The destruction of the traditional family, and the removal of God from our lives is the goal. Feminism is looking more like communism every day.


"The incest taboo can be destroyed only by destroying the nuclear family as the primary institution of the culture. The nuclear family is the school of values in a sexist, sexually repressed society... The alternative to the nuclear family at the moment is the extended family or the tribe. The growth of tribe is part of the process of destroying particularized roles and fixed erotic identity. As people develop fluid androgynous identity, they will also develop the forms of community appropriate to it. We cannot really imagine what those forms will be." (Shulamith Firestone - The Dialectics of Sex)

"Since marriage constitutes slavery for women, it is clear that the women's movement must concentrate on attacking this institution. Freedom for women cannot be won without the abolition of marriage." (Radical feminist leader Sheila Cronan)

"Being a housewife is an illegitimate profession... The choice to serve and be protected and plan towards being a family-maker is a choice that shouldn't be. The heart of radical feminism is to change that." (Vivian Gornick, feminist author, University of Illinois, "The Daily Illini," April 25, 1981.

"In order to raise children with equality, we must take them away from families and communally raise them." (Dr. Mary Jo Bane, assistant professor of education at Wellesley College and associate director of the school's Center for Research on Woman)

"The end of the institution of marriage is a necessary condition for the liberation of women. Therefore it is important for us to encourage women to leave their husbands and not to live individually with men... All of history must be re-written in terms of oppression of women. We must go back to ancient female religions like witchcraft." ("The Declaration of Feminism," November 1971). "By the year 2000 we will, I hope, raise our children to believe in human potential, not God." (Gloria Steinhem, former editor of 'MS' magazine.)

Reply

The biological mother and father very often aren't the parents. Adopted children take the name of their new parents and are issued new birth certificates. A sperm donor to an infertile couple is not named on the birth certificate. And how about a surrogate mother? Or father unknown?

If state law allows same sex couples to have children (however they come by them), the same law which applies to adoption or sperm donors should apply to them.

Why does it suddenly become a problem when a same sex couple has a child? Could there be some prejudice on the part of the Governor of Massachusetts?

Reply

Oh my God Robert, you are so funny! You sound JUST LIKE a radical right-wing Christian fascist nutjob! The line of lip service to the "traditional family", the insane fear of the removal of God from "our" lives, that oh-so 1980s comparison of things you don't agree with to "communism." You've really got it down, bro!

But you really take the cake with that string of quotes from radical feminists. It must have been horrible for you to sit at the library and look at all those filthy books written by uppity women to find those quotes which so validly prove your point. Or, Robert, did you just go to this site (or any of another two-dozen crazed wingnut websites) to easily find your string of decontextualized quotes about the radical feminist/lesbian agenda:

http://www.shatterdmen.com/feminist_agenda.htm

I admire your fortitude, Robert! No need to do your own work or read quotes in context when some crazed wingnut has already done it for you!

I don't see what having birth certificates which reflect the LEGAL state of marriage in Massachusetts has anything to do with the way you conduct your marriage or raise your children. Do you even live in Massachusetts? Why do you care? Way to comment on an issue that at most obliquely affects your radical right-wing political agenda. You must be a liberal pretending to be a wingnut, because I don't believe for a second that even a wingnut would make this much of an ass of himself.

Reply

Hey Dutch,

What, just attacks on me?

The laws that are being past are reflecting the views and agenda of these radical feminist.
What difference does it make were I get my information, or do my research? Does this make it untrue, or invalid?
Stereotyping me as a "radical right-wing Christian fascist nutjob", is a feminist ploy to "shoot the messenger", rather then dealing with the issues.

Having a name on a birth certificate, I agree, is a small issue in the grand scheme of things. The idea is that it takes a village to raise a child, by removing the mother, or father from the birth certificate is just one more step in that direction.

My agenda, if I have one, is to bring some awareness to the fact that feminism has it's roots in Marxism, and has as it's stated goal, to destroy a marriage between men and women as an institution.

More and more the government is involved in our personal lives, tellings us how to interact with each other, how to raise our children, how much we can see our children, restricting our religious beliefs, ect.
Most of these government programs have been passed under the guise of "women's rights", by doing the same thing that you just did to me, by stereotyping men, as abusive, deadbeats, uncaring fathers, greedy, oppressive,ect,ect.

"A truth's initial commotion is directly proportional to how deeply the lie was believed. It wasn't the world being round that agitated people, but that the world wasn't flat. When a well-packaged web of lies has been sold gradually to the masses over generations, the truth will seem utterly preposterous and its speaker a raving lunatic." 

 ...Dresden James

Reply

Robert, I would address your "points" if I felt that you were being serious. I continue to believe you are a liberal posing as a wingnut just to stir things up around here. The rambling incoherence of your "argument," the numerous misspellings, the silly ranting about marxism. I just don't see what any of it has to do with birth certificates.

Robert, what, specifically, are the laws which are being "past" that bother you so much?

Why are you REALLY upset about feminism and marxism? Give me examples how either of these two ideologies directly endanger how you are able to raise your children in your own household.

How, exactly, does allowing same-sex partners to have their names on the birth certificates of the children they will raise directly affect you and your ability to raise your children in your household?

Don't you have the freedom to raise your kids however you want, tell them what you believe, impose whatever religious, moral, or political views you want on them? Shouldn't that freedom also extend to other people who might think differently from you?

Or does freedom only apply to people who think like you?

Reply

I am not threatened by same-sex marriages or gay parentage. I have nothing to fear. We know gay parents and our child even plays with their children at a weekly play group.

The first public event we took our child to was a gay pride festival. We had never attended one before, and it simply was a chance to get outside and have some fun. The event was billed as family-friendly. We saw friends and coworkers there, heard good music and ate good food. There was even a stone public drinking fountain built at the turn of the 20th century that both gay and straight people drank from.

Fear and hatred should not be cloaked behind a veil because it doesn't mask one's words and deeds. Every gay-fearing person should ask themselves if their feelings are truly Godly or if their feelings are the handiwork of something more sinister.

I didn't grow up in the 1950s and 1960s, but I know I would have taken part in the civil rights movement. There is a new civil rights movement today and our fellow Americans need us not to be quiet while they are persecuted in God's name.

Reply

Dutch......
"I just don't see what any of it has to do with birth certificates."

I explained this here:
"Having a name on a birth certificate, I agree, is a small issue in the grand scheme of things. The idea is that it takes a village to raise a child, by removing the mother, or father from the birth certificate is just one more step in that direction."
So Dutch, you don't think that it is important to know your roots, who your grandmother, or grandfather are?
By eliminating the biological history of your birth, aren't you cutting this important piece of information out of your childs life? I believe, some states have already made it illegal to track down, and contact your birth parents if you were adopted.
This fits in with my 1st post about the radical feminist goal of destroying the traditional family.

Dutch......
"Why are you REALLY upset about feminism and marxism? Give me examples how either of these two ideologies directly endanger how you are able to raise your children in your own household.

How, exactly, does allowing same-sex partners to have their names on the birth certificates of the children they will raise directly affect you and your ability to raise your children in your household?

Don't you have the freedom to raise your kids however you want, tell them what you believe, impose whatever religious, moral, or political views you want on them? Shouldn't that freedom also extend to other people who might think differently from you?

Or does freedom only apply to people who think like you?"


Gee wiz, Dutch

Can I only be concerned about how feminism and marxism affect how I raise my kids in my household ?
BTW Dutch, feminism and marxism are alike in that they strive to destroy the family unit.

If I don't live in MA, I can't be concerned about this law?

You mean that the moral values of my community won't have any effect on my children?

You know Dutch, it sounds like you are the one telling me to shut-up, and mind my own business.

In two posts, you have attacked me relentlessly: spelling, rambling, wingnut, liberal, silly ranting, incoherence, radical right-wing Christian fascist nutjob, ass.........

Then you have the nerve to say, "does freedom only apply to people who think like you?"

If you could, you would probably put me in a political prison for my radical right-wing Christian fascist nutjob views, huh?

Reply

I comletely support children being raised in a loving home--whether straight, gay, single, married, biracial, religious, not religious, biological, adoptive, WHATEVER. Allowing others the same rights that I have in no way diminishes my marriage, my family, or my faith.

Signed, Christian, straight, married mom of 2 ;)

Reply

This isn't about destroying families, but about recognizing the REAL family - which is very often not the biological family. This happens with adoptive parents all the time. The only reason to oppose it for gay and lesbian people is homophobia.

Reply

And another point: you don't "destroy" families by expanding the notion of family. That contradiction is being used to stifle the rights of gay and lesbian parents. If a parent gives up a child for adoption, or a woman is a surrogate for two gay men, or a man domates sperm so a lesbian couple can conceive, they're not interested in being "parents".

Reply

Robert, absolutely not. As a patriot, I believe everyone has the freedom of speech. You have the right to say and think whatever you want. I am not trying to get you to shut up, brother. To the contrary, I am simply asking you to articulate why it is you feel that what other people do in the privacy of their own homes or the way they choose to love affects you. I am honestly interested. I don't often get a chance to dialogue with people who are offended by offering equal rights to homosexuals, and I was hoping you would be willing to discuss why EXACTLY it is reading an inoffensive article about gay parents wanting their names on their children's birth certificates would inspire you to leave a comment that alluded to the feminists as barbarians at the gates. I can see you don't want to give any reasons other than political mush-speak (gays will affect the "moral values of my community"). Can you give me any specifics? I am curious how you think gays will affect the moral values of your community. I am particularly curious if you can provide any support for your belief that giving gays equal rights somehow affects your rights.

I think it is an enormous cop-out to claim that I am trying to get you to shut up and, in your words, put you in a "political prison for [your] radical right-wing Christian fascist nutjob views" when my last comment was filled with actual questions for you.

Is it your belief that people who ask questions actually hide sinister desires to shut up the person they are asking to talk?

Robert, you saw fit to dump some heavy political talk on a fairly unpolitical blog, and at first I didn't believe you were even for real. Now I have asked you to back up your views with evidence and you hide behind false persecution and victimhood. I am honestly interested in what basis you have to make these statements. If you want to try to convince people that the feminists are the new communists who are trying to destroy your family and the "idea" of family that you seem to hold so dear, you'd better be able to explain yourself rather than drop some quotes you read on a wingnut webpage and some Rovian political mush talk about moral values. That's mushy talk and if you're going to make statements like that I feel like you should be to articulate specifically why you feel the way you do.

Again, what EXACTLY is it about feminists and homosexuals that bothers you so much?

Reply

A point should be clarified about birth certificates. In California, when a married woman gives birth, her husband is assumed to be the biological father without proof. When an unmarried woman gives birth, a boyfriend who is NOT the biological father can be listed as the father (if he also signs paternity papers, which happens when he wants legal responsibility for the child). A lesbian couple registered as domestic partners can both be listed on the birth certificate, the non-birth mother being listed as "father" irregardless of gender – the sperm donor is not recognized in any manner.

A birth certificate only establishes the "biological history" of the birth mother. What you label the second parent on the certificate has nothing to do with anything except politics, religion and bickering over people trying to hold back the tide.

Reply

Anyhow, what's wrong with "it takes a village"? When I was a kid growing up in a small town, the entire village raised all the kids. I couldn't get away with anything. The same thing happens to some extent in city neighborhoods and with "neighborhood watches" and "safe" houses and stores. We all pay attention to the kids. When did that become immoral, feminazi, and communist? All this time I thought I was being a good neighbor. Silly me.

There is too little love and way too much hate in this world. I rejoice when kids are with families who love them, no matter how the family is constructed.

Hate is not a family value.

Reply

Ok, one at a time.
First Jay,

I said traditional families Jay, children need both mom and dad, not two moms, or dads. I don't care one way or the other about gay marriage, they can have it. But when it comes to rearing children, I think that it takes both a mother and father, if this makes me homophobic, so be it.

Reply

Why, Robert? Cite me proof that these families are inferior. Why is it better to have a mom and dad where the dad beats the mom and sexually abuses the kids, than two dads who do nothing but raise their child with love and strong moral values? I don't get it. What "damage" do gay and lesbian couples do to children? What do you see that the American Psychological Association doesn't?

Reply

Dutch,

I don't know what to say, I don't know how to spell it out any clearer.
Feminism started the ball rolling with "No fault divorce", then abortion after women discovered their sexual freedom, then gay rights, now gay marriages. I could quote you a bunch of statistics on how this is hurting society and our children, but it's getting late, and I don't think you would care anyway.

My life doesn't begin and end at my front door, therefore I am interested in what happens in my community, state, and nation.

What about the child's rights, they get trumped by gay rights?
Having gay parents is an experiment, no one really knows what effect it will have on children, and I don't support using children as guenia pigs, under the guise of "rights".

It's funny how the very people preaching tolerance and non-hate, are the first to attack you if you believe in God, or say anything negative about gay's or women.

If you are "open", here are some other views that discuss this.

Same-sex marriage: Good for gays, bad for children
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/dennisprager/dp20040504.shtml

Gay Marriage: Who’s Minding the Children?
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0090.html
"In every area of life, cognitive, emotional, social, developmental ... at every phase of the life cycle ... social evidence shows that there are measurable effects when children lack either a mother or a father. ... The evidence is overwhelming. Mountains of evidence, collected over decades, show that children need both mothers and fathers."

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2004/107/41.0.html
Speaking Out: Why Gay Marriage Would Be Harmful
Institutionalizing homosexual marriage would be bad for marriage, bad for children, and bad for society.

Do you attack (insult) everyone you talk too, every time you post, or is this special treatment just for me?

Reply

Lack of exposure (e.g., a secluded experience) to gay people is generally the root cause of homophobia. Religious writings are not the cause because religious texts have all sorts of bizarre teachings in them that wane or change with the thinking of the day. Religion is merely molded to reinforce modern day views.

Thus, some Christians fear gays while other Christians welcome them. The two camps can quote scripture back and forth justifying their positions in an endless volley.

Once you meet the "enemy" you realize you have more in common than you have that is different. (Actually, probably as much in common with gays as with straights. I don't talk to my straight friends about their bedroom habits anymore than I talk to my gay friends about it because it has no bearing on my life.)

Once you meet gay parents and their children, and get to know them, you realize your fears were unfounded. Homophobia erodes with time and experience, just like racism.

Nothing will be achieved in debating Robert except to establish in his awareness that it is possible for straight parents to believe gay parents can be good parents.

Reply

homophobia hom`o*pho"bi*a, n.
A strong dislike or fear of homosexuals, especially to an
unreasonable degree.
[PJC]

AJ,

I nether fear, or hate gay's as a class, so to label me this is inaccurate.
What I oppose is this feminist nonsense:

http://www.narth.com/docs/whoneeds.html

APA Study Says: "Who Needs Dad?"
By Dale O'Leary

In the July edition of The American Psychologist, Laura Silverstein and Carl Auerbach argue against the traditional view that both fathers and mothers are essential to optimum child development. In "Deconstructing the Essential Father," Silverstein and Auerbach contend that heterosexuality, heterosexual marriage, and the biological family of mother and father are not to be seen as natural.

Both writers are social constructionists, and they hold that the differences between men and women are social constructs created by a patriarchal society. Since gender differences are created by oppression, they can and should be eliminated. In fact, the very idea of a "natural" family structure sends up a red flag: for social constructionists, such ideas are called "heterosexism," and they are the very equivalent of racism.

The authors describe the "essentialist" (traditional) position:

The essentialist perspective defines mothering and fathering as distinct social roles that are not interchangeable. Marriage is seen as the social institution within which responsible fathering and positive child adjustment are most likely to occur. Fathers are understood as having a unique and essential role to play in child development, especially for boys who need a male role model in order to establish a masculine gender identity.

They conclude:

From our perspective, the emphasis on the essential importance of fathers and heterosexual marriage...is an attempt to reassert the cultural hegemony of traditional values such as heterocentrism, Judeo-Christian marriage, and male power and privilege.

Our goal, in contrast, is to create an ideology that defines the father-child bond as independent of the father-mother relationship...

We are...interested in encouraging public policy that supports the legitimacy of diverse family structures, rather than policy that privileges the two-parent, heterosexual, married family."

This link is still active, so you can read the rest by clicking on it.
If you bother to read some of the studies (like the ones I posted for Dutch)you will have a better understanding of what the concern is regarding gay's rearing children.
It's not as simple as saying, "if you think that gay's shouldn't be "legally" allowed to have children, than you must have homophobia", but this is the easy way out.

Reply

Jay,

Is this true, "Why is it better to have a mom and dad where the dad beats the mom and sexually abuses the kids, than two dads who do nothing but raise their child with love and strong moral values?"

Lets take a look, here are some statistics, and other interesting attitudes about gay marriage.



Domestic violence:
A study in the Journal of Interpersonal Violence examined conflict and violence in lesbian relationships. The researchers found that 90 percent of the lesbians surveyed had been recipients of one or more acts of verbal aggression from their intimate partners during the year prior to this study, with 31 percent reporting one or more incidents of physical abuse.[46]

In a survey of 1,099 lesbians, the Journal of Social Service Research found that slightly more than half of the lesbians reported that they had been abused by a female lover/partner. The researchers found that "the most frequently indicated forms of abuse were verbal/emotional/psychological abuse and combined physical-psychological abuse."[47]


Morals:
The Handbook of Family Diversity reported a study in which "many self-described 'monogamous' couples reported an average of three to five partners in the past year. Blasband and Peplau (1985) observed a similar pattern."[17]

According to McWhirter and Mattison, most homosexual men understood sexual relations outside the relationship to be the norm and viewed adopting monogamous standards as an act of oppression.

In their Journal of Sex Research study of the sexual practices of older homosexual men, Paul Van de Ven et al. found that only 2.7 percent of older homosexuals had only one sexual partner in their lifetime.[19]

Paula Ettelbrick, the former legal director of the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, has stated, "Being queer is more than setting up house, sleeping with a person of the same gender, and seeking state approval for doing so....Being queer means pushing the parameters of sex, sexuality, and family, and in the process transforming the very fabric of society."[53]

 The views of Signorile and Ettelbrick regarding marriage are widespread in the homosexual community. According to the Mendola Report, a mere 26 percent of homosexuals believe that commitment is most important in a marriage relationship.[55]

Just keep in mind that if you openly oppose gay couples raising children, you to will be labeled Homophobic, so don't let this concern you too much. After all it's more important that gay's have "rights", rather then how this "life style" may effect the children they are raising.

Reply

I don't see any connection between feminism and who/how people are listed on a birth certificate. The birth mother already has complete control. At least in California, the mother fills out the form that generates the birth certificate and the father signs nothing. Whether the second parent is designated as "Father" or "Second Parent" is simply a reflection of a state government's understanding of how our society has changed. I'm sorry, but I believe your fears are fueling conspiracy theories and you are feeding that fear by reading opinionated sources that back your ideology. It's a vicious spiral that will only isolate and depress you about living in this society, all the while decrying sinister forces at work that are destroying everything you hold true. Either way, this seems to be a futile debate.

Reply