Posted on 07/14/2003 8:04:39 AM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
As a child growing up in New York, I, like every kid around me (that I knew of), had natural feelings for the opposite sex. When I saw a pretty little girl come my way or look over and flash a smile at me, my heart fluttered, my cheeks blushed, I shuffled my feet and shyly looked the other away.
As shy as I was and as busy as I was playing sports, nevertheless, I always liked girls. No one had to tell me that I should. I just did.
When I became a teen, the feelings continued, but I was still shy and still busy with sportsexcept this time around, when I thought about a girl, I thought about marriage. To me, getting married seemed like a prerequisite to happiness and completeness. Don't ask me why, because I still wasn't dating. It was instinct. I knew I was born to be married.
Ben Franklin, who was not the philanderer anti-American, historical revisionists make him out to be (he firmly believed in the law of chastity), expressed long ago what I by nature felt as a teen. In an attempt to persuade a young friend to reject the idea of a mistress and embrace the institution of marriage, Franklin wrote:
"Marriage is the proper remedy. It is the most natural state of man, and therefore the state in which you are most likely to find solid happiness. Your reasons against entering into it at present appear to me not well founded. The circumstantial advantages you have in view by postponing it are not only uncertain, but they are small in comparison with that of the thing itself, the being married and settled. It is the man and woman united that make the complete human being. Separate, she wants his force of body and strength of reason; he, her softness, sensibility, and acute discernment. Together they are more likely to succeed in the world. A single man has not nearly the value he would have in that state of union. He is an incomplete animal. He resembles the odd half of a pair of scissors. If you get a prudent, healthy wife, your industry in your profession, with her good economy, will be a fortune sufficient."
Scripture sums it up this way: "Neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord." Or as an earlier command to Adam and Eve put it, man and woman are to become "one flesh," in a sense, a more complete being.
Such blissful unity comes only when two people, naturally in love, bound by a covenant to love and share that love between themselves and their children are married and bound to each other and none other. They then become one flesh, first, in the natural unity of sexual intercourse; second, through the resulting offspring who literally possess a genetic code linked to both parents; third, through the common endeavor of raising the product of their love, their children; and fourth, hopefully, in their common devotion to God and his laws.
They also become one, as Dr. Franklin instructed, because of natural differences between man and woman which interlock and compliment each other in a wonderful symphony achieved through a lifetime of give and take, sacrifice and patience, struggle and mutual reform.
With the coming of grandchildren, the unification continues; and grandchild, parent, and grandparent are all blessed and pulled together as a result. It is a wonderful plan devised to refine us, a plan which has met with the approval and sanction of every great civilization.
That is the way it ought to be, though admittedly, too often it is not. The fault lies not with God's plan for marriage and the family, but with the less than wise exercise of free agency by individuals. There are other reasons, as well. One involves power politics, the kind of which spins ill will against the family, maliciously working to manipulate the many free choices, husband and wives, brother and sister face every day, in such a way as to pull families apart and lead them down other paths, some of them unnatural, all of them inferior and harmful to individuals and nations.
I do not hesitate to bring up the name of Karl Marx and the political system of socialism/communism as the chief offender; a system which is not dead and out for the count as claimed.
In language fuming with hatred, loaded to the tilt in reckless, sweeping generalizations and on fire with revolution, Marx decried Western Civilization's belief in the "hallowed co-relation" of husband to wife and parent to child as a "bourgeois claptrap (artifice)" which is "disgusting."
He said: children and wives are collectively thought of by parents as nothing more than "articles of commerce and instruments of labor;" wives and daughters, as nothing more than "common prostitutes;" and bourgeois marriage, as only "in reality a system of wives in common."
This be so, Marx reasoned, then why not a free sex society where anything goes -- the very argument the lavender lobby uses today. The family stinks, so lets look elsewhere.
But Marx's conclusions about the so-called universal abuse of wife and child were not based on inspired insight or a holy interest in children and women (for he thought they, like everyone else, were dumb cattle). His intent, as is the intent of every dedicated Marxist today, was to promote and succeed at revolution. Annihilating the traditional family, that stabilizing unit of all great civilizations, that transmission site of the values, religion and traditions of society, was key to his success, as well as a key element of his strategy to pit one group against another.
Right smack in the middle of Marx's plan to destroy the family lay this comment: "We (must) replace home education (with) social (education)." His motive? Again, he is talking about severing the transmission belt of values and stabilitythe familyby severing the connection between parent and teacher.
Commenting on the potential of the family to, on the one hand, stabilize a nationand on the other hand if the family is neglected, destabilize a nation;French philosopher Alexis de Tocqueville contrasted 19th century America with 19th century Europe:
"There is certainly no country in the world where the tie of marriage is more respected than in America, or where conjugal happiness is more highly or worthily appreciated. In Europe almost all the disturbances of society arise from the irregularities of domestic life. To despise the natural bonds and legitimate pleasure of home is to contract a taste for excesses, a restlessness of heart, and fluctuating desires. Agitated by the tumultuous passions that frequently disturb his dwelling, the European is galled by the obedience with the legislative powers of the state exact. But when the American retires form the turmoil of public life to the bosom of his family, he finds in it the image of order and of peace. There his pleasures are simple and natural, his joys are innocent and calm; and as he finds that an orderly life is the surest path to happiness, he accustoms himself easily to moderate his opinion as well as his tastes. While the European endeavors to forget his domestic troubles by agitating society, the American derives from his won home that love of order which he afterwards carries with him into public affairs."
Therefore, it takes no grand light-bulb-turning-on revelation to recognize that incessant assaults on the traditional family by the left; -- via intrusive social service regulations; via anti-family/anti-morality school curriculums; via international children's bills of rights; via legal pleas for gay scout leaders, gay school teachers, gay foster parents and gay marriages; via legal charges against any who dare to call sin, sin; -- have little to do with a genuine interest in protecting the human liberties of homosexuals and children and women, but much to do with exploiting the same people and causes for political gain.
The ends justify the means is the only moral premise a Marxist obeys. In the end, those foolish enough to have trusted in the Marxists liberation theology will wear the same bonds as everyone else. They will be equally tight and equally burdensome.
Marx placed marriage and the family on the chopping blockand right now it appears his followers are well on their way to completing their execution. But we can stop the executioners. We can expose their motives and do a better job defending marriage and family.
If we are wise and principled, we will stand by the natural moral tendencies God placed in our hearts at birth, tendencies which persuade a man to love a woman and a woman a man, tendencies which persuade men and women to have offspring and raise them in secure, loving, family environments and reject all the rest as the belittling and perversion of human nature.
So much truth in this article.
|
|
![]() |
FreeRepublic , LLC PO BOX 9771 FRESNO, CA 93794
|
It is in the breaking news sidebar! |
Then I will remain unapologetically unanchored, unenhanced, and unadvanced.
Xcrew marriage.
Xcrew marriage.
Marriage is not for everyone. Some people are happier, and better off, never being married.
OTOH, I firmly believe that if I hadn't married I would be dead now.
Well, I am definitely dying, but happily, I don't care.
I am going to the Carribean in the next few years, to live. Saving money like a bandit. You can live like a king for a few 10's of thousands for nearly the rest of your life. I am outta here. Sun and sand. Xcrew everything.
Especially xcrew marriage.
We're all dying. I just would have hated to go earlier than I should have through my own juvenilism and stupidity.
Thanks for the ping!
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.