Children deserve to have mom and dad together in the same home.
Statistics consistently show that children reared in a home with both parents have a greater probability for academic, financial, and social success. They are happier and healthier, with the added benefit that their parents also tend to be happier, healthier, more prosperous, and longer-lived. All kids and all families, no matter their structure, require and deserve support, but the plain fact is that the traditional nuclear family is the best environment to ensure the prosperity of the next generation.
Despite this evidence, the open attack on the traditional family continues apace. The widely-discussed antipathy of the Black Lives Matter organization toward the nuclear family (a view that should not be construed to be shared by the larger protest movement) is a prominent but hardly unique example of this. In fact, it is important to note that the harshest attacks against the nuclear family come from some of its greatest beneficiaries, upper-class white individuals.
The developing trend of single co-parenting is a good example of this. The New York Post explains:
The concept is simple: Two strangers who want kids, but don’t have partners, team up to have and raise a child together. There’s even a TV show, Fox’s “Labor of Love,” in which suitors compete to be co-parent to a former “The Bachelor” contestant; the finale airs July 16. The unusual arrangement is drawing so much interest, there’s now a slew of co-parenting websites, including Modamily, CoParents.com, Pollen Tree and Pride Angel.
It’s a movement that acknowledges the importance of having two parents, but denies that those parents require any actual relationship to each other. For the child born in this arrangement, the parents essentially come pre-divorced.
In a sense, this is a natural development for a culture that will do anything to pretend that the basic nuclear family is dispensable. It recognizes the need for two parents for child support and training, but reduces the relationship of the parents to that of a business transaction.
Inasmuch as an arrangement like this works at all, it only works when both parents are financially prosperous. Single co-parenting is a luxury of the wealthy. However, promotion of this and other, similarly non-traditional concepts requires the progressive movement to continue to undermine the principle of the nuclear family to justify their own choices. Indeed, campaigns like the Family Story Project see that nuclear families provide better environments for rearing children and conclude that the proper response is to destroy those benefits rather than seek to allow more to benefit from them.
This attack manifests itself in a culture and a social structure that dismisses and disincentivizes families. It promotes love without commitment and freedom without responsibility, and then reels in surprise when people who exercise these principles to the detriment of the family find themselves further behind than those who do not. The damage is felt most acutely by families in difficult socio-economic positions, families that are disproportionately people of color.
Nothing better insulates a child from poverty and ensures their future prosperity more than growing up in a nuclear family. It is an ironic form of privilege that people who have the wealth to overcome the disadvantages present in non-traditional families promote a culture that would deny the advantages of such families to those lacking such wealth.