I quite agree that this subject is a flop on the MMM boards. Which in itself, is interesting to me. If there is so much research on the financial, emotional, physical, etc. advantages to a two parent household; why would MMMers be opposed to saying so. It's because it is considered politically incorrect. And at MMM forums, we worry about what the world thinks, not what is true! <---- (snark) Do whatever you want with whoever you want, make children (or not) with those people, stay together or not, it's all good! Just make sure your saving rate is at least 75%! Then there are threads on marriages in trouble, problems with kids, the cost of divorce,... But no one will say that the Emperor is naked.
My own opinion is that this Rabbi is (mostly) right. Children raised by the parents who made them on average do a lot better. This is not always possible or preferable. My mother was raised by a single mother and it was a far better situation than to be with their philandering, alcoholic, abusive father. They really weren't "good old days", but most marriages in my grandparents day were stable and relatively happy. Interestingly, my grandparent's generation didn't pursue "happiness" like we do today. They didn't worry if they felt fulfilled. If they could put bread and milk on the table and had a roof over their heads, they felt content. My generation runs around looking for happiness and fulfillment and is never content. In the wake of Thanksgiving, I would share the quote, "It's not happy people who are thankful, it's thankful people who are happy." Maybe if we looked more at our blessings and things to be grateful for, more families would stay intact.
It is absolutely not about being politically correct. Since when has it ever been politically correct to say that some marriages are better off not happening, or ending? How many politicians do you hear bragging about the divorce rate in their state or district?
No, this is about finding the facts and research, and not being blinded by what others have said. I'm not religious because I don't like having other people tell me what I should do or believe. I'm not a huge spender because I've never felt the pull of spending like someone else does, just to keep up. And, I prefer to have facts, not a rosy and romantic picture of what life "should" be like.
As others have pointed out, marrying later in life, having kids just a bit later, and pursuing higher education are all "liberal" and "non-religious" things which help people to divorce less. (
https://contemporaryfamilies.org/impact-of-conservative-protestantism-on-regional-divorce-rates/) Religious people tend to stick to what you call a "traditional family model" (which, again as someone else pointed out, has not actually been around for all that long, historically speaking) and thus tend to divorce a lot more, because of the pressures not to live together before marrying, to have kids young, to marry young, and to not get further education. (This, clearly, is not intended to say that all religious people do this, but that there is a lot of pressure so many religious people
do follow that model.)
Interestingly, religious marriages and families tend to also be far more abusive, so the idea that the "traditional" and religious model of family makes people more thankful and happier also doesn't hold water.
I'm not necessarily trying to knock the family model you're putting forward. It's worked for my parents and for one set of grandparents. It's even working out for me. But to put it on a pedestal and claim that it's "the best" is just all kinds of silly. To attribute all of the problems of the world today (or most, or even a lot of them) to breakdowns in the family model is even sillier. There have been so many changes in the world even just since my own childhood (and I'm not that old) that trying to tie them all to family or lack of it is absurd and baseless. That is what I have a problem with, not the idea that loving parents and families are a good thing, religious or not.