Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Death of the Family [Steyn]
National Review ^ | 3/29/2013 | Mark Steyn

Posted on 03/29/2013 6:23:57 PM PDT by Servant of the Cross

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-63 next last
Steyn exposes the social terrorists with his classic wit.
1 posted on 03/29/2013 6:23:57 PM PDT by Servant of the Cross
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: neverdem; Sir Napsalot; JLS
Steyn ping.

The most reliable constituency for Big Government is single women, for whom the state is a girl’s best friend, the sugar daddy whose checks never bounce. A society in which a majority of births are out of wedlock cannot be other than a Big Government welfare society. Ruining a nation’s finances is one thing; debauching its human capital is far harder to fix.

2 posted on 03/29/2013 6:27:25 PM PDT by Servant of the Cross (the Truth will set you free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Servant of the Cross

I’m really getting discouraged.


3 posted on 03/29/2013 6:28:55 PM PDT by ilovesarah2012
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Servant of the Cross

Whenever I read or listen to Steyn I feel smarter


4 posted on 03/29/2013 6:33:03 PM PDT by Mr. K (There are lies, damned lies, statistics, and democrat talking points.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ilovesarah2012

Liberal statism requires mindless serfs to labor to support a favored, tiny, elite ruling class. Hard working, educated, God fearing Americans raising kids in healthy stable marriages so their kids will grow up like them to be another generation of prosperous individualists is what lefties hate even worse than our ability to own & use guns.


5 posted on 03/29/2013 6:41:30 PM PDT by RicocheT (Eat the rich only if you're certain it's your last meal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Servant of the Cross
It's well worth checking out the link and reading the entire article. One of Steyn's major points is the socioeconomic issues at work here, not the legal ones.

One reason why conservative appeals to protect the sacred procreative essence of marriage have gone nowhere is because Americans are rapidly joining the Scandinavians in doing most of their procreating without benefit of clergy. Seventy percent of black babies are born out of wedlock, so are 53 percent of Hispanics (the “natural conservative constituency” du jour, according to every lavishly remunerated Republican consultant), and 70 percent of the offspring of poor white women.

I happened to be in the car the other day listening to the radio when Rush Limbaugh launched into his pessimistic downer of a monologue about the inevitability of "gay marriage" becoming a reality in the U.S. As I was listening to it, two things really stuck in my mind:

1. This guy has been married four times.

2. This guy had Elton John play at his last wedding in 2010.

Item #2 should not be overlooked, because it involves two aspects: (A) Limbaugh invited him, and (B) Elton John accepted the invitation.

When I got home I did some research and found some very interesting articles linked in the Google search on "Elton John, Rush Limbaugh." Among other things, Elton John says that Rush Limbaugh is very different off the air ... and he even suggests that Limbaugh (while he will never admit it publicly) is a supporter of "gay marriage."

I think Mark Steyn is right. The institutions of this country are being run by a monolithic ruling class that has no moral foundation and is completely disconnected from the nation's historical cultural norms.

6 posted on 03/29/2013 6:43:18 PM PDT by Alberta's Child ("I am the master of my fate ... I am the captain of my soul.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Servant of the Cross

Thanks for posting this. This is brilliant.


7 posted on 03/29/2013 6:44:43 PM PDT by madameguinot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
The supreme court can rule that a cow is a horse, but it won't be true.

And they can rule that an unnatural union between homosexuals is a "marriage," and that will be no more true.


8 posted on 03/29/2013 6:50:15 PM PDT by Travis McGee (www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Servant of the Cross; fellowpatriot; MarineMom613; Ron C.; wolfman23601; ColdOne; navymom1; ...
+

Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:

Add me / Remove me

Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.

9 posted on 03/29/2013 6:50:53 PM PDT by narses
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ilovesarah2012

“Discouraged” is a pretty mild term for what is happening to all of what was formerly called Western civilization. But I figure Christianity has now “moved on,” down to the global south and to Asia, and so the new world the PC-fruitcakes are making can just go its rotten way until the Muslims take over anything that might be left.


10 posted on 03/29/2013 7:13:19 PM PDT by madprof98
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child

Rush, O’Reilly, and others make money telling us what they think we want to hear. They are entertainers - nothing more. I will admit that Rush played a large part in turning me into a conservative, though I think it would have happened anyway as I got older. Still, I don’t worship the golden microphone and am thankful we can get our news from a lot of different sources, the best being FR.


11 posted on 03/29/2013 7:14:53 PM PDT by ilovesarah2012
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: ilovesarah2012
I agree with you. And here's something else for you to think about:

Some of these "conservative media personalities" are dumb as bags of rocks once they are off the air and out of their controlled environment. I don't necessarily include Limbaugh in this group, but you might be shocked at how mediocre some of his counterparts in the industry are.

12 posted on 03/29/2013 7:37:29 PM PDT by Alberta's Child ("I am the master of my fate ... I am the captain of my soul.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Mr. K

Yeah, he’s like that isn’t he?


13 posted on 03/29/2013 7:46:35 PM PDT by JCBreckenridge (Texas is a state of mind - Steinbeck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Servant of the Cross

I heard Don Imus ( on his radio program ) ask the question regarding Gay Marriage -— “What harm is there in letting people do what they want with their own lives?”

First, regarding — “What harm is there in letting people do what they want with their own lives?” — Liberals make a common mistake in assuming this issue is about limiting the freedom of homosexuals.

The reality is -— there’s currently nothing that stops homosexuals from making lifelong commitments to each other. Gays already are allowed to make the same commitment. In fact, it’s done all the time. They already have the liberty to do what they want with their own lives.

The problem lies here -— A marriage license, however, goes a step further than providing liberty.

It doesn’t give liberty, it FORCES SOCIETY’s APPROVAL of that union, which homosexuals don’t presently have.

It forces people whose deeply held religious beliefs tell them that homosexual acts are sinful to give their APPROVAL to these acts.

So, gay marriage is not about what homosexuals are being forced by others not to do, but what society is being forced to do by homosexuals: APPROVE. That’s another issue entirely.

Gays can marry all they want, but why should devout Christians, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus and others be FORCED to violate their religious tenets in order to give approval to this lifestyle?

Second, implicit in the act of altering the definition of marriage to include homosexuals is the acknowledgment that marriage isn’t anything in particular, but can be defined and redefined as society likes.

If marriage isn’t any particular thing, then family isn’t any particular thing either (this not only follows; it’s an integral part of their argument). If we then concede that family isn’t anything in particular, but is simply a convention, a social construct we invented and can alter at will, then this has direct ramifications for the future of the family as we know it.

How can you say this isn’t an impact?

Finally, if marriage isn’t anything in particular, but is merely defined by society in a way that the definition can change to meet changing conditions, then you cannot argue that “marriage” between humans and animals could never take place because animals can’t consent (or can’t, as some people put it, enter into contracts).

“Who are you to say” that a marriage is based on consent? If you can change its definition once you can change it again.

For instance, a baby used to be considered human, worthy of protection under the law. Now, there are those who would allow babies born alive to be slaughtered. Once you start on that path, how does it end? What was once considered a ridiculous argument has now become REAL and something we are now grappling with.

It’s also a bit stunning that liberal objections to humans marrying animals is grounded in the inability of animals to consent. Is this the best rejoinder they can offer?

Philosopher J.P. Moreland tells of a guy in Colorado, I think, who brought his horse to the courthouse to try to get a marriage license for the two of them. The clerk was flummoxed for a moment and finally turned him away because the horse wasn’t 18 years old yet! I guess this was just another way of saying that the horse was under the age of consent.

My point is, I think there is a more obvious concern than mere consent. Marriage *IS* and *MEANS* something in particular, not something we can re-define and twist any way we want.


14 posted on 03/29/2013 8:08:31 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee
The supreme court can rule that a cow is a horse, but it won't be true. And they can rule that an unnatural union between homosexuals is a "marriage," and that will be no more true.

But, they can force us, at the point of a gun, to ACT as if it were true.

15 posted on 03/29/2013 8:21:45 PM PDT by fwdude ( You cannot compromise with that which you must defeat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child

To summarize - Homosexual marriage is not something new out to destroy marriage and the family.

Rather, it is just another milestone on the road to destruction of marriage and the family.

As you point out, heterosexuals and society of the last 50 years have made a joke of marriage. Homosexual “marriage” will simply take the next step, and make the idea of marriage a total absurdity.


16 posted on 03/29/2013 8:25:26 PM PDT by PGR88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Servant of the Cross

Marriage of Convenience - an adapation of a society to the pressures of political, social or economic means without any personal attachment. Do we truly believe the politicians in DC truly believe that Gay marriage is the solution.

The Family structure will be destroyed. But look at America - Single Mother Led Families are the norm.
- Political, Media, Celebrities - married multiple times after multiple divorces.
- No fault divorces
- Living together without being married norm

So America is in the process of reaping what it has sown - degradation of the family unit to that of something totally different.

Liberals will expand on the degradation - political gain. make the family mean something totally different 2 mommies 2 daddies. Partners. Look at Univ of Wisconsin Madison - faggots, queers run the university - remember the capitol protests in wisconsin. Look at John hopkins - medical students do not want Dr. Benjamin Carson to speak because of his views on the family, marriage and he does not endorse gay marriage.

celebrities - Kristen Bell mother, but refuses to marry her finance (child’s father) because her friends whom are gay and lesbians do not have marriage equality.
Elton John gay and married and has a child with his partner - but he is in the UK. US must be like Europe ( gag me)


17 posted on 03/29/2013 8:48:32 PM PDT by hondact200 (Candor dat viribos alas (sincerity gives wings to strength) and Nil desperandum (never despair))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Very good. To sum it up “If marriage can mean anything then it means nothing”.


18 posted on 03/29/2013 9:15:04 PM PDT by Eagles6 (Valley Forge Redux)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Servant of the Cross

Obamanation Counterculture File.


19 posted on 03/29/2013 9:15:05 PM PDT by Graewoulf (Traitor John Roberts' Commune-Style Obama'care' violates U.S. Constitution AND Anti-Trust Law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Servant of the Cross

Is this what the moderates wanted when they voted liberal Democrat?


20 posted on 03/29/2013 9:20:47 PM PDT by Tzimisce (The American Revolution began when the British attempted to disarm the Colonists.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-63 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson