Obama and the breakdown of marriage


#1

creators.com/conservative...07-02-16.html#

"If Sen. Obama spoke more about the troubled state of marriage and its consequences, if he acknowledged that the absence of fathers was the single most important factor in explaining persistent poverty among blacks, if he understood that the traditional family is becoming an endangered institution, perhaps he'd have something new to say to the American people.

Instead, he's chosen the safer political path. He talks about racial healing, ending partisan bickering and providing universal health care. But he ignores the single most pressing social issue of our day — and one on which he could speak with some authority: the breakdown in family." - Linda Chavez


#2

[quote="ManOnFire, post:1, topic:253618"]
creators.com/conservative...07-02-16.html#

"If Sen. Obama spoke more about the troubled state of marriage and its consequences, if he acknowledged that the absence of fathers was the single most important factor in explaining persistent poverty among blacks, if he understood that the traditional family is becoming an endangered institution, perhaps he'd have something new to say to the American people.

Instead, he's chosen the safer political path. He talks about racial healing, ending partisan bickering and providing universal health care. But he ignores the single most pressing social issue of our day — and one on which he could speak with some authority: the breakdown in family." - Linda Chavez

[/quote]

I agree with all here. The thing that bothers me is couples having children without being married and everyone thinking it's okay. Marriage is most sacred.

Fathers should stand up to their responsibilities but if they are absent, I would think they aren't ready for it, or should not be forced (and I know you didn't say that) and doing something that has to do with being an adult. Oh, I think I said that twice. I will say that married couples are becoming obsolete. And it should be addressed.

Love ya'll,
Sheila


#3

The divorce rates in this country have been rising since the 1960's. Why is this being laid at President Obama's door?


#4

Because he’s the president right now and he promised “change.”


#5

[quote="SouthCatholic, post:3, topic:253618"]
The divorce rates in this country have been rising since the 1960's. Why is this being laid at President Obama's door?

[/quote]

Agree. In fact one could probably argue that the lack of proper teaching and training of lay Catholics after Vatican II is the reason for the rise in Catholic divorce.

However based upon the OPs signature this was probably a forwarded email from some right wing blog...

Christ would have been for universal health care along with traditional marriage :)

I could change my signature to Morally conservative, pro-life, HLS Catholic, Fiscal liberal but then I would just alienate everyone when trying to have discussions! Of course if the Pope listed his political views they would be similar and I'm perfectly ok with that even if I have no political party in the US anymore. The best political reality for our nation is sadly not represented by either political party... at least that's my opinion

Joe


#6

[quote="ManOnFire, post:1, topic:253618"]
creators.com/conservative...07-02-16.html#

"If Sen. Obama spoke more about the troubled state of marriage and its consequences, if he acknowledged that the absence of fathers was the single most important factor in explaining persistent poverty among blacks, if he understood that the traditional family is becoming an endangered institution, perhaps he'd have something new to say to the American people.

Instead, he's chosen the safer political path. He talks about racial healing, ending partisan bickering and providing universal health care. But he ignores the single most pressing social issue of our day — and one on which he could speak with some authority: the breakdown in family." - Linda Chavez

[/quote]

The link is broken. Please provide one for I am too much interested on the subject.


#7

[quote="ManOnFire, post:1, topic:253618"]
creators.com/conservative...07-02-16.html#

"If Sen. Obama spoke more about the troubled state of marriage and its consequences, if he acknowledged that the absence of fathers was the single most important factor in explaining persistent poverty among blacks, if he understood that the traditional family is becoming an endangered institution, perhaps he'd have something new to say to the American people.

Instead, he's chosen the safer political path. He talks about racial healing, ending partisan bickering and providing universal health care. But he ignores the single most pressing social issue of our day — and one on which he could speak with some authority: the breakdown in family." - Linda Chavez

[/quote]

Not 'hoping' for things to 'change' any time soon. :(

The fact that people can still lull themselves into thinking Jesus would have 'favored' universal health care (Ie: rendering unto Caesar that which is God's) proves my point.

The minute you give that power to Caesar he will abuse it. That is the venue of the individual and the church. Even the CCC states this. Why do people cherry-pick these things?

Why is this being laid at the current admin's door? Which previous admin came out in bold support of homosexual 'marriage?'

If that fact doesn't contribute not only to the breakdown of marriage, but the breakdown of meaning itself, I don't know what does.


#8

[quote="ManOnFire, post:1, topic:253618"]
creators.com/conservative...07-02-16.html#

"If Sen. Obama spoke more about the troubled state of marriage and its consequences, if he acknowledged that the absence of fathers was the single most important factor in explaining persistent poverty among blacks, if he understood that the traditional family is becoming an endangered institution, perhaps he'd have something new to say to the American people.

Instead, he's chosen the safer political path. He talks about racial healing, ending partisan bickering and providing universal health care. But he ignores the single most pressing social issue of our day — and one on which he could speak with some authority: the breakdown in family." - Linda Chavez

[/quote]

I can't really remember a time when any President spoke of this in any sort of depth. I think they all mention it in passing from time to time.

[quote="randirhoades, post:2, topic:253618"]
I agree with all here. The thing that bothers me is couples having children without being married and everyone thinking it's okay. Marriage is most sacred.

Sheila

[/quote]

I agree completely here and it isn't just a particular race here either, its everyone. I know many well to do white females (and males) having children outside of wedlock. It is great they are all having the child, but it is depressing that no one thinks twice anymore about how a healthy marriage should come prior to having children. I know about 7 white girls who are pregnant and not married at the moment. All of which come from middle class families (or higher). Sometimes I feel like I am the only who is troubled by this.....

I don't think this is a trend that will get better any time soon. We headed down this path a long time ago and it will take a good deal of time reverse it.


#9

[quote="Sailor_Kenshin, post:7, topic:253618"]
Not 'hoping' for things to 'change' any time soon. :(

The fact that people can still lull themselves into thinking Jesus would have 'favored' universal health care (Ie: rendering unto Caesar that which is God's) proves my point.

The minute you give that power to Caesar he will abuse it. That is the venue of the individual and the church. Even the CCC states this. Why do people cherry-pick these things?

Why is this being laid at the current admin's door? Which previous admin came out in bold support of homosexual 'marriage?'

If that fact doesn't contribute not only to the breakdown of marriage, but the breakdown of meaning itself, I don't know what does.

[/quote]

Is marriage a civil or religious responsibility? A long time ago this responsiblity was given to the state, who issues the required marriage license regardless if the ceremony is civil or religious.

If marriage is a civil right, then the state gets to determine the definition of marriage. One does not have to be Catholic to be an American. Generally we consider a separation of state and churdh to be a good thing. Marriage is being redefined whether we like it or not. There is little worry that the Catholic Church will be required to recognize same sex marriages, just like they don't recognize the validity of a marriage not performed by the Church. The Church cannot be forced to accept same sex marriages, but the Church cannot force the civil state to not accept same sex marriages.

Something else to consider. Which is the lesser of two evils; a single mother with fatherless children to raise, or two women in a committed relationship to raise those children? A child raised in a series of foster homes or an orphanage, or a child adopted and raised by two men in a legal relationship? You may not like either choice, but assume that those are your only choices. You do not have the ability to force two people to marry against their will, so don't say that there is a third option where the parent enters a heterosexual marriage.


#10

Because everything’s his fault. Just like everything was Bush’s fault when he was in office. Presidents are supposed to have a magic wand - if they would just wave it, and say the right incantation, the divorce rate would plunge overnight.


#11

did obama over promise? yes, i think he would agree with that. but, i was under the impression the change he meant specifically was to special interest groups, deregulation in various areas, and stop tax cuts to the wealthiest 3%... one president is not enough and 4 years are certainly not long enough to change the culture in washington. i'm not suggesting a re-election (clam down)
i don't remember hearing he would change divorce rate. but, i vaguely remember he did speak to black fathers, specifically, on the first father's day after his election, to be a present figure in the kid's lives.
what person decides to support or be against gay marriage because the president supports it? don't we all know how we feel about it with out the influence of the president? we as parents are more influential in our homes than the president so i don't really care how he feels about it.

i definitely think divorce or children out of wedlock has more to do with up bringing in the nucleus rather than obama's failure to address it.


#12

If you want to look for the root cause of failed marriages, look no further than artificial contraception.

The widespread acceptance and use of artificial contraception has created a culture of recreational sex on demand. This culture of unbridled sexual activity has naturally resulted in porn addiction, disease, homosexuality, a whole race of children growing up in families without fathers, not to mention the conditions which cause the demand for abortions. Destroyed families, ruined lives and butchered children are the fruit of it all.

The root cause of all these ills is artificial contraception. Quite frankly, Catholics who use or council the use of artificial contraception yet know better bear the brunt of the blame for all these problems.

I'm under no pretense about the likelyhood of reversing the trend. Personally, I think it will take divine intervention - and that prospect scares me.

-Tim-


#13

[quote="SouthCatholic, post:3, topic:253618"]
The divorce rates in this country have been rising since the 1960's. Why is this being laid at President Obama's door?

[/quote]

I believe the author's point was that if President Obama sincerely cared about marriage, then his own experience makes his marrriage an example of a success story after his childhood did not know a stable marriage. He could have used his story for good, but he didn't. Why wouldn't he be a good role model for people if he has the opportunity? I believe that's the author's point. The breakdown of the family leads to socialism. Hmm. Maybe the elitists who put him there are socialists.... See the contradiction?


#14

This president has never hidden his support for abortion, redistribution of wealth, and homosexual 'marriage.'

Yet Catholics enthusiastically voted for him. When will Catholics read their own CCC and start voting like them?


#15

[quote="jwashu, post:5, topic:253618"]
Agree. In fact one could probably argue that the lack of proper teaching and training of lay Catholics after Vatican II is the reason for the rise in Catholic divorce.

[/quote]

I have to agree. If the Catholic Church would do a better job in there schools and pre-canna classes, the divorce rate among Catholics would plummet, which would be a living example for non-Catholics to follow. We set the bar. If we think we're the best, then it's our job to set the example. Look no further than the fact that the majorityof Catholics either 1) don't know what NFP is, or 2) think NFP is the old rhythm method for your proof that the pre-canna classes are lacking in its objective.

It's getting old reading about how everything under the sun is either Obama's fault, or hasn't been fixed by him. What he can't change is people's minds. People don't take marriage seriously, as evidenced by the high divorce rate. That's not something new since his administration.


#16

[quote="ManOnFire, post:13, topic:253618"]
I believe the author's point was that if President Obama sincerely cared about marriage, then his own experience makes his marrriage an example of a success story after his childhood did not know a stable marriage. He could have used his story for good, but he didn't. Why wouldn't he be a good role model for people if he has the opportunity? I believe that's the author's point. The breakdown of the family leads to socialism. Hmm. Maybe the elitists who put him there are socialists.... See the contradiction?

[/quote]

The First Family is a postive rolemodel.


#17

[quote="jwashu, post:5, topic:253618"]
Agree. In fact one could probably argue that the lack of proper teaching and training of lay Catholics after Vatican II is the reason for the rise in Catholic divorce.

However based upon the OPs signature this was probably a forwarded email from some right wing blog...

Christ would have been for universal health care along with traditional marriage :)

I could change my signature to Morally conservative, pro-life, HLS Catholic, Fiscal liberal but then I would just alienate everyone when trying to have discussions! Of course if the Pope listed his political views they would be similar and I'm perfectly ok with that even if I have no political party in the US anymore. The best political reality for our nation is sadly not represented by either political party... at least that's my opinion

Joe

[/quote]

Creators.com home page has several buttons: "Liberal opinion," "Conservative opinion." You can click on both for perspective, so it's not a right wing blog. Susan Estridge is one of the liberal contributors. She has appeared on Fox, which is at least making attempts to show other perspectives. The other TV stations don't want to risk opening people's minds to conservative family values perspectives which attempt to more closely preserve the beauty of innocence. Liberal media oppresses the poor with messages of lust, drugs, and violence which breaks up true love and calls in the govt to help lend a hand after the weakened dad shuns the responsibility. They create the cycle of the breakdown of marriage, then they get elected to "help." It's self-serving for them. Look at all the people who honestly believe they are "helping." They are mostly "helping" to grow more weakened people who need more taxpayer money. I don't expect honest imrovement on the present course. Church values are dead for many people. The secular media creates the culture which is increasing the numbers of dependents. The facts support this trend.

Should we have "universal food distribution" "universal home construction" "universal plumbing" also? Socialism has been aroung for 500 years and it has yet to work. I agree that there is room for improvement, but if you think you wait long for doctors now, just wait until it becomes a govt bureacracy.

Many moderate democrats and independents can't seem to see how social liberalism is causing the need for fiscal liberalism. The Democratic party is not going to back down from social liberalism. It wants to drive the American family off the cliff and into the need for govt support. Just look at the content in the music, movies, and TV. The Republican party can win the next election by returning us to true, romantic love between man and woman where men are less distracted by the hotties that the social liberals are peddling to us in order to distract us from true love of our wives, to break up the family and need govt support.

If we fill the family love cup first, then we can begin filling the materialism cup second. This will give us the best chance to "have it all." The leftist consumerist media culture has removed romantic love and taught people that life is about the "stuff," while blaming social conservatives who stuck to the rules to fill both cups and "have it all." The media liberals know they control many people's minds. If you're irate when reading this, you've been propagandized by them, because what I say makes sense. The dems won't return to social conservatism to preserve the beauty of innocence. The funny thing is that women could solve this problem by themselves since they are the primary spenders in a household: stop patronizing the instant gratification social liberalism that is causing your man to be distracted from the family!


#18

[quote="Wardog, post:9, topic:253618"]
Is marriage a civil or religious responsibility? A long time ago this responsiblity was given to the state, who issues the required marriage license regardless if the ceremony is civil or religious.

If marriage is a civil right, then the state gets to determine the definition of marriage. One does not have to be Catholic to be an American. Generally we consider a separation of state and churdh to be a good thing. Marriage is being redefined whether we like it or not. There is little worry that the Catholic Church will be required to recognize same sex marriages, just like they don't recognize the validity of a marriage not performed by the Church. The Church cannot be forced to accept same sex marriages, but the Church cannot force the civil state to not accept same sex marriages.
Something else to consider. Which is the lesser of two evils; a single mother with fatherless children to raise, or two women in a committed relationship to raise those children? A child raised in a series of foster homes or an orphanage, or a child adopted and raised by two men in a legal relationship? You may not like either choice, but assume that those are your only choices. You do not have the ability to force two people to marry against their will, so don't say that there is a third option where the parent enters a heterosexual marriage.

[/quote]

Wardog, you appear to be extremely confused, you sound like you think homosexual couples are the ideal in child rearing or at least it is the same as a traditional man-woman couple. You state you are a Roman Catholic; it is time for you to dust off your CCC, if you even have one. Paragraph 2357 states “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.” I would contend that redefining marriage is actually making it something else.

The Catholic Church sees sex (the marital act or coitus) within marriage as its ORDERED purpose. The marital act is basically babies and bounding for the married couple. Society tries to as loudly as possibly tell you otherwise, but that doesn’t mean society is correct. As important as chastity is to marriage, the resulting children from the marital act are arguably more important because they are the next generation. The procreative component of sex is the aspect in question, especially as it relates to the definition of marriage. To deny the natural reproductive purpose of sex is moving toward irrational philosophy and losing touch with reality. While this is the path our society is on which started at legalizing contraception, this doesn’t mean that proper education wouldn’t turn the tide, and that if people who know better, like an educated Catholic, would vote for the lesser of two evils when people are running for elected public office. Keep in mind I am not affiliated with any political party, but I think once democratic Catholics start loving unborn children more than they hate the GOP, abortion will become illegal. So what is your agenda? Apparently it is homosexual marriage by your comments, not Christ’s Kingdom. You need to come to grips with this conflict internally.

We live in a democracy, which means we can vote for the officials who become “the state”. If you know something to be true and good for **all of society **than you should want that to be the laws in place, marriage has always been understood as between a man and a woman for the simple reason that the norm had always previously been children come from marriage. But since the contraceptive culture took over, people have children out of wedlock far too often, which is adding to the confusion or what makes this the Land of Confusion (Genesis, Phil Collins not Adam and Eve). Same sex couples can’t have children, biologically by themselves. That fact is why the Catholic Church has always seen such relationships which are unchaste as intrinsically disordered or unnatural.

THE ROOT of the problem is unchaste living, which has been made much more prevalent by contraception. I would argue that the world would be a better place if everyone was chaste. It would for sure be a lot simpler when describing relationships.

As far as your lesser of two evils rationale: 1 person/parent teaching their children correct morals and understanding of the natural human condition is much more valuable than 2 or 4 or 100 people who are confused themselves. What you are saying is like saying you should take children away from a widow, you aren’t using logic.

Also people do have the option to enter into a (heterosexual) marriage; marriage is always implying between a man and a woman. Only recently people are trying to call same sex relationships marriage, but you can’t physically have children in a same sex so called marriage so it isn’t marriage. How can a couple say they are willing to accept children from God when it is known that it is impossible for them to do so (2 men or 2 women, can’t have children biologically together)? There is no law saying unrelated people have to get married to live together. If you don’t want children don’t get married. If you do, biology class should have taught you where babies come from. While ethics show in an ordered society ideally children should come only from the permanent relationship of marriage. This would be a fact if everyone was chaste.

Somewhere everyone got confused about sex and its connection to procreation. That is what Marriage and Family is, a clear representation of this connection in an ordered way. Catholics remember marriage is a sacrament, you promise fidelity to God and to your spouse. You promise acceptance of children. You can break your vows in ways other than adultery.


#19

I wasn't sure which post to quote, so I just decided not to quote on any. Wile I can't see that obama has done really any good for the country, I can't in good concience lay EVERYTHING at his door -at the same time, the constant refrain of 'this is Bush's fault...' is not a truth either.
As far as the marriage situation goes, the best we can do, I honestly believe is to work on our own families first. I have friends that marvel in wonder that my husband and I have been married 11 years when some of them are on thier 2nd and 3rd marriages and yes some are Catholic. At the same time, I don't think that there is only one cause for the divorce rate and lack of marriage or marriages that last- I don't believe everything can be laid at contraception's door. I love the Catholic church, but I am by no means a 'perfect Catholic' = there are PLENTY of things I disagree with the Catholic Church about and I often have seen Catholic friends wanting to leave the Church - or have already left the Church because there is so much emphasis put on the "laws" - I will forever believe that God made the laws for His children - not the Children for His laws - and with the way I've heard some come out (even on here), I would believe or believe the they really think God is up there, watching down on us and has a book and is writing down anytime someone questions the Catholic Church, commits a sin or does anything remotely wrong. I just have a really hard time believing that God would take so much care and love to create each of us and then treat us like that. The people who have kept me coming back to the Church, even when I'd left for some time are the ones that have shown me God's love and been very loving - not those who constantly pointed out what I was doing was against God's law or was against the "magesterium" -
That's just the way I feel about some of the comments made - I could be completely off the mark and if so, then so be it.

What are we doing to try to help get people to come back to the Church and be more open to marriage? Change won't occur over night - it will occur one person at a time-
God Bless
Rye


#20

[quote="afiala2, post:18, topic:253618"]
Wardog, you appear to be extremely confused, you sound like you think homosexual couples are the ideal in child rearing or at least it is the same as a traditional man-woman couple. You state you are a Roman Catholic; it is time for you to dust off your CCC, if you even have one. Paragraph 2357 states “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.” I would contend that redefining marriage is actually making it something else.

I don't think Wardog is confused at all - I believe he was putting forward that since there are so many children out there who don' t have a family (not talking about widows/widowers here)- and haven't been adopted, which would be better - for them to stay in foster homes or an orphange or to live with two committed people - such as two males or two females? I get the feeling that some might choose the former - but actually knowing an adopted child (who is now an adult), I can garuntee you that this person is thrilled that he had "two mom's" and didn't have to grow up in an orphanage or stay in foster care. Believe it or not, he's even Catholic and engaged.

God Bless
Rye

[/quote]


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.