Secular arguments for social conservatism

[The Rich Port]

Nope. Nuclear families are an invention of the 1950s.

The traditional family that has existed for most of human history is the extended family.

Uncles, aunts, cousins, grandparents, family friends, all should participate in the raising of children. Child raising is a numbers game. The more people there are to take the burden of a child, the better it is for the child.

You do make a good point.

"It takes a village" came from when societies revolved around small farming villages. The Village Elders of any type bestowed their wisdom upon the young. Many of the Village Elders were the Grandparents of the kids. Extended families definitely fall under the "Family Comes First" idea for me. Just wish more of them got involved nowadays. Teamwork makes the dream work!

Sadly.

Work is more important than learning or love these days.

Best get to it. Without money you are not free in America.

[Bear Stearns]

Nope. Nuclear families are an invention of the 1950s.

The traditional family that has existed for most of human history is the extended family.

Uncles, aunts, cousins, grandparents, family friends, all should participate in the raising of children. Child raising is a numbers game. The more people there are to take the burden of a child, the better it is for the child.

You do make a good point.

"It takes a village" came from when societies revolved around small farming villages. The Village Elders of any type bestowed their wisdom upon the young. Many of the Village Elders were the Grandparents of the kids. Extended families definitely fall under the "Family Comes First" idea for me. Just wish more of them got involved nowadays. Teamwork makes the dream work!

Rather modern-looking nuclear families were a thing in medieval England, France, and Germany. People in settled agricultural societies are not raised by "village elders".

[Concejos Unidos]

I actually like the modern atomisation of society, tbh.

Historically, people relied heavily on their family and community to provide for them, which also meant that they often had heavy obligations to that family and community. It was - and in those parts of the world where state power is weak, still is - common for family to dictate almost every aspect of a person’s life from what sort of education they will receive (if any), who they will marry to continue the family line with, which profession they will pursue in life, etc. If you were ostracised from family and community for whatever reason, well then, good luck with the rest of your sure to be miserable life.

Today, however, while a child still needs parental care, an adult citizen in a high-income democracy rarely needs their family and community. Sure, it is still emotionally healthy to have people you can fall back on and have close ties to, but push comes to shove the police will protect your safety and the free market - or failing that, social security - will put food on the table. And the state is not interested in dictating every aspect of my life; it just wants me to pay taxes and obey the law.

Today, people still have families, but they have families because they want to, not because they need to.

Right-libertarian types often envision the state as being the primary inhibitor of freedom, but I hold the opposite view. The atomisation of modern society and the increased power of the state is arguably one of the greatest things ever to happen for individual liberty.

The key element really, is just being able to choose your community, not really about abolishing the community. And I don't see any positives in the loss of social group identities and their replacement with identities as neoliberal state subjects.

[The Rich Port]

I actually like the modern atomisation of society, tbh.

Historically, people relied heavily on their family and community to provide for them, which also meant that they often had heavy obligations to that family and community. It was - and in those parts of the world where state power is weak, still is - common for family to dictate almost every aspect of a person’s life from what sort of education they will receive (if any), who they will marry to continue the family line with, which profession they will pursue in life, etc. If you were ostracised from family and community for whatever reason, well then, good luck with the rest of your sure to be miserable life.

Today, however, while a child still needs parental care, an adult citizen in a high-income democracy rarely needs their family and community. Sure, it is still emotionally healthy to have people you can fall back on and have close ties to, but push comes to shove the police will protect your safety and the free market - or failing that, social security - will put food on the table. And the state is not interested in dictating every aspect of my life; it just wants me to pay taxes and obey the law.

Today, people still have families, but they have families because they want to, not because they need to.

Right-libertarian types often envision the state as being the primary inhibitor of freedom, but I hold the opposite view. The atomisation of modern society and the increased power of the state is arguably one of the greatest things ever to happen for individual liberty.

I mean... To be fair to the people over-reacting.

Do we actually have the choice to start a family? You still need a lot of money to start a family. Even if you wanted to, you migh not be able to anyway.

[Risottia]

Nope. Nuclear families are an invention of the 1950s. industrial revolution

When people leave the huge spaces available in rural settings to concentrate in high-density areas and don't need to operate a farm, you get the nuclear family. It happened and it is still happening at different speed all over the world.

[Australian rePublic]

The nuclear family isn't really that traditional imo.

Nope. Nuclear families are an invention of the 1950s.

The traditional family that has existed for most of human history is the extended family.

Uncles, aunts, cousins, grandparents, family friends, all should participate in the raising of children. Child raising is a numbers game. The more people there are to take the burden of a child, the better it is for the child.

Facinating. Well, the pre-1950's style isn't a bad idea

[Molither]

As an openly Gay dude, I guess I could argue that many of my compatriots engage in risky behaviour from a public health standpoint.

However the solution is integration rather than stigmatisation. As someone who is generally Conservative I think there is a case for secular law to offer the protection of same sex relationships, as monogamy in all its forms has been shown to be deeply beneficial.

Regarding other issues when it comes to social conservatism, such as public nudity, you could argue it violates social cohesion and causes disharmony. There is also no scientific consensus for what is and isn't moral, it's more of a philosophical one. So you could be irreligious and heavily opposed to abortion.

[Australian rePublic]

Public nudity could be a public health issue. You, at very least, need to cover your arse, because you don't know how well the previous person has wiped theirs

[The Rich Port]

Nope. Nuclear families are an invention of the 1950s. industrial revolution

When people leave the huge spaces available in rural settings to concentrate in high-density areas and don't need to operate a farm, you get the nuclear family. It happened and it is still happening at different speed all over the world.

Most of human history still stands

[Hukhalia]

As an openly Gay dude, I guess I could argue that many of my compatriots engage in risky behaviour from a public health standpoint.

However the solution is integration rather than stigmatisation. As someone who is generally Conservative I think there is a case for secular law to offer the protection of same sex relationships, as monogamy in all its forms has been shown to be deeply beneficial.

Regarding other issues when it comes to social conservatism, such as public nudity, you could argue it violates social cohesion and causes disharmony. There is also no scientific consensus for what is and isn't moral, it's more of a philosophical one. So you could be irreligious and heavily opposed to abortion.

au contraire i'd say focusing on assimilation rather than confrontation is the biggest mistake of the lgbt movement in decades

[Tee Googly Coffee Me]

Conversations about how bad single parenthood is and how people need two (usually male and female) parents to be normal or more successful are demoralizing to hear as a child of a single parent especially when there was no say in my father becoming a single parent. People die. Sometimes a parent will die and leave a single parent behind. Was my father a bad person or doing wrong by his kids by not remarrying just for the sake of having a more traditional looking nuclear family? I'd assume that nobody would say yes to that but then why even be so impassioned about how single motherhood fucking up kids. It's much more situational than just "single parent bad two parent better"

[Ethel mermania]

Conversations about how bad single parenthood is and how people need two (usually male and female) parents to be normal or more successful are demoralizing to hear as a child of a single parent especially when there was no say in my father becoming a single parent. People die. Sometimes a parent will die and leave a single parent behind. Was my father a bad person or doing wrong by his kids by not remarrying just for the sake of having a more traditional looking nuclear family? I'd assume that nobody would say yes to that but then why even be so impassioned about how single motherhood fucking up kids. It's much more situational than just "single parent bad two parent better"

Its sad that it happens but it's true kids do better if two parents are around rather than just one. The rates of poverty are higher, and particularly in poor families the outcomes for the kids are far worse than kids with rich single parents.

One of the downfalls of the current climate is the reluctance to speak things that are unpleasant but obviously true.

[Uawc]

i think i threw up in my mouth a little. this is horrifying.

the atomized soy society you worship has history's highest rates of suicide, obesity, drug overdoses, mental illness, loneliness, and divorce. And the state absolutely dictates many aspects of your life. It's usually outsourced to corporations so you do not perceive it.

Your worldview is dsytopian and very anti-human.

He's right though. I don't agree with the dissolution of the family unit - it is sickening - but he is correct about the modern state of affairs in this regard. It's the way things are now, and there are positive and negative consequences. It's true that a democratic state will offer the individual more freedom than the family unit in the context of many cultures, but I see this as a cultural problem rather than a case for dissolving the family.

[Moroniland]

The nuclear family idea was more like a minimum viable product for avoiding the absolute hell that liberal social policies cause. Past societies had larger family structures, not single mothers raising gangstas in the inner city to feed the prison system.

[Moroniland]

I don't regard such as "marriage", but then straight people have made a mockery of marriage with divorce rates through the roof. Say, a 5 time divorcee bashing a gay couple for making a mockery of marriage is the height of hypocrisy, imo.

Oh absolutely.

When people ask me what my political goal is, I feel like Jack Nicholson playing the Joker in the 1989 Batman film being asked what it is he wants. He replies, "My face on the one dollar bill." Something silly and ridiculous, that would never happen. That's what my political goal is like: I want to ban no-fault divorce and re-introduce blue laws.

Things have gone completely nuts and we have to back up a really long ways to return to sanity at this point. But the world is so upside down that basic sanity now sounds crazy.

[Kowani]

The nuclear family idea was more like a minimum viable product for avoiding the absolute hell that liberal social policies cause. Past societies had larger family structures, not single mothers raising gangstas in the inner city to feed the prison system.

It is incredible how the “secular argument for conservatism” eventually just devolves into [racial dogwhistle] but you don’t even have the history right

[Myrensis]

The nuclear family idea was more like a minimum viable product for avoiding the absolute hell that liberal social policies cause. Past societies had larger family structures, not single mothers raising gangstas in the inner city to feed the prison system.

The concept of the nuclear family predates conservatives hitting on the idea of the 'War on Drugs' as a means of getting as many black men as possible out of the voting booths and into the prisons.

[The Alma Mater]

Nope. Nuclear families are an invention of the 1950s.

The traditional family that has existed for most of human history is the extended family.

Uncles, aunts, cousins, grandparents, family friends, all should participate in the raising of children. Child raising is a numbers game. The more people there are to take the burden of a child, the better it is for the child.

Facinating. Well, the pre-1950's style isn't a bad idea

Group marriages ftw ?

[Bear Stearns]

Conversations about how bad single parenthood is and how people need two (usually male and female) parents to be normal or more successful are demoralizing to hear as a child of a single parent especially when there was no say in my father becoming a single parent. People die. Sometimes a parent will die and leave a single parent behind. Was my father a bad person or doing wrong by his kids by not remarrying just for the sake of having a more traditional looking nuclear family? I'd assume that nobody would say yes to that but then why even be so impassioned about how single motherhood fucking up kids. It's much more situational than just "single parent bad two parent better"

widowers are not usually considered the same as single parents

[Bear Stearns]

Nope. Nuclear families are an invention of the 1950s.

The traditional family that has existed for most of human history is the extended family.

Uncles, aunts, cousins, grandparents, family friends, all should participate in the raising of children. Child raising is a numbers game. The more people there are to take the burden of a child, the better it is for the child.

Facinating. Well, the pre-1950's style isn't a bad idea

nuclear families have existed since the middle ages. the type of family structure you're talking about only existed in pre-industrial, barely agricultural societies

[Bear Stearns]

While that is a lovely thought most of the religious folks are opposed.

I don't regard such as "marriage", but then straight people have made a mockery of marriage with divorce rates through the roof. Say, a 5 time divorcee bashing a gay couple for making a mockery of marriage is the height of hypocrisy, imo.

Sort of. Modern divorce rates are an absolutely travesty and have been disastrous for society. However homosexuals are typically very hypergamous so it's not like they're forming stable relationships either.

[The Alma Mater]

I don't regard such as "marriage", but then straight people have made a mockery of marriage with divorce rates through the roof. Say, a 5 time divorcee bashing a gay couple for making a mockery of marriage is the height of hypocrisy, imo.

Sort of. Modern divorce rates are an absolutely travesty and have been disastrous for society. However homosexuals are typically very hypergamous so it's not like they're forming stable relationships either.

"Internet king of gays" Takei has been with his partner for 35 years or so - pretty stable.

And perhaps forbidding people to marry and publicly denouncing them for showing affection, let alone living together etc. was the true cause of many gays being hypergamous. A bit hard to form a stable relationship if society forbids it.

[Bear Stearns]

Sort of. Modern divorce rates are an absolutely travesty and have been disastrous for society. However homosexuals are typically very hypergamous so it's not like they're forming stable relationships either.

"Internet king of gays" Takei has been with his partner for 35 years or so - pretty stable.

le star trek man reference. what else should i have expected?

And perhaps forbidding people to marry and publicly denouncing them for showing affection, let alone living together etc. was the true cause of many gays being hypergamous. A bit hard to form a stable relationship if society forbids it.

Except the hypergamy is pretty much the same whether it be in Sweden, Brooklyn, or Iran.

[The Alma Mater]

"Internet king of gays" Takei has been with his partner for 35 years or so - pretty stable.

le star trek man reference. what else should i have expected?

And perhaps forbidding people to marry and publicly denouncing them for showing affection, let alone living together etc. was the true cause of many gays being hypergamous. A bit hard to form a stable relationship if society forbids it.

Except the hypergamy is pretty much the same whether it be in Sweden, Brooklyn, or Iran.

And how long have gay marriages been legal in all those places ?
Heck, even in the first country to legalise it in 2001 there is still significant pushback from society.

[Diarcesia]

The nuclear family idea was more like a minimum viable product for avoiding the absolute hell that liberal social policies cause. Past societies had larger family structures, not single mothers raising gangstas in the inner city to feed the prison system.

It is incredible how the “secular argument for conservatism” eventually just devolves into [racial dogwhistle] but you don’t even have the history right

idk but shoehorning a race into "single mothers raising gangstas" is rather stereotypical. It's more of a socioeconomic issue...

On the other hand, advocating for maintaining an ethnically homogeneous society can be used as a secular argument for social conservatism.