That's what this post is all about and there's a lot of me personally in the second half.
Five basic reasons why great civilizations wither and die" [Edward Gibbon, 1788]
"The undermining of the dignity and sanctity of the home, which is the basis for human society;
Higher and higher taxes and the spending of public money for free bread and circuses for the populace;
The mad craze for pleasure — sports becoming every year more exciting, more brutal, more immoral;
The building of great armaments when the real enemy is within — the decay of individual responsibility;
The decay of religion — with faith fading into mere form, losing touch with life, losing power to guide people."
Here is another:
"The decline or degeneration of social and cultural values in society has not happened in a vacuum. This decline has come about part and parcel with the rise of the Almighty Leviathan State. Through the State's meddling in society, the institution of the family has systematically eroded. It perverts the natural inclinations of men and women, their bond together, and familial relations in general."
Tolerance v. Acceptance
"The first deception characteristic of the sloganeers of the new Tolerance is that of consistently eliding the difference between tolerance and acceptance. Traditionally, tolerance meant making allowances for other's errors and mistakes; for the new sloganeers of Tolerance, it means accepting every choice as morally equivalent.
Tolerance once meant an attitude of patience and forbearance toward those who failed to live up to social ideals; the new Tolerance means denying the existence of such ideals.
For those who now fly its banner, the new Tolerance no longer means simply granting public space for others' moral and religious convictions; the new Tolerance now means actually endorsing all beliefs as equally (un)true. In place of the tolerance that required discretion and humility in affirming moral absolutes, the new tolerance demands that Americans jettison the very notion of moral absolutes in favor of an undiscriminating acceptance of every option on the moral smorgasbord.......
But then moral justifications do not have to deliver much consistency or rigor to satisfy the champions of the new Tolerance. For moral traditionalists — whose understanding of tolerance meant accommodation to inevitable human fallibility — truly tolerating a wide range of beliefs and behaviors did not mean embracing the logic used to defend those various beliefs or behaviors.
Hence, traditional moralists could be tolerant without being philosophically inconsistent. But because the new Tolerance actually means acceptance of everyone's beliefs and behaviors, it invariably requires its adherents to jettison the principle of non-contradiction, foundational to logical thought since Parmenides.
For when the new Tolerance requires those who profess it to accept every family form and all types of sexual behavior, it also requires acceptance of radically incommensurable moral premises."
Ubermouth, the dear, called me unChristian for not tolerating the gay mafia and its takeover of the social agenda. I referred her to the Byrds' song Turn, Turn, Turn, verse three, last two lines.
Marx encapsulated the idea by writing that he believed the family should be abolished and that all children should be raised by a central authority. He expresses his attitude toward God by saying: "We must war against all prevailing ideas of religion, of the state, of country, of patriotism. The idea of God is the keynote of a perverted civilization. It must be destroyed."
Destroying anything sound and good is a motif which reappears in different forms.
In 1932 - "Plan for Peace" was published by American Birth Control League founder Margaret Sanger. She called for coercive sterilization, mandatory segregation, and rehabilitative concentration camps for all "dysgenic stocks," including Blacks, Hispanics, American Indians and Catholics.
The American Birth Control League eventually became Planned Parenthood - the nation's foremost promoter and provider of abortion services. Many today are not aware of the origins of Planned Parenthood. Ostensibly reasonable and caring people, look at their origins to see what they're really about.
In 1969, a document entitled "Marriage and the Family" was published by the British Humanist Association stating that "some opponents of humanism have accused us of wishing to overthrow the traditional Christian family. They are right. That is exactly what we intend to do." The humanists control education through the curriculum they brought in once they'd stacked the key positions within the education fraternity.
In April 1972, in his keynote address to the Association for Childhood Education International, Chester M. Pierce, Professor of Education and Psychiatry in the Faculty of Medicine at Harvard University, said:
"Every child in America entering school at the age of five is insane because he comes to school with certain allegiances toward our founding fathers, toward his parents, toward a belief in a supernatural being. It's up to you, teachers, to make all of these sick children well by creating the international child of the future."
Dale O'Leary, in The Gender Agenda: Redefining Equality, p. 24, defines the real danger of breaking up the family:
The "family" in all ages and in all corners of the globe can be defined as a man and a woman bonded together through a socially approved covenant of marriage to regulate sexuality, to bear, raise, and protect children, to provide mutual care and protection, to create a small home economy, and to maintain continuity between the generations, those going before and those coming after.
It is out of the reciprocal, naturally recreated relations of the family that the broader communities—such as tribes, villages, peoples, and nations—grow.
F.L. Morton & Rainer Knopff, in The Charter Revolution & The Court Party (p.75), state:
Contemporary (or second wave) feminism has aptly been described as "Marxism without economics", since feminists replace class with gender as the key social construct. Of course, what society constructs can be deconstructed. This is the feminist project: to abolish gender difference by transforming its institutional source — the patriarchal family.
Certain streams of the Gay Rights movement have taken this analysis one step further. The problem is not just sexism but heterosexism, and the solution is to dismantle not just the patriarchal family but the heterosexual family as such.
Alison Jagger, in Political Philosophies of Women's Liberation: Feminism and Philosophy (Totowa, NJ: Littlefield, Adams & Co. 1977) showed the mindset of the type:
"The end of the biological family will also eliminate the need for sexual repression. Male homosexuality, lesbianism, and extramarital sexual intercourse will no longer be viewed in the liberal way as alternative options... the very 'institution of sexual intercourse' where male and female each play a well-defined role will disappear. Humanity could finally revert to its natural polymorphously perverse sexuality".
In other words, from the words of a rabid feminist herself, the notion that normal relations must be replaced by, in her own words, "its natural polymorphously perverse sexuality".
Drs. Stanton Jones and Mark Yarhouse [Dr. Stanton L. Jones and Dr. Mark A Yarhouse, Homosexuality: The Use of Scientific Research in the Church’s Moral Debate, (Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 2000) p. 57; referring to Edward O. Laumann, John H. Gagnon, Robert T. Michael and Stuart Michaels, the Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United States, (ChicagoL University of Chicago Press, 1994), table 9.14, p. 344.], analyzed data from a comprehenisve survey of sexual behavior in America. They wrote:
Experience of sexual abuse as a child, in other words, more than tripled the likelihood of later reporting homosexual orientation. Other studies have reported the same trend.
In 1995, Dr. Thomas Schmidt, author of Straight and Narrow, [Dr. Thomas Schmidt, Straight and Narrow? (Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1995) p. 148, see also 114-115; the reference to “4%” comes from a study by J. M. Siegal, et al., “the Prevalence of Childhood Sexual Assault,” American Journal of Epidemiology 126 (December, 1986): 1141-1153. The numbers on homosexual abuse come from L.S. Doll, et all, “Self-Reported Childhood and Adolescent Sexual Abuse Among Adult Homosexual and Bisexual Men,’ Child Abuse and Neglect 16, (1992), p. 855-64; and the numbers on age of first sexual experience from D.P. McWhirter and A. M. Mattison, The Male Couple: How Relationships Develop (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prengice-Hall, 1984), pp, 269 and 271.], cited two different studies about high rates of sexual abuse in homosexual and bisexual men. He writes:
Nevertheless, it is disturbing to find that although under 4 percent of boys are molested by men, a recent major study found that the rate of childhood molestation by men among homosexual or bisexual men was nearly ten times that (35 percent). It is also notable that 75 percent of homosexual men report their first homosexual experience prior to the age of sixteen, as compared to 22 percent of heterosexual men reporting their first heterosexual experience.
In an effort to lay the groundwork for identifying and indoctrinating so-called “gay” children – the researchers in Unequal Opportunity [David W. Purcell, Jocelyn D. Patterson and Pilgrim S. Spikes, Jr., “Childhood Sexual Abuse Experienced by Gay and Bisexual Men: Understanding the Disparities and Interventions to Help Eliminate Them,” in Richard J. Wolitski, Ron Stall, and Ronald O Valdiserri, eds., Unequal Opportunity, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008), pp. 72-96.] suggest:
If a boy’s sexual orientation could be identified when he is a youth, then extra efforts might be taken to protect boys who would grow up to be gay so as to help eliminate the CSA disparity. To the extent that child abusers use gender nonconformity in boys as a means of identifying victims who might be easier to target, parents can help protect all of their children by talking about sexuality, self-protection, and boundaries.”
In other words, parents accepting their responsibilities, as heads of the family, to guide their children, by their own example as parents who have created a loving home, into healthy, natural paths, something parents once accepted as one of their roles within the family.
Dr. Dean Byrd [Ph.D. in psychology, and postdoctorate degrees in Child and Family Psychology and Behavioural Medicine] referenced, in an interview, Diane Shrier and Robert L. Johnson, “Sexual Victimization of Boys: An Ongoing Study of an Adolescent Medicine Clinic Population,” Journal of the National Medical Association 80, (1988); he also references Richard C. Friedman and Jennifer I Downey, “Homosexuality,” The New England Journal of Medicine, vol. #331 (1994): 923-930, (27 April 2009) which stated:
Sexual abuse contributes to the derailing of biological priming which is the process definition for homosexuality. Boys who are targeted for sexual abuse are NOT targeted because they are gay. They are targeted because they are vulnerable. Gender non-conformity – which is the only characteristic that is predictive for later homosexuality – is often characteristic of these vulnerable boys.
Judith Reisman, president of the Institute for Media Education, said that Department of Justice statistics showed that 67 percent of all reported sex abuse victims were children and 64 percent of forcible sodomy victims were boys under 12.
The gay mafia tries assiduously to maintain that there is no link between homosexuality and paedophilia, in the sense that only a small percentage of homosexuals are paedophiles but they do not equally establish that only a small percentage of paedophiles have either histories of homosexuality or that many of those children later becomes homosexual as a result of his experiences, as touched on above.
The personal angle
I was molested, as a boy, four times and I'm going to surprise the gays reading this that only two of those four could have been described as homosexual or would have admitted that. Naturally, all of them who touched me were homosexual or bisexual by definition.
One of the non-homosexuals was a genius, a boffin who'd lost his wife and the other was a family man, to all intents and purposes "normal". It seems I was attractive to men as a child but why oh why couldn't a woman molest me instead and set me on a different path? I didn't get my Mesdames Robinson until much later in life and then couldn't escape for quite a while.
So, to put the above in context, I don't think one can say that paedophilia is a specifically homosexual thing by any means and the stats don't support that it is although 64% of sodomy victims were boys under 12. I was sodomized at 11 at a scout camp by another boy and I returned the compliment that night in the tent. I never had a problem with scout leaders per se although we were all on our guard against them, particularly the ones in shorts.
In a boarding school I was at, I "caught" a number of boys of 14/15 playing at being homosexual and didn't interfere [that's another question] but by age 16 they seemed to have grown out of it, presumably with the readier availability of girls and they didn't seem to go back from there. I'm sure a lot of experimentation goes on in the early years before the macho thing takes over but some, especially the sensitive or those of a certain makeup or else those who have certain experiences or through the culture of certain boys' schools, never come out of it and go on to be gay.
As for me, it drove me to heterosexuality until my Mesdames Robinsons, which sent me more asexual than anything and I still get very nervous if a man comes anywhere near, strong handshakes excepted, of course. My only male friends tend to be a bit macho. If a woman or girl comes on too hard I also run.
Gay marriage and families
So, we finally come to the call from the gay mafia, for homosexuals to be allowed to adopt.
Quite apart from the issue of the proper upbringing for a child, the link to abuse is not disproven by any means; only the chicken or egg, which leads to which, is still the question at issue.
Homosexuality is deviance from the norm and not at all a social construct of "orientation" which we're being forced to accept by the highest levels of government, not least being this Chris Bryant. Homosexuality is the failure to make the jump which a boy can usually be expected to make in his transition to manhood but once that's happened, then not a lot can be done and the issue then becomes to let them get on with their life as best they can, without prejudice or rancour.
The attempt to create a construct in which everything is rosy and two gays can have children is an attempt by two people biologically unable to have a family to have a family. It's Loretta. It's an attempt to fulfil the wishes of the adults in the matter, not to fulfil the needs of the child although they make out it is to give love to the child. The thing is sad for those adults but it is downright dangerous for the child. The child they procure has effectively lost any chance to grow up normally.
This is not a good time to be a child for so many reasons, of which this is one and it's not a good time to be a parent. It's not a good time to try to preserve the family under the onslaught of the assaults we are now experiencing on an unprecedented scale.
Someone has to protect the children. Clearly it's not going to be a government which speaks of "sexual orientation" and pretends all is rosy - nothing can be expected from them. A section of society has lost its sense of proportion too in tolerating things which simply should not be tolerated. Instead of stepping back and thinking it through, they rush to call anyone who dares raise the question homophobic or gaybasher - you saw that in one or two of the commenters.
As I said, something has to be done to protect the children.
As I said, something has to be done to protect the children.