Looks like I will have to write the entire theory over again.(Only in better detail this time.) I am just a little pissed about having to say it again as Natoma knows dammed well that radical feminism is the reason that the homosexual agenda is being advanced into the realm of the natural family. The history of the anti family institution goes all the way back to Plato. Here is the heritage explained yet again. Marx was prejudiced by Hegel, who was in turn influenced by Plato, and Marx theories were extended by his friend Engels. The theory essentially stated that mans ancient past was tranquil, that civilization evolves according to particular chronological law, from tribal communalism , to feudalism, to capitalism, to socialism and the end will arrive at communalism yet again with the withering away of all class. Marx contemplated this fantastic utopian outlook would come to be with a revolution of the workers in opposition to their industrialist tormenters. One of the most thriving methods Marxist/socialist use to impose the totalitarianism is the devastation of the natural family, which they collectively portray as a oppressive tradition based on private property and correctly the main foundation of individualism. In their 1848 Manifesto, Marx and Engels wrote that
the bourgeois family will vanish as a matter of course when its complement ( private property.) vanishes, and both will vanish with the vanishing of capitalism.
In Engles book ‘The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the state’ Engles demonstrates his loathing of the family. Feminist love this material and as a result of Sociological academics these ideas are still very popular in our institutions of ‘higher learning’. Engels based his analysis on a belief that human societies evolved from an ancient stage, in which they were controlled by women to the present, where they are controlled by men. (Patriarchy) Engels logic was that as civilization passed from a hunter gatherer phase to an agricultural one where men progressively took over the production of the livestock wealth. Women could pick berries with the finest but bulls scared them, heh they scare me too. Private property was the principal iniquity he debated and so the means to stamp out the cruel foundation of the family was to ban private property, get women into the labor market and to turn the offspring over to the state. This sounds familiar indeed his answer to this is not too far from Plato, in fact it is borderline plagiarism when he writes
the first condition of or the liberation of the wife is to bring the whole female sex back in to the public industry, an that this in turn demands that the characteristic of the monogamous family as the economic unit of society be abolished.
His resolution is that instead of being a slave to you own partner and children you get to be a slave of the government just like for a large quantity in Sweden and for all in totalitarian nations. Simone de Beauvoir writer of ‘The second sex’ sold as the standard manifesto of the enlightened woman and one of the books that commenced the contemporary feminist anti-male lobby group says
No woman should be authorized to stay at home to raise her children. Society should be totally different. Women should not have that choice, precisely because if these is such a choice, too many women will make that one
. It is not rocket science to make the equation of the Platonic utopian republic is the template of the social welfare state and socialism.
Our men and women…should be forbidden by law to live together in separate households, and all the women should be common to all the men, similarly, children should be held in common, and no parent should know his child or child its parent
Plato, The republic. 375 B.C.
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, Wellesley College (1990)
Utopians, nearly all of them mind you, require as an absolute for social harmony the absolute moral doctrine of equality of biblical proportions, so much for separation of the church and state then. Undeniably their zeal is of fundamentalist proportions and they even extend equal treatment beyond what it was initially intended to be to one of an equal outcome. This basically undermines the capitalist bonus system where if you work hard and do well you will be rewarded. Instead the logic is retarded in favor of a reversal of the work ethic where one does not have to worry how well they do with regards to their work or achievement the state will make reparations of said inequities. Egalitarians are want to be utopians. It is not difficult to see that such a drastic slide to egalitarianism will inevitably make economic disparities more and more of a focus, particularly in hard times, making possible a declining into communalism. Clearly the similarities between the welfare state and socialism are difficult to refute. While the state does not own the means of production it clearly controls and taxes it so that the benefit of ownership is substantially reduced.
Jean-Jacques Rousseaus writings sparked the whole Romantic movement by arguing that because of the natural goodness of man is always corrupted by society, feeling and sentiment are the most important reality. This was a movement that flew in the face of moral hierarchy and in fact of any established morality religious or otherwise on the grounds that man is naturally good and if left alone would be moral. This thinking reemerged in the 60’s with the hippy movement. Rousseaus had such contempt for family, property, the wealthy and all spontaneous forces of authority in a natural society was so strong that he wanted to replace them with an enforced egalitarianism, after which further revolutionary disorder would not be permitted. Take note that those who argue for the removal of all forms of traditional authority and then constitute themselves and their theory as the single authority and tradition. As a side note you can already see the modern utopians (the social engineering sociologist.) working hard to implement hate crimes as a means of social control. Interestingly enough Rousseau himself forced his wife to give up their newborn children to an orphanage at birth, where it is expected that they all died by the way, persuaded himself of the rightness of this despicable act by saying
I thought I was performing the act of a citizen and a father and I looked on myself as a member of Platos Republic
Never mind the man must have been delusional to imagine such a thing. The liberal idea that human nature is inherently good is not a new idea to us in 2003 but in reality is such a notion good for individuals to hold true. Well first off there are all sorts of human nature that we do not view as good inherited genetic disorders and mutations that simply have no advantage what so ever. Canada’s own Pierre Trudeau was influenced by Rousseau and it is no small coincidence that Mr. Trudeau is responsible for the human rights charter in Canada. Interestingly few Canadians even today realize that Trudeau was an out and out socialist. Pierre Trudeau's socialist dream was to have a state that is no longer the servant of the public. He felt that the preponderance of elected legislative body would never put into practice his social strategy so his aim was to give appointed judges the authority to come to a decision how we would exist. That's why the Charter of Rights was so essential to his cause. He knew that, rather than securing the rights that had been ours under common law the charter would be converted into the opposite of a liberty enhancing article. What was once common wisdom now often infringes on some ones rights under the charter. Thus the Supreme Court is now in control. I make the correlation here between Platoes Philosopher Kings and the Supreme Court Judges. Trudeau had the philosophy like Plato and Rousseau that the way to make us free was to give us more and enhanced government. Under his rule, Canada experienced a massive increase of central agencies, that brought Canada twice the per capita figure of consultants used in the US and five times the amount in the United Kingdom. In 1984 Trudeaus federal deficit was 54% of federal proceeds all for more state agendas. Shortly after he was voted out of office the Tories were elected and forced to implement the hated GST tax for which the Tories and Brian Mulroney were hated for even though they were not the government that created the need for extra revenues to bring the deficit in order, never mind the actual debt incurred by Trudeau.
Does Rousseau mean to say that whatever human acts come from human nature are good regardless of what they might be, I think this is what he meant. However it does not jive and here is why. If we are empowered with free will and freedom of choice then we are locked in with right and wrong acts, let there be no two ways about it. If I should decide one day to murder my neighbor there is no destiny in such a decision. If there maybe some genetic trait or socialization that predisposes me to that action then that ought to be considered a moot point. Certainly not all humans are subject to such an act without a choice in the matter. If there is no human nature then simply socializations must be to blame but again we cannot excuse the behavior based on that. Socialization theory is a fairly weak notion and devoid of any human nature it basically suggests that humans are not capable of behaving outside of what they have been socialized or taught to behave there is no choice in that destiny ether. Choice in matters of human behavior therefore ought to be the primary reason or motivation behind human acts and while human nature is there humans have shown that it is possible for them to override that instinct substantially. For example innate learning of language is a benign but fundamental part of human nature, laziness however is not so benign but with Individual moral agency humans supersede it cleanly as a matter of choice and ethics. What of moral relativism? It is fairly us less knowledge I believe even if it were true. Consider the consequences of such a philosophy if it is decided it must be the way in which people should determine their morals. Well first off there can be no authority on any matters and anarchy would be the order of the day. Secondly you would not be able to have any sort of social laws that apply and therefore you make Justice an irrelevant waste of time. If people are duped into this way of thinking it surely does undermine any current social arrangement they currently live under. But the irony is as I have suggested before preponderates of moral relativism do not really believe in it as a method in which to govern society or create laws. Rather it is a tool for the persons wanting to mold society should it not be to their approval to convince the weak minded to behave poorly and act out of order. For instance I see the legalization of all forms of human sexuality including pedophilia based on moral relativism. Interestingly enough to legalize acts like this it suggests that it is right and good which runs contrary to the cannons of moral relativism. To keep it illegal as it is would be the proper course of action would it not sense there is no right or wrong it does not matter if it is illegal or not. This tells you that indeed rather then taking indifference to heart the moral relativist does not really believe in moral relativism at all. Of course the same logic could be applied to murder, sense there is no right or wrong we should legalize murder within society. Not that they would actually propose that sort of idea. (Unless you oppose them I suppose.) Anyone whom professes to be such a person I have doubts about their motives. Consider them to be untrustworthy as they do not believe in right or wrong and even will tell you that to your face! I think that this would be a good rule of thumb for anyone, do not trust someone whom tells you should not trust them, makes perfect sense to me.
But isn’t moral relativism so egalitarian in terms of human sexuality? Most definitely. There is a reason why welfare states have legalized homosexual marriage. You will take note that the only states that have legalized it are indeed welfare state material. Canada while on the decline was entirely a welfare state at one point during the rule of Mr. Trudeau. Extensive welfare programs and unemployment. The government even bought and paid for houses in support of people on welfare at one point! The idea behind the breakdown of the natural family is to facilitate equality for all and rid society of patriarchy. In a natural society where sex means reproduction patriarchy becomes the natural inclination as males prefer that they are not paying for the rearing of another mans child. Females become mothers nearly the instant they become sexually active. The genders fall into their roles naturally and in an asymmetric manner. Naturally the social equality required for utopian mentalities is undermined and this would explain their failures to date in so many ways. I contend that the handicapped system (egalitarianism.) would not ever work in a situation where people were responsible for their own children and interests as it does not pay more to put more effort into your work whatever the matter. In reality homosexual marriages are simply a moral slap in the face for the church, an insult to the idea that heterosexuality is special and deserving of elevated status and most importantly says who is in charge of societies laws and who has the ability to effect social mores.
Ending philosophical debates on nature vs nurture, individual vs collective by declaring one way or the other in absolute terms creates an environment where a certain line of thinking is right. After this assumption is made then collectivist and individualist go on to make their political thought and models. What is articulated in the above description is the fundamental flaw of science. The Achilles heal of it to be more descriptive. Consider that extreme left wing egalitarian thinkers assume that there is no human nature and it is a blank slate. Immediately the logic follows that there is no human nature and individuals are an absolute product of their environment or social conditions. Once that assumption is made then clearly this problem of individualism can be resolved by a wide range of socialization theories that they can find the devil in men and clear the complexion of society up merely by changing socializations that result in inequalities. This results, in the end, in complete collectivist theory all based off the assumption that individuals have no human nature and socialization is the blame for all inequalities. Some have begrudgingly admitted that there is indeed human nature and as a result this disqualifies their theories for the most part that socializations are the foundations of inequality. So now they have reorganized their collectivist theories to include human nature
but with the absolute condition that all human nature is good and should be accepted. This is a horribly ill conceived mentality. Consider that a wide variety of human nature is not accepted as being good or right. In reality they do not say that human nature is good rather that it is of no consequence and use the postmodern theories of moral relativism despite outcry from physicist. Ironically the first motive is to legalize all human activities as sense people can not control their nature they are therefore a victim of it, despite mans ability to override our nature. But they are being hypocritical by asserting that human nature is neither good nor bad without consequences by forcing a morality on society using this tenant. They are most interested in the legalization of all human sexuality. But if they are doing such they are declaring that indeed it is acceptable and good for society. How do you on one hand say that there is no right or wrong and then on the other declare that because there is no right or wrong make a moral judgment that indeed all human sexuality should be legalized. The answer is that their original bias for an egalitarian society is to level the playing field absolutely there should be no inequalities. I would contest that this is the most futile effort they could ever attempt to manage, in reality they know it as well but to force change you need a cause. Equality in all things human is also a Christian ethic ironically but thanks to protestant augmentations of Catholicism the value is left open to interpretation. Not so in an egalitarian collectivist mind. The matter here that eludes many thinkers is that as I pointed out earlier utopians despise the natural family as it is an engine of inequality where (using outdated socialization theories paradoxically) children see that model as the right familial unit and normal. With the introduction of unnatural homosexual families and the continuing breakdown of social morals with regards to marriage that has divorce rates skyrocketing the natural family is becoming less and less of an individual prerogative. The state has moved in as a surrogate parent often with the father being removed from care giving of the child. (I would argue that this is most proper despite it being an inequity.) So we have yet a new inequality that goes fairly unaddressed in favor of finding other inequalities found in incomes, sexuality, access to education, labor on and on. So the charge is most a matter of in the direction of the critical minds preference. What happens after you remove certain social programs such as affirmative action from the states political agenda? Why everything falls back into a state of inequality of course. So once you accept that equality is an acceptable reason for political agenda you are forever indebted to the cause. Snuffing out one fire then running off to put out another only to realize when you let the original work go off to be on its own without intervention it comes back. This notion that inequality is a source of despondency was originally an idea of Socrates he articulated in the republic. In that he argued that the state should abolish private property and the family, both of which, Plato argued, breed envy and differences between citizens. All women must be forced to least the same life as men including mandatory battle duty. Plato wanted to forbid marriage, childrearing by parents and allow the men to share all women in common. Finally he wanted to police this whole scheme with a special class of citizens called guardians to be selected by the philosopher kings of the state and to impose a selective breeding operation on the people allowing only the superior citizens to breed in special mating festivals. All the children were to be raised in the state nurseries and taught to respect the leaders of the state. Plato argued that this eugenic program would get rid of the distracting loyalties, affections and interests of the natural family system and recruit everyone for community service.
it would be a sin either for mating or for anything else in a truly happy society to take place without regulation
The question begs to be asked, what would society do with offspring.
officers will take the children of the better guardians to a nursery and put them in charge of nurses living in a separate part of the city (daycare?) the children of the inferior guardians and any defective offspring of others, will be quietly and secretly disposed of
euthanasia?
Oh the idea that a minority of minorities could ever damage an entire society does seem a bit preposterous on its face. I would argue that it is not simply a paltry less then one percent effecting society and this is why I contend that indeed homosexual marriage is not the whole part of the egalitarian puzzle. Clearly what it amounts too is a political bitch slap in the face of Christians and Christianity whom have always held that homosexuality is wrong. It is a devaluation of the heterosexual familial unit, of which we are all members of, to an equal with homosexual unions. It may in the long run force people to regard homosexual relations as equals with heterosexual relations with the help of hate crimes. Hate crimes are the new morality the left is attempting to force on society. What they amount to is control of what can be said making freedom of speech something that is subordinate if it may insight disgust or hate with others whom do not share the same moral convictions. In short hate crimes are simply a turning of the emotion of hate into a crime regardless of the thinking that drives it right or wrong. The thing that this ruling says and it is most important part of the ruling is who is in power, who is making the laws and the precedent it sets with regards to future rulings. While laws do force society to accept a degree of morality they certainly do not create an absolute reality where people cannot make their own judgments. There is a whole political philosophy founded in egalitarian principles that drive this ruling and without the support of that mentality homosexuals would never have managed any sort of ruling allowing them too marry. One has to have a very skewed perspective of reality to view a homosexual relationship as the same or equal to a heterosexual relationship or have a greater political agenda where they realize that homosexuals are not the same it is for the greater political cause of state egalitarianism that they should be granted by the state equality in every aspect. So in effect it is not simply a few homosexuals that want to be married that are effecting the institution it is a whole political philosophy supported by all of its zealots that are doing it. By doing so they are not simply effecting themselves but what potential moral values my children will hold in regards to right and wrong and the social well being of society as we know it. To suggest that this is a trivial judgment is to deny that it does not make an attempt to make a moral judgment with regards to the moral values of Christians, Muslims or anyone whom simply thinks that homosexuality is wrong and not good for society in general as a great many do. It is a forced morality. This is basically the crux of my point here. The fact that it is legalized and is forced on me and my family even if we do not think it is good or right is an infringement on my freedom. Should I speak up and say I think that homosexual relationships are not equal and should not be granted the same privileges as heterosexual marriages then I become (unfairly so) labeled bigoted and or a hate monger on and on. It is not simply me whom thinks that ether go and ask around and find out what people think. I dare you to ask people if they think homosexuals are the same as heterosexuals and see what your answers are. (Note using the word same will force people to make literal equivalence which is what is being litigated.)
Homosexuals are more promiscuous. Males are more promiscuous in general.
The question of the relative importance of the individual and the collective in society may be the oldest in political thought. While philosophies emphasizing the collective over the individual have been articulated and challenged in every era by every human civilization I existence, cohesive theories and systems promoting individualism over collectivism have emerged only over the past 300 years. These individualist theories were a product of the Enlightenment, a period during which a new idea of human nature was slowly taking shape. In contrast to the tradition collectivist view of man as a mere cog in the machine of the state, the individualist liberals saw man as an independent rational being, capable of making his own decisions and being responsible for them. Condemning societies based around order, discipline and servitude to supra-personal goals the hallmarks of collectivism the individualist went on to establish free societies emphasizing liberty with particular emphasis to monetary liberty, toleration and self government or self rule. Individualist theories rapidly evolved and diversified, spreading from Europe to the rest of the world. Wherever they went they met with opposition from some form of collectivist theory initiation a worldwide ideological debate that continues to this day. The values of modern collectivists differ very little from those of their predecessors the ancient despots who demanded that their subjects spend their lives erecting pyramids or cathedrals.
Although most modern theories contain some collectivist elements as a means of achieving a necessary degree of order, the differences between truly collectivist and individualist modern philosophies can be traced to their differing conceptions of the role played by the community in the defining the individual . Collectivists say that the individual is defined by his or her interaction with the community, while individualist emphasize that a community is a voluntary association, one that lacks legitimate authority to assign roles based on some sort of common good.
In collectivist thinking individuals must submit to the collective to achieve a stable egalitarian utopians. Marxism, more then any other philosophy has influenced modern collectivist thinking by adding equality and alliance to the traditional collectivist values. As a result of this coupling Marx broadened the appeal of collectivism in a ore sophisticated and individualist 19 th century world. Marxist have argued that the values of capitalist society will inevitably bring about its own destruction through a crisis of overproduction and that the development of class consciousness among the workers will cause them to rise up in revolution against their bourgeois oppressors and establish a new society without private ownership of the means of production. As materialist, Marxist believe that mens values are created by their experiences in the world so people living in capitalist society will see each other as object to be used for gain not as individuals and will treat them accordingly. When capitalism is dismantled individualist capitalist values will gradually be replaced by unselfish collectivist communal ones. Because values should be conferred by the state an individualist tolerant society cannot survive.
By the 1990s the Swedish experiment had been the envy of the worlds social engineers. It had up till that point successfully mixed both a strong capitalist base with dominant egalitarian/socialist policy. The model became known in the west as the welfare state and by no means was it supported by all the people rather it was forced on them. The change was brought about chiefly by two Swedes Gunnar and Alva Myrdal he was an economist and she was a radical feminist sociologist. Originally their intention was to preserve the natural family within the Egalitarian model. However by the early 1970s Alva became much more openly socialist. She campaigned for the idea of equality but not as the right to compete on equal terms but rather of an equality of results or outcomes. Suddenly the traditional natural family was not to be supported Sweden quickly became the first Social Democratic state to militate openly against the traditional family in its political economic and social policies. In Alva Myrdals words
All Adults, were to be treated in the same manner by society, whether they lived alone or in some sort of common living arrangement
The Myrdals report
Crisis in the population question the call for the economic independaence of married partners as a basic condition of equality by which they meant the focus of future social policy would discourage tradition familial interdependence of the state.
At this point enter contraception (the pill) to the picture. I am not going to suggest that this should be illegal or not simply discuss the repercussions of it. Consider now a teenager can get this drug without the consent of their own parents and that sex education is now provided to children also without the consent of parents. The ‘pill’ as it were is really the single most influential social advent ever in the history of mankind. The effect is that a womans eggs is not released so that she will not be able to get pregnant. Often there is an error on behalf of the woman intentionally or not does not matter the result is the same. For hundreds of thousands of years pregnancy was nearly a sure bet for any woman who was sexually active and naturally so. Now woman have an unnatural control over their reproductive activities (sex.) unmatched ever in the history of mankind. What does this mean for the natural family? Well when it was first announced everyone thought this would be a boon to married couples so that they may have intercourse without any reproductive repercussions. But like any good thing too much is not good. Womans liberation was always kept in check by nature in the past but now there was no holding them back, unless of course they would choose motherhood and marriage. The pill in one word killed patriarchy and now all we are doing is ridding society of socializations and negating human nature as much as possible. Sex, sex, sex it is everywhere and the new opiate of the masses, in particular males. Now males no longer have to be providers or be faithful to a wife. But what is this prospect doing for males in terms of giving them a reason to live for be responsible and so on.
Marriage as seen by the law is monogamous between a man and a woman. This does coincide with the Christian ideal, but also with many others.