Rather, I guess my approach would be to not insulate someone to the point that they never see/experience anything that might be considered objectonable
What I am talking about is teaching children how to respond when they DO see/experience something that they consider objectionable...and every individual makes that choice for their own life - what they want to allow/disallow into their lives and the lives of their children.
I hate for people to think that I'm all for throwing an innocent child at a drug dealer!
Okay. I did not assume that you were thinking that. Perhaps the boundary line of what you are willing to allow into your life or what a parent should allow into their child's life has a wider scope. You certainly have the right to choose that for yourself.
But I am for children developing good moral standards through a combination of parental guidance and life experiences outside what their parents teach them.
And how do you propose parents teach that? What choice should a child make, as they get older, when they ARE faced with a moral dilemna?
I just feel badly if the kids are really close because kids should not be made to suffer as a result of adults' bad choices.
I can see how you might arrive at that conclusion. At first glance it could look as though the children were being deprived of something and perhaps they are, but to what gain?
Every choice has consequences. You named one consequence - the children might lose their friends (and that's assuming that they decided to cut off ALL contact with J & J).
If that decision or the decision to limit contact is the choice that they make, based on what is best for their marriage, what do the children stand to gain from that? It seems like a much bigger benefit to have parents who offer the example of standing firmly and exercising actions that support and uphold their values.
