Replies

It is excellent. Throughout history, children have been brought up by people who weren’t their biological parents, or by single women, sisters or friends who had somehow ended up having these children in their care, or even occasionally by single men who had somehow inherited them from a sibling or even a friend, and sometimes even in institutions of better or worse quality. While it would no doubt have been better for them to have been brought up by a stable loving couple (a man and a woman), most of them turned out just fine.

We also have to remember that the image of mother and father at home around the dinner table every night is a pretty new one. Men went to sea for years, they were conscripted and were gone for years, there was a much higher death rate among young women, particularly in childbirth, and in any case children left home, either for school or for work or sometimes for marriage, by the time they were 14.

But making the whole thing ideological, which is what the professional gays have done, and trying, as the author says, to erase biological parenthood, is harmful beyond belief. And as he points out, completely unnecessary.

I don’t know why gays are doing this, but as he says, it is a scorched earth policy and they don’t care who they destroy, including other gays (because he’s right, being “married” will not make them happier or solve their problems).

I think they are being used and encouraged by the Marxists who want to destroy the whole concept of family or even biological reality and have the state take over the rearing of children and, someday, even their “production.”

Thanks for your excellent comments.

I would agree that in addition to the over-reaching tendency of gay advocacy itself, there is a quasi-Marxist strain backing the same sex marriage movement, who are seeking nothing less than the disastrous transformation of society.

“...most of them turned out just fine.”

According to a study done a few years ago those children who turned out just fine knew the difference between uncontrollable circumstance situations versus deliberate (selfish, to say nothing of deviant)circumstances.

While it would no doubt have been better for them to have been brought up by a stable loving couple (a man and a woman), most of them turned out just fine.

In the sense that 51% is 'most' of them, then perhaps. But the results in a culture where the majority of children are raised in that situation are terrible - crime, and a cycle of despair. If 5 out of 100 children raised in an intact family turn out to have problems, and 49 out of 100 raised in a broken family have problems, then there is still a problem - and a big one.

We also have to remember that the image of mother and father at home around the dinner table every night is a pretty new one.

No, it's a very prevalent, very long-standing one. Even at the time Thomas Jefferson was president, 19 out of 20 people in the US lived and worked on farms. The father would be gone during the day in the fields, but he'd be home for supper. And while there were a lot of women who died in childbirth, it was not 'most of' them. In fact, you typically had multi-generational dinners, showing a strong continuity and sense of responsibility for the family - role models for every child growing up.

Yes, some children did leave home earlier, but through the 1800's, over 90% of the people had never lived more than 15 miles from where they were born - and only about half had even travelled that far from home.

The breakdown of the family is the greatest tragedy in the US since 1900. It is the direct source for the explosion in welfare dependency and all the other breakdowns in personal responsibility. And anything that undermines the importance and sanctity of an enduring union of a man and a woman in an institution that can provide and provide for children is an acceleration of our downward slide.

Unfortunately, I agree with the writer who says that homosexual marriage is coming.

I think they are being used and encouraged by the Marxists who want to destroy the whole concept of family

Actually, Marxism is just one element of a larger set of ideologies that require the destruction of the family. It goes back to Plato's Republic: collectivists of all stripes have this objective.

Homosexuals suffer from the reality that their identity is defined by a particular variety of sinful behavior. Most gays will never be satisfied with toleration. Rather they demand acceptance and even celebration of sin.

We also have to remember that the image of mother and father at home around the dinner table every night is a pretty new one. Men went to sea for years, they were conscripted and were gone for years, there was a much higher death rate among young women, particularly in childbirth, and in any case children left home, either for school or for work or sometimes for marriage, by the time they were 14.

I don't buy that, sea service and Army service has never been the norm for the masses, and most households required male and female in each one to do everything that needed doing during the waking hours. A dead mother was replaced as quickly as possible and this idea that kids left home at 14 is not correct.

Kids were needed at home just like the man and woman were, and the marriage at 14 was far from normal. The average marriage age for women and men has always been in the 20s, at least for centuries, it wasn't useful to raise children to merely have leave at 14.

Bingo, and thanks to you both for great posts.

This is simply one front on the Marxist “Long March Through the Institutions,” and one of the fronts most important to them. Seeking to undermine the staunch philosophical pillars behind the Constitution, Christian Morality and Capitalism, they have infiltrated academia, the media, board rooms and the government over the past hundred years.

The blood ties that bind human Family provide even more primal and fundamental structure to a society, however, than do religious and economic philosophies, and the Marxists have sought to undermine that as well. Since the 1960s they have attacked Family ferociously, with devastating effect. From within the infiltrated institutions, the Marxists instituted the Gay and Feminist Agendas, offering various enticements to the “useful idiots” of those victim groups, persuading them to enlist for their most brazen assaults.

I believe, however, that they have - to use some further military metaphors to describe their militant actions - not so much “met their Waterloo,” or advanced “a bridge too far,” but instead have followed in the ill-fated footsteps of Napoleon and Hitler by pushing into Russia. Like the vast terrain and the brutal winters of Russia, there are forces at work here far more primal than those they calculated for. They will not, perhaps, suffer outright defeat in battle, but will be crushed by their hubris instead.