservative thinkers and intellectuals have said yes, and have provided strong arguments to support their assessments.

I recognize and instantly dismiss this mindless bait.

However, I had an interesting discussion recently regarding corporate personhood that ties in to the economics of the argument.

The "person" status artificially conferred to corporations by conservatives and right-wing judicial activism is diminishing the personhood of natural persons. By giving legal fictions such as corporations the "right" to free speech, privacy and all the access to Congress they can afford, the vox populi is drowned out of the political process. A sort of guns or butter argument.

Here's my point: Does elevating the status of your fellow man to "brother" in any way diminish the natural familial status of your real brother? Does it "cost" your family anything to respect and care for others?

I suggest the opposite is true.

Carol Gilligan has demonstrated the higher level of caring that you extend beyond your family is really just maturity in relational ethics. The care and respect you have for your real brother finds its way into every other relationship you have.

Not surprisingly, caring for your fellow man is a correlation of how much you really care about your family.

[Res Ipsa Loquitur]

It's not that liberals seek the destruction of the traditional family, it is that liberals oppose government intervention to restrict the individual. A natural by-product of this position is irreverence in the traditional family.

I'm for abortion and for gay marriage. I really have yet to find any credence in the arguments against this topics.

[Drlee]

It's not that liberals seek the destruction of the traditional family, it is that liberals oppose government intervention to restrict the individual. A natural by-product of this position is irreverence in the traditional family.

I wouldn't think so. I would rather say that, for the modern liberal, respects the traditional family at least as much if not more than many conservatives do. I would cite as my proof the fact that the liberal wants to extend to the gay person the rights and privileges of marriage allowing them live the life of the traditional family. If the liberal did not respect the traditional family he/she would work to eliminate it not to expand it.

I'm for abortion and for gay marriage. I really have yet to find any credence in the arguments against this topics.

I am against abortion. I believe that often having an abortion is a tragic event in the life of the woman who has it. Countless women on both sides of the issue affirm this. And, as tragic as abortion sometimes is, I also believe it is none of the government's business. Therefor I support a woman's right to choose.

As a old time conservative I was for years opposed to gay marriage. I am with you though. I couldn't figure out a single good reason to deny gay people the right to marry. As a conservative with a libertarian bent (not a Randroad or one of the corporatists masquerading as libertarians - liberal republican is more to the point perhaps) I want the individual right to self-expression to trump most other considerations.

There is not enough love in the world that we should ban it by federal law.

[franfran]

The vast majority of conservative thinkers and intellectuals have said yes, and have provided strong arguments to support their assessments.

If they come out with that sort of crap, I would suggest that they are not intellectuals nor are they capable of much in the way of thinking. they are merely propogandists distorting facts to further their own cause. Is Glenn Beck one of your "intellectuals"? And as for them providing "strong arguments", is that the best they can do - don't they have any facts?

You are more likely going to find conservatives that want to preserve the status quo because, after all, they are conservative, aren't they........

Anti-Gay marriage

While I don't have a problem with gays and lesbians wanting to have their relationships recognised and having similar rights and privileges to opposite-sex couples, I'm a bit ambivalent on the question of whether the term "marriage" should be used, so I suppose I'm half conservative half liberal on that one.

Anti-abortion

Yes, I am anti-abortion, although I do think that you can't rule it out altogether as there may occasionally be circumstances where it should be an option. It shouldn't be considered as an alternative sort of birth control method though.

"It's time we put God back in *insert country here*."

This is absolutely ridiculous. Do people that say this really believe it, are they just trying to gain support of religious zealots, or are they religious zealots themselves? You can't make people religious, they have to become religious of their own accord. You can encourage people to be religious but you can't, in a Westernnation at least, force them to be religious. God belongs in the hearts of people, not in a country. The only countries I can think of that have successfully done this are certain Islamic republics that are frequently in the news. Is this your model for the future United States?

[Drlee]

God belongs in the hearts of people, not in a country.

Amen. And God in their hearts informs their political views to some extent. It is not preferable or even necessary to introduce God into the political arena. If the people are religious, and if those people hold real franchise, then he is already there. When the founders (frail and fallible as the knew they were) put in the bit about "Congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion" they had this first and foremost in their hearts. They did not need an official church like the one from which they had just severed themselves.

[Texpat]

Acceptable liberal families include:

The Starbucks gang
Must include six minorities, a handicapped, four registered sex offenders and a creepy tattooed guy in a beret.

The band
Four guitar players, a flutist and one guy who knows what a French horn is.

Friends Sitcom krewe
A gaggle of ultra cool hipsters who don't have siblings, parents or coworkers.

Reject the traditional family -- they're just using you!

[Rei Murasame]

Wow, speak of topic necromancy, I never expected to see this one come back.

What's encouraging is that basically everyone rejected the ideas put forward in the OP, and acknowledged the potential wholesomeness of every different kind of family. So despite any other disagreement, it seems that everyone agrees that families exist, and not just one type of family.