OK, I'm back but I don't know for how long.

I had originally intended to write about societal attitudes and how they have changed our society in the last 40 years, but I found these words instead. Maybe next time.

I believe that the family which generally does "better" is one composed of mother, father and kids. I have just as much concern as anyone else that people be happy together, but I believe that once kids are involved, the selfishness which we all carry within us must exit, almost entirely.

I told my children that when their children were born, they might as well put their life on hold because their kids must come first. I believe that once we have children we have a responsibility to care more about them than we do our personal feelings about who we're sleeping with. It doesn't mean that our mate isn't important, or that our needs aren't important, just that the welfare of the children comes first and foremost.

Immediately, a thousand different scenarios jump into my mind (and I'm sure yours) which say, "Yeah, but..." and "What about if..." Before I'm crucified because I want abused women to have to stay with their abusers (which I don't), let me say, I've been married three times, divorced twice, including from the mother of my children. And it all seemed reasonable at the time and mostly out of my control. I am stating what I think is best for the children, not what I've done or even that it's easy to achieve in today's world.

Here's some of the facts of today. Half of all marriages end up in divorce, many within a year or two. Many people never get married, just live together. Many families with a mother and father are blended families. There are many women who have children with no intention of marrying or living with the father. And there are many more who have intention and don't realize that the man doesn't. Regardless of how it happened, why it happened, who was responsible, the children do suffer from the lack of two parents.

I happen to believe that a blended family is generally better than a single-parent family, but that belief comes with a real dose of reality. I don't believe that a parent has the same feelings for a step-child as they do their own (perhaps this is slightly different with a very, very young child).

You may insist that you do. I come to this judgment by the fact that whenever there's a divorce, there is frequently a fight over those children which the man and woman had together but those which came into the marriage with one of the parents almost always leaves the family with the same parent, usually with no argument from the other side or the court.

Imagine, you're a woman who has a daughter who is 5 years old, you're divorced and then marry another man. Two years later you divorce him. Are you going to be saying, "Let's see, the daughter I had with my first husband, should I keep her or let this man I've been sleeping with recently have her" or "This man has no rights to possession of this child?"

Bet I know what the answer would be. Even if you're with him 10 years before the divorce, even if he's the most wonderful step-father in the world, even if he's rich and can provide much more for the child, even if it's a son, I bet I know the answer.

So why do I believe that a blended family with be better generally that a single-parent one? Because, there are good step-parents, who maybe don't love the step-children in the same way as the real parent does, but who can provide a caring environment and provide the "other sex" benefits to the children.

Before we get all wrapped up in "Well, what about gay couples that adopt" controversy, let me say that I'm not even considering them. The reason I'm not is because they represent such a minor component to parenting (this number of families is miniscule) that the benefit or damage for children in such situations is immaterial to the overall societal structure and health.

The point I'm trying to come to may be not really clear. This subject gets mixed up in so many P.C. concepts, so many touchy aspects, such personal turmoil, that it's very hard to make it clear. Mainly, however, it has to do with the benefits for the children of a family which has both a mother and father present.

The problem is that if you grew up with a reasonably healthy family, you probably don't know or think about what benefits you derived, because you haven't been in the opposite situation. And if you didn't grow up that way, you probably don't know what benefits you missed.

Why would it be important for a mother to be around? Ask my children. Theirs was killed when they were young and even though I remarried, they totally missed out on the caring, nurturing characteristics of a woman.

And before we have an argument over how some men are nurturing and all women are not, let me say that I never saw the nurturing side of my first wife, but I bet my children did, and my youngest son is a house-husband, taking care of their small child. But I believe that in general this is one of woman's great gifts, one which I don't believe most men possess or even understand and one which today's society tears down incessantly to try and make executives out of girls.

So, what do you think happens to a girl who's not raised with a loving and caring mother? I'm sure we have some out there. I'm sure they could answer this question. I believe it makes it much harder for them to be loving and caring, they must look else where for instruction and example and many of them just don't want to.

What about a boy? There's an old saying that a boy marries someone like his mother. If that's the example of loving and caring which he grew up with, of course that's what he seeks out in a wife. Just because he's grown up doesn't mean he doesn't want to be cared for, to be loved in that totally selfless way.

And without that example? Well, they don't know what to seek out. Perhaps it explains why there are so many more gay guys today than there were 50 years ago. Really, there are, believe me - I've lived in both decades. They weren't in the closet, the abundance just wasn't there.

What if there's not a man there? To be honest, in this day of women's rights, etc., many women would say that the kids will turn out better. Not true. Maybe not with the ones they teamed up with, but then they should have been more careful in their selection. Which brings us to...

The girls will look to their father to give them an example of manhood, of what they should expect and demand in a man when they marry. Why do we see so many women marrying so many jerks? Maybe they don't know what to look for (hmmm, that would be an interesting entry, what to look for in a guy).

And the boys should be looking toward their father to learn how to be a man, a man of integrity, how to relate to women, how to treat them, how to respect them. Why do we see so many men who are jerks? Maybe they don't know how to be a mature man, maybe they never really mature without an example.

So we end up with generations of women who are not sure of how to love, or who to love, with generations of men who don't want to commit, who never grow up.

And the unhappiness spreads and spreads and spreads, because these generations don't know how to be parents and pass on the disfunction. And before you think that I'm preaching from on high, I admit that I'm one of those people who helped start this whole generational curse.

I just pray that my sons are strong enough and their children smart enough to break this curse.