NUKING the NUCLEAR Family

Gay activists undermine national security

From an article by Joseph Farah

Editor's note: The article appeared in Business Reform, the nation's primary source for business news from a Christian perspective.

Western Civilization would have been impossible without the nuclear family as the building block.

So, why is the family under attack like never before?

Because Western Civilization—and the entire notion of self-government that emerged from it—is the real target.

Destroying Western Civilization requires the elimination of the family structure, where parents are accountable to God, and children accountable to parents. This is happening today in innumerable ways:

1. by persuading us that “alternate lifestyles” are just as good as the institution of marriage;

2. by persuading us that the state should take the central role in educating children;

3. by persuading us that the killing of unborn children is a valid choice for pregnant women, one that should even be supported by tax subsidies;

4. by persuading us that both parents should work;

5. by persuading us that even small children develop just as well when cared for by strangers in group situations as they do when raised by parents;

6. by sexualizing our children at younger and younger ages;

7. by convincing us that there’s nothing we can do about the increasingly high divorce rate in this country and that divorce doesn’t necessarily hurt children.

To listen to the advocates of same-sex marriages, you would believe that homosexuals are being denied their civil rights because they cannot marry one another. The fact that such a notion is even being entertained in the media and in public policy debates today illustrates just how demented our culture has become. (This is exactly the kind of situation we expect from what the Bible has to say about the End Times. -ed.

For a moment, let's wave a magic wand and pretend we can actually grant the same-sex marriage advocates their wish. Bippity-boppity-boo. Poof! Same-sex marriages are now legal. Marriage is no longer an institution between one man and one woman. Now women can marry women and men can marry men. Why stop there? After all, the same-sex marriage advocates tell us the only reason marriage remains an institution for heterosexual couples is because of archaic religious ideas. If those ideas—the very foundation of western civilization—are going out the window, then on to the next taboo.

1.

What about marriage between brothers and sisters? Fathers and daughters? Mothers and sons? Brothers and brothers? Any problems yet? (The Bible specifically prohibits such marriages. Not only are there the genetic problems as well, but the moral problems are enormous. ed.)

The standard reply you get when you pose this challenge to the same-sex marriage advocates is that you are being absurd—there's just no demand out there for such unions. To which I say: So what? There was no demand for same-sex marriages just a few years ago. Surely there are people in the world who wish very sincerely to follow their hearts and form marital unions such as those described above. You can probably see them on daytime television right now. Furthermore, is it simply market demand that makes such unions right? When enough people no longer feel squeamish about incest, will it be time to break down those barriers?

Let's go a step further. Since marriage is no longer an institution exclusively joining one woman with one man, isn't it time to reconsider polygamy? How can we, in good conscience, tell a man who sincerely wants five wives he can't have them? It's part of his makeup. It's who he is. He was born that way with a predilection against monogamy. Can you stifle his rights and those of his consenting would-be adult wives? (The Federal government will have to apologize to the Mormons and put up with the excesses of the Muslims. -ed.)

But, then again, why limit these unions to adults? Isn't that just part of that old archaic religious notion that only adults should experience the pleasures of marriage? Why shouldn't children be allowed to marry? Isn't that age discrimination? (Several organizations are now promoting this such as the North American Man-Boy Love Association. -ed)

Which brings us back to where we started. The only taboo left at that point will be marriages outside the species. How can we deny a man or woman the right to form a domestic partnership with a domestic animal? It's just not right. It's unconstitutional. (It is only prohibited by Scripture. -ed.)

You see, we're losing common sense when we sanction homosexual marriages. To do so is to redefine marriage. If homosexuals want to get together and create a new institution that celebrates their love and commitment to one another, they … (at this point I interrupt the article to say that they should not be free to do that no matter what the supreme court might rule on the matter. {You will notice that I use the small case when I type supreme court because their actions have made them small} You cannot call it a homosexual union a marriage, because that changes the definition of a word and a sacred 5,000-year-old institution. People who indulge in what the Bible calls an abomination should have to sneak around in the dark to do it, not be allowed to flaunt their actions openly.)

2.

What’s the definition of a family? Quite simple. It is two or more people living together related by marriage, blood, or adoption. This is why the homosexual activists are so eager to legitimize homosexual marriages and homosexual adoptions. If they are successful, they will no longer have to destroy the family. It will have been destroyed by redefinition.

We’ll never be successful at "Taking America Back" unless we use the nuclear family as the building block—just as our founders did.