The base is the individual. I don't believe the government sees marraige as the creation of a new, single entity, just two individuals agreeing to live together and support each other until death do they part. I can't see where any good would come of giving family units rights, or of binding people to family units (infringing upon their individual rights). While I don't think divorce is usually the best answer, I can't see where the government forcing people to live together would help at all. It would be like house arrest and I don't believe that would do anything positive for any family. Sure, Parent A didn't run off to become a rodeo clown, but now they're mean and surly grouching around the house all day, because the government won't let them leave... Families are as individual as the people that make them up. Ultimately, the individual is responsible for themself and their own well being, the same goes for family units. I don't believe the government has any control over the family or its health, but I'm sure there's plenty of ideas out there for how to legislate it :p The same way there's ideas for how to nanny the individual into responsible living. Neither would work, because it's up to the individual and the individual family unit to insure their own well being.

:lol: no kidding :p Okay! I've been using quote fingers, iykwIm, to differentiate. Reading fluently sounds a little more adult ;) thanks!

Many women flush certain things (actually marked "flushable" on the packaging), that's not so flushable with a tank. There've been 'Dear Abby' collumns written on how to broach THAT topic with guests who will be staying over night. :lol: I say, don't think so much about it, I mention it when I tell them that you have to jiggle the handle (oh, and if you needed to flush anything other than t.p., please use one of the bags under the sink and throw it away or the septic will back up).

O/T ----------------------------- I sympathize with the cloth people, if only because I have a septic tank and I've been surprised with the 'ewww! gross!' comments I get about that. Guests, here, are informed that they can't flush anything other than poo and paper, if it's not p.p. then they'll have to go out and fish it out of the tank themselves :D I do supply a trashcan, and even some plastic baggies for the ladies. ----------------------------

I'll look for that at the library Friday. This is what concerns me, you hit it on the head :) He's sounding the words out, saying the words, understanding it, but it's as though he's missing the connection, if that makes sense. He's sounding out little words I write on the wipeoff board one letter at a time (mom, dad, cat, dog, for instance), and he knows what he's saying, but there doesn't seem to be any flash of 'I knew what those letters are saying!' Yes, he's still very little. I encourage, but I'm very good at worrying too :p For right now, we're still going a letter at a time. So, missing words is impossible. I will store away those recommendations for when he's at that point, though. Eta, to say, thanks for heads up (in bold). I look forward to that :) Eta (a second time), to say, I'm such a dunce! You mean that I should not allow him to "read" while we're reading. IOW, no flipping over the book and pretending? I like that idea, it would put a definitive line between reading and "reading." Thank you :) Thanks for the optimism, everyone!

Luke "read" his first book today (Bob book, Mat). He sounded out every word (using the OPGtTR method of uncovering letters one at a time for him to sound them out). He even understood the story, possibly because of the pictures, but it sure seemed like he knew the words he sounded out. Some of the words he would say a second time... "/s/, /a/, /m/, Sam.' What I'm wondering is, first is this really reading? He sounded it out, he understood it, but... it doesn't seem like reading to me :confused: Also, is there a lightbulb that goes off once they realize they can read? He finished the story, flipped the book over and "read" the back cover, the same way he usually "reads" (which means making everything up as he moves his finger across the words). Eventually, he will make the connection and start reading his books, instead of "reading" them, right?

I do that. I've bitten the inside of my cheek bloody to keep from doing that. :( It's tough, other than the rubber band around the wrist thing, or biting his cheek/tongue, I don't have any advice. Sometimes, explaining it helps, of course the sub isn't going to be around enough for it to matter (hopefully), but if it turns out they keep coming back, perhaps you could teach them how to treat other people.

I was a single teenage mother for nearly three years. I do not believe that my daughter was without a family during that time. I think high school was a bit harder, but never believed I deserved the kudos I got from others. With one exception, my church, I was very well supported by friends, family, and even the families of my friends. Ime, being a single mother was difficult, but did not make me a social pariah. I was very accepted, nearly everywhere, just not church :) That is where I'm coming from. My family and friends did not pressure me to marry dd's biological father. My church did ;) , but that's when I moved away (spiritually) and found acceptance among my secular peers. When I say that people are more accepting, those are the people I'm talking about. Churches do tend to stick with the scriptural ideal (imo, that's as it should be), but churches are not all of society. Just a piece. There's plenty of people that do see the families of today and reality to be just as effective and just as worthy of the title "family" as the Cleavers. Thank you for clarifying that last point. I was not sure what you meant.

LOL, you got me on the arithmatic........ had to do that a few times before I 'got it.' Sheesh! :lol:

Perhaps inside religious communities, or among religious people (although, I've heard plenty of Christians encourage others to get a divorce for the good of the children). I have found, among my secular friends, that dh and I are unusual and many of our other married friends have recommended we get therapy/counseling, because we prefer to be together. I have a handful of friends, so does dh, but given our druthers we'd rather be together. People want to diagnose us, because we prefer each other over anyone else.:lol: In society, in general, today single parents are upheld as the hardest workers, most determined parents. Gay couples with children are seen as examples to follow. Now, this is outside of the religious community. Read through the responses in this thread and you will see plenty of people, not just defending, but upholding the values of nontraditional families. Just one thing... even while you were saying that interdependant relationships were good, you mentioned having outside interests. Do you mean that you should have outside focus, you must have outside focus, or you can, but it's not required? I'm curious, because what I've found is that it's considered unhealthy or wrong if you share most everything.

:iagree: =============================== As far as America goes, I agree with a pp who said, it's just easier to divorce here. You aren't in a position (most of the time) where you have to rely on the person you married. As a husband, you don't have to be the major bread winner, you don't have to be your wife's source of companionship. As a wife you're encouraged to have a life outside of your marraige. Any more, it seems odd if married couples prefer each other's company over anyone else. I've been accused of being crazy for not wanting a vacation from dh. Here, we're encouraged to be independant parts of a unit, whether or not that works. I am sure it does for some, but not for everyone and for those whom that sort of situation would not work, those who would work better in a codependant situation, it can feel as though American society is pushing you to divorce (in order to become independant, before you become married again). It doesn't mean the American family is near dead. It does mean, however, that people desiring codependance or an old-fashioned marraige are going to be the ones bucking the system and have to be prepared to get the same responses that other families faced in the past. IOW, people might call you crazy, they might say you need therapy, they might even say you're destroying society... you have to be strong enough to stand up for your own beliefs (the same way single parents have in the past, when they refused to marry for the sake of society).

I dare say, a family would HAVE to involve more than one person ;) Although, there are those that would include themselves and their dogs as a family, in which case, I guess all bets are off. American families, as defined by various social studies books I've glanced at recently, include same sex couples, single parents, grandparents raising grandchildren, foster families, etc. The definition of family, in America, has changed. A gay couple with children is a family unit. A single parent with children is a family unit. Whether or not that definition is wanted, whether or not some choose to acknowledge it, it's still a family. As long as there are kids being born, and raised, there will be families. Those families may look different, but they're still families. I'm not sure that anything is worse or better, just different. Dh was born to a teenage mother in 1975. His grandfather was born to an unmarried woman in the 1920s. There's tons of unwed mothers and their illigetimate children on our family trees, and not all those women stayed single (iow, they weren't destined for lonliness, they did marry other men, later). I think people have been hand wringing over the end of morality since Plato... I used to have a quote attributed to him that said something along the lines of, 'the kids are sending us all to hell in a handbasket.' It's not new.

I think, if I were a sixties housewife... I would've seen hippies as a sign of the end of the American family. If I had been a Puritan, I would have seen the less stringent communities as signs of the end of American morality. In other words, I don't think the American family is going to die. I think that the definition has broadened, recently, to include more "families" than just those of two heterosexual parents with their biological children, and I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing. Imo, it gives greater responsibility to those families that, having been denied "family" status in the past, may have been held to lower standards.

Oh yeah, now I have younger ds doing it too (look Mom! G stands for /g/!). Really hard to scold them when you're pretty impressed with the work :p

Add this note beneath it: Only Mommy and Daddy are allowed to write on the walls. If you wish to write on the walls, you will have to give a written request (use complete sentences) to Mommy or Daddy two weeks before any writing is attempted. :lol: Just kidding. I like, "we are such stuff as dreams are made of."

I wonder how much the frequency depends on previous experience. My dd was a super easy child, when ds came along and he was running so early, I thought he was hyperactive, because dd was my grounds for comparison. Now, with my youngest... both the olders seem to be the easiest children on Earth. For Luke, it's really hard for me to view him without comparing him to the older two, and that makes it difficult for me to see his high level of activity in perspective. I know that can make the differences in kids seem like symptoms of a problem, when it's actually just a different person behaving normally, for someone that's like them, iykwIm.

Some of what you put does sound like typical behavior. My youngest, about the same age, gets into things. He had started hitting, swift and consistent action is putting a stop to that, but you have to be consistent ;) He goes into the other end of the house and gets into things and we have Sharpie on four different walls in our house (and now NO SHARPIES are allowed in the house). Luke is very different than my older two were. DD was always glad to sit and color, she was filling up notebooks with "pictures" by this age. Older ds was playing quietly in his room, in his own little world, perfectly happy. At the same time, Luke has greater physical capabilities than either of the older two had at his age. He can climb and balance and jump like a little monkey :glare: There could be an 'extent' difference between our boys (your ds may go further with all these things, bite harder, hit more, iykwIm), but as for generalities they're pretty close. We did not have the ear issues or sleep issues. Luke will stay up till 10, unless I can get him to sleep by 8. If he goes to bed before 7:30, he'll be up around 12, 1 and be UP, wide awake and ready for breakfast. :grouphug: I know you're not alone in this. I think some of your worry is about normal things (every child is different, his not being like dd is perfectly normal), but then... that's what moms do best :)

Yeah, they can be nice enough... till you get on their bad side. Then, they get all snippy and won't give you ice cream after dinner. My uncle's retired secret service, not very secret, except I have no idea what he did beyond dressing in a black suit every.single.day.

The stakes weren't quit as high. :lol:

LOL, we've all been singing Adeste Fideles. Although... the Ting Tings, "I walk" song... when we get to the conjugation segment we all end up singing 'ambulamus uh uh uh uh... ammmmbulamus uh uh uh uh uh uh':lol:

Isn't this why so many places stopped using the IOWA tests? The answers were too easily subject to debate.

Ah! It's you, donkeh. :lol:

Post the answer! ETA, this just shows that you can know TOO much. I went with red, only primary, but now..... well....... all of them have some sort of merit. Color theory is bebopping through my head.

Layers? Like the layers of an onion???? Shrek, is that you?

I supplement the art projects, with extra facts and online work. We do a little mini research on whatever project we're doing. For the illuminated letter, for instance, we looked them up in our encyclopedia set, found some lurking in the illustrations in the King Fisher History Encyclopedia, and did a few random internet searches. That way I don't feel like a total slouch in art ;) and he gets some art history. Get the emails from the science site. One of our favorite things is doing the monthly random experiment :)