Children the Biggest Losers in the West’s Sexual Suicide
I know it sounds a little bit strange to modern ears, but sexuality actually has something to do with procreation. In fact it has everything to do with procreation. That such a self-evident truth even has to be stated today shows how far we moderns have drifted from anything resembling common sense, rationality, and the obvious.
It is sort of like having to argue the case that eating has something to do with nourishment. Sure, eating can be fun in itself, but its primary function is to nourish and sustain us. In the same way, sex can be and is fun, but its primary and fundamental function has always been about producing the next generation.
Yet we live in an age which has managed to separate sexuality altogether from procreation. For many people today, it may even come as a surprise to learn that the two might somehow be associated or connected. Thus in a society getting madder by the hour, we have as our duty the restatement of the obvious, and the reaffirmation of basic truths.
Of course finding cases of sexual madness is as easy as it is depressing. Consider the latest example of sexual suicide: A Queensland woman is carrying her homosexual brother’s baby. Here is how the story goes:
“A Queensland woman is due to give birth to a child for her gay brother after impregnating herself with donor sperm from a third party – an act that is illegal here. . . . The man, aged in his mid-twenties, said his older sister, who has two teenage children herself, agreed to carry a child for him earlier this year and became pregnant after being artificially inseminated with another man’s sperm. It is not known if the child, due to be born early next year, will know the identity of its biological mother. It will not have interaction with the biological father.”
In a sure candidate for the understatement of the year, the man said: “I understand that my own situation is a little different to what people would normally hear about”. It’s a little bit different alright. But it is nonetheless becoming far too common. Children are coming into this world in a dizzying array of bizarre combinations and permutations.
Yet the older way which has always been in the best interests of the child is considered to be quaint, oppressive and restrictive. Indeed, the institution of heterosexual marriage is under attack like it has never been before. And with the wholesale obliteration of marriage goes the wholesale destruction of the family.
At such times the job of restating the obvious becomes an essential and vital task. Fortunately Jennifer Roback Morse has risen to the challenge here. In an important article entitled “The Institution Formerly Known as Marriage,” she restates important truths which have fallen on hard times lately.
Why is it that biological parents are so important for children, and why is it that marriage is so important for those parents? She explains: “The essential purpose of marriage is to attach mothers and fathers to their children and to one another. Absent this purpose, we would not need marriage as a distinct social institution. Human beings are not born as rational autonomous actors, they are the immature products of sexual relations between a man and a woman, and they need the assistance of adults to survive. Marriage exists, in all times and places, to solve this social problem. If our offspring were born as adults, ready to live independently, or if we reproduced through some form of asexual process, we would not need anything like marriage.
“Marriage also has a profoundly social purpose. Marriage creates its own small society consisting of mother, father, and children. That small social unit contributes to the larger society by creating a functioning future—the next generation. Everyone benefits from having a next generation that can sustain the society and keep its institutions going. Even when I personally am old, and even if I have not had any children myself, I benefit from the fact that younger people are building cars and houses, providing medical and legal care, starting new businesses, and running old ones. In modern developed countries, the family also saves the state a lot of money by taking care of its own dependent young, rather than foisting that responsibility onto the taxpayers. Thus, the benefits of marriage go far beyond the benefits to the individual members of the family.”
Thus all the weird and wild combinations, included homosexual couples, fall far short. Commenting on a recent decision of the Iowa courts to broaden the definition of marriage, she says: “This is precisely the way in which same-sex couples differ from opposite-sex couples. No child is born from a homosexual union. A child born to one of them has another parent who has been quietly escorted into the lab or the backdoor, to make the conception possible. That person is quickly escorted right back out the door, before he can claim any parental rights, or the child can claim any relational rights. Some of us believe that these two people, the child and the opposite-sex parent, require and deserve some protection. But the Court of Iowa does not think them even worth mentioning.
“The social purpose of marriage has always been to attach mothers and fathers to their children, and to each other. This universal social purpose does not even make it onto the Iowa Court’s short list. The reason should be obvious: opposite-sex couples and same-sex couples are not similarly situated with respect to that purpose of marriage. If the Court found that attaching children to their parents and parents to one another is a purpose of marriage, they would be unable to sustain their claim that man woman marriage violates the principle of equal protection under the law.
“Society needs marriage because children have rights to care from their parents, rights which they can not defend on their own. Societies create marriage to pro-actively protect the legitimate entitlements of children, and to provide for the future of the society. According to the Supreme Court of Iowa, these provisions for children are no longer the purpose of marriage. We are left to guess as to how this truly essential public function will be performed, now that the Court has surreptitiously removed it from the list of marriage’s jobs.”
We have not only managed to entirely separate sexuality from procreation, but we have also managed to entirely separate the well-being of children from the desires of adults to pursue any sexual path they like. We are so determined to allow adults to run with any sort of sexuality imaginable, that we have simply said we will no longer give a rip about how all this sexual insanity will impact on the most vulnerable and the most directly impacted by all this: the children.
“In sum,” says Roback Morse, “the Court has elevated the private, inessential purposes of marriage to the highest point in the hierarchy of values of marriage. Given this new understanding, neither the longevity of marriage, nor fidelity within marriage can remain as important values. By the time the opponents of conjugal marriage are finished with their redefinitions, marriage will be little more than a five-year renewable-term contract. The Institution Formerly Known as Marriage will be nothing but a couple of individuals, loosely stapled together by the state.
“Advocates of natural marriage, as opposed to genderless marriage, believe that society needs marriage to be a child-centered, gender-based social institution. We have been arguing all along that same-sex ‘marriage’ will be a gender-neutral institution, in which children are only a peripheral concern. When the Supreme Court of Iowa established same-sex ‘marriage’ by judicial decree, they proved our point for us.”
Bit by bit the modern secular state is aiding and abetting the sexual libertines, granting adults the right to do anything sexual under the sun. The biggest losers of course will always be the children.
19 Replies to “Children the Biggest Losers in the West’s Sexual Suicide”
Of course, the common response to this argument is “What about childless and elderly couples?” As if the exception proves the rule.
Yes quite right. Some couples are unable to have children. Some don’t want children. But marriage has always been about regulating the sexual union between a man and a woman, and the possibility of children formed thereby.
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch
It’s interesting how Iran which legitimizes “temporary marriage” (i.e. prostitution) has seen the most rapid decline in fertility rates ever seen (a 64 percent decline in total fertility rate (TFR) between 1986 and 2000 and still dropping!)
It’s a society undergoing significant moral collapse. (It’s estimated that 1 in 10 women of child bearing age in Tehran are working as prostitutes – heartbreaking).
(Good analogy at the start of your article, Bill, re: comparison between sex and eating.)
Dr J Roback Morse elsewhere has made the very valid point that same-sex marriage necessitates that marriage be about the adults – children become secondary, reduced almost to a commodity that parents ‘ought’ to have a right to. After all, in same-sex parening households the fundamentals are missing for the children involved – exposure to the complementing sexes of their biological father and mother.
As such, same-sex parenting households become a manufactured environmnet for the children within them.
While there are no solid studies on the ill-effects of same-sex parenting on children to speak of, we do have ample evidence that the best environment for kids to grow up in is the one in which they are with their married biological parents.
The other consequence of same-sex marriage is the making redundant the role of the father. As same-sex marriage implies that the two genders are interchangeable, what use then is the father apart from a sperm donor – especially in instances of lesbian relationships? The role of the father is already under pressure (due to no fault divorce, teen pregnancy, etc.) where the mums are left to carry the load in regards to the upbringing of the children. Same-sex marriage only further ignites these social ills.
Mathew Hamilton, Victoria
“Children are coming into this world in a dizzying array of bizarre combinations and permutations”
Sad but true, as one commentator put it “children as trophies”.
Actually we do have evidence which shows that children are disadvantaged by being raised in same-sex households.
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch
not related to the article, but could i please request an article about the new hate crime laws which are going to be proposed? i think it is important that more people take notice of them because they will have an extreme impact on the preaching of the gospel.
I certainly can and will do a piece on these proposed laws, as in Victoria. However I have written a number of articles which deal with them in general, most of which would be fully applicable here:
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch
One thing I enjoy about this article is that it highlights the fact that we have gone one step further than historically possible, allowing children to be “commodities”.
Its an interesting observation that same-sex partnership is not a new idea, and it has always had its effects on society (whether positive or negative). The main difference that has occurred recently is that we are now able to give children to any household in any circumstance. It is sad that the view of children is only peripherals to our own selves. People need to realize that children, having and raising them, is not a selfish act, and should not be used to validate their lifestyle.
The Christian family is composed of one husband and one wife who become one flesh until death parts them. The main role of sex is not primarily for pleasure, though it is that, but to bond a couple together so that they become a total unity for life. Adam said of Eve his wife: This at last is bone of my bones and flesh or my flesh. “The present government will challenge this by saying that families come in all shapes and sizes, that the constituent’s partners can be of any gender, any number and whose partnerships can last as short as long as desired.
A marriage certificate is as foundational as a birth certificate. As one cannot be unborn unless through acquiring a death certificate so one cannot be unmarried, even through divorce, unless through a death certificate. Where marriage is reduced to the means to companionship, the means to intimacy, the means to pleasure, the means to social standing or approval, or the means to any other number of socio-legal benefits (such as taxation privileges, medical aid benefits adoption rights, etc) to being a primary instrument to attain other ends, the creation institution of marriage has been deconstructed – destroyed.
Secondly the biblical blue print for marriage is that it reflects man’s unique personal relationship with his creator. It reflects the creators care and sacrificial love for that which he has created. Christ died for the church. Husbands are asked to look after their wives as Christ looked after the church.
The role of the husband is to sacrificially protect and nurture the wife as his own body. The role of the wife is to aid the husband in the raising of children and creating a family. The role of both parents is to sacrificially exercise authority over their children and create order. The role of both parents, especially that of the father it to sacrificially make sure his children do not remain children but mature as responsible adults. The role of a parent never ends even when children marry and leave home. Grandparents, uncles and aunts have a role in passing on a wealth of experience and wisdom gained from age to the grandchildren. This is why denying grandparents and other members of the extended family to children taken away by social services is an unspeakable evil.
David Skinner, Uk
Natasha, I write up the proposed Victorian hate crimes law in this new article: https://billmuehlenberg.com/2009/06/03/the-lifestyle-police-juggernaut-roles-on/
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch
No wonder children are having an identity crisis. They don’t and won’t know if they are arthur or martha or even who are arthur and martha!
Double dutch, it sure sounds like it. What a mixed up situation for a new life.
Bill, thanks for your well thought out Bible based insights.
I haven’t read a lot of the comments on your articles so I might be restating what has been said here many times before, but I guess it must be pretty obvious by now that Pope Paul 6th’s, Humanae Vitae was indeed prophetic.
Once openess to new life is taken out of the marriage act (as it used to be called) where is it logically going to stop? If sexual pleasure has nothing to do with procreation, then why must it have anything to do with marriage?
In the Catholic church immense harm has been done in those parts of the world where the bishops were afraid to speak out on this teaching. (Just as when many American bishops had been afraid to defend Rome’s teaching against slavery in earlier times)
In those countries where Bishops, and therefore pastors have taught the whole truth about the unitive and procreative meanings of the marriage act, the Church as a whole has flourished. But that’s probably another story.
God bless, Marita Bolling
The recent case on 60 Minutes of the Melbourne homosexual “couple” who adopted twins born in India really had it all.
1. Female eggs sourced from the internet.
2. Surrogate Indian mother also sourced via internet.
3. Sperm supplied by one of the homosexuals.
4. The Indian doctor who bragged about his “baby factory”.
I sat stunned as I watched the beaming Liz Hayes give what had to be one of the “softest” interviews I have ever seen with the various participants. I can only imagine that the homosexual couple would not have agreed to be shown on TV if any “difficult” questions were to be asked. The sight of these two men taking “possession” of twin baby girls who will be denied ever knowing their biological and birth mother was sickening. I can barely comprehend the difficulties these two girls will face as they grow older and eventually learn how they came into the world. This is an extreme act of selfishness!
I heard it said recently that our children will not thank us for the mess we have left them financially. I have no doubts that the mess and hotchpotch of crazy ideas morally we are leaving will impact them even more…..and they will not thank us.
I wonder what our response will be? No-one listened? But there was a really powerful lobby group? We didn’t think it would come to this? We thought someone would stop the madness?
Sounds lame even to us, doesn’t it? Where has the fight gone?
The more these sorts of things come to pass the more I am reminded of the adage “Perhaps your purpose in life is simply to serve as a warning to others” and the more I look around at the rabid insanity of so many parts of what has become of Western Civilization the more I begin to wonder if this is God reminding future generations of the sheer suicidal idiocy of trying to live without the moral law that is written on all our hearts.
Perhaps inspite of all our cultures technical and scientific acheivements, what we will best be remembered for in a thousand years (if the earth is still going) is our single minded drive annihilate ourself in a desperate act of rebellion against God.
Bill, I am grateful for your article. So much can be written about this subject. I myself was thinking about the separation of meaning and desire, in all the things we do.
The meaning of food has swapped from, nutrition to taste.
Clothing, has gone from providing protection and function to style.
So many things are changing. With little disregard how it will affect us as a society.
We live longer than ever, but we seem to think shorter and shorter into he future.
What a selfish lot we are. With the individuals and groups lobbying for these types of things to become run of the mill, every day occurrences, selfishness has hit a top notch.
They do not care about the affect is has on the children. Dr. J Roback Morse was quoted saying that in homosexual “marriages” children become secondary, it in fact, is all about the adults.
I heard this viewpoint expressed candidly on a forum a few days ago, and thought it shouldn’t really surprise me, I was quite floored. “It is not about the rights of the children, we, the adults, were here first. Therefore we have our rights first.”
When, then, do children become old enough to have rights of their own? When they are 21? Well, there is still someone before them. So when? When all before them have died, and then they are free from those older?
Are we really implementing the rule we used to hold over those younger than us on the playground, “I’m older than you so you have to listen!”?
There are clear disadvantages to raising children in homosexual parenting situations, therefore, the choice to live a homosexual lifestyle should, in fact, equate to giving up having children. If you want children, well, sort your life out.
If your boss says to you, “If you pierce your face, and color your hair purple, you can’t work here.” And you pierce your face, and color your hair purple, you are choosing to get fired. It was your choice, live with it.
Unfortunately, this situation is much more serious than facial piercings and hair color, and the consequences far more severe.
Here’s to an attempt at keeping it short.
Michelle Guillemaud, Canada
The Western World killed off Common Sense years ago. Most people, through their apathy, did, as usual, nothing. So common Sense is dead and the majority is to blame. Don’t complain, then. Accept the consequenses of what you didn’t do.