Is the "certification of homosexuality" movement largely a Western phenomenon?

  • Thread starter Thread starter MarcoPolo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Woah woah, I’m with you that PP should not be anywhere near schools at all, and that the same-sex family book shouldn’t either, but I am highly skeptical of a claim that any liberal organization is out to “destroy heterosexual families.”
Not that I can speak for any one else, but the claims that homosexuals collectively want to destroy marriage that I’ve encountered in the past have at times traced back to a comment that a single woman had made at some LGBT conference or event. She was asked something about marriage and said that she would rather do away with it all together.
 
Not that I can speak for any one else, but the claims that homosexuals collectively want to destroy marriage that I’ve encountered in the past have at times traced back to a comment that a single woman had made at some LGBT conference or event. She was asked something about marriage and said that she would rather do away with it all together.
The radical feminist movement told women that they didn’t need to be married and that having children was a burden that stood in the way of their career. And many divorces, abortions, and children born out of wedlock followed. And this lack of respect for the institution of marriage is what set us up for what we are seeing now which is a continuation of that only they have taken it up a notch with so-called “same-sex marriage”. Whether people realize it or not, they are doing Satan’s will by confusing people about the true meaning of marriage and family. And people don’t see Satan’s hand in this confusion because he throws a rock and then hides his hand.
 
Every second of our existence is to be applied to Divine purpose. Allotting a segment of that time for the contemplation and discussion of the pursuits of evil is wasteful and spiritually unhealthy. The practice is a part of the culture of death and is the progeny of the parent sin.

It serves to distract and take away time that is allotted to good purpose. In the case of consideration of an evil act, our reaction is strategic and tactical and bent on the removal and prevention of the parent and of distancing ourselves from it’s influence.

Cut the stem and the leaves wither.
 
The radical feminist movement told women that they didn’t need to be married and that having children was a burden that stood in the way of their career.
I’ve heard women express the view that they don’t need to be married to have kids, but the one’s that I’ve encountered are women that had been married. One of the ways I’ve heard it expressed is “If I had known then what I know now I wouldn’t have gotten a husband. I would have gotten a sperm donor.” I don’t know why I see this pattern repeated, but in the cases that I’m familiar with after the marriage the woman finds herself in the position of fully supporting the family financially (the guys either didn’t work or were running up credit and gambling debts). For the situations I’ve encountered the stay-at-home men are not doing much in the way of taking care of the house. The woman eventually concludes it is better to raise kids alone than to raise them with another adult dependent. These women have expressed these views to the other females around them. The impacts of this view being expressed are unknown to me.
 
I’ve heard women express the view that they don’t need to be married to have kids, but the one’s that I’ve encountered are women that had been married. One of the ways I’ve heard it expressed is “If I had known then what I know now I wouldn’t have gotten a husband. I would have gotten a sperm donor.” I don’t know why I see this pattern repeated, but in the cases that I’m familiar with after the marriage the woman finds herself in the position of fully supporting the family financially (the guys either didn’t work or were running up credit and gambling debts). For the situations I’ve encountered the stay-at-home men are not doing much in the way of taking care of the house. The woman eventually concludes it is better to raise kids alone than to raise them with another adult dependent. These women have expressed these views to the other females around them. The impacts of this view being expressed are unknown to me.
To be fair, the Church does allow for single parent adoption; it’s just not preferable. In these cases though, I would think these are isolated incidents of deadbeat dads. Hopefully people aren’t taking these as generalizations of marriage as a whole…
 
To be fair, the Church does allow for single parent adoption
Some hold a value in knowing that the child being raised was derived from some part of themselves.
I would think these are isolated incidents of deadbeat dads. Hopefully people aren’t taking these as generalizations of marriage as a whole…
I did too, initially. But it’s happened frequently enough such that at the very least I’m seeing it as a rather unhealthy local trend. It may be a cautionary tale for something. Though I’m not sure how one would identify men like this to begin with.
 
I’ve heard women express the view that they don’t need to be married to have kids, but the one’s that I’ve encountered are women that had been married. One of the ways I’ve heard it expressed is “If I had known then what I know now I wouldn’t have gotten a husband. I would have gotten a sperm donor.” I don’t know why I see this pattern repeated, but in the cases that I’m familiar with after the marriage the woman finds herself in the position of fully supporting the family financially (the guys either didn’t work or were running up credit and gambling debts). For the situations I’ve encountered the stay-at-home men are not doing much in the way of taking care of the house. The woman eventually concludes it is better to raise kids alone than to raise them with another adult dependent. These women have expressed these views to the other females around them. The impacts of this view being expressed are unknown to me.
There is a huge failure in the secular world and that is education in regards to the vocation of Matrimony. The Catholic Church rails against this ignorance with rigorous requirements for prospective couples such as 9 months preparation, typically called “pre-Cana” which includes inventory, NFP classes, close sessions with a priest or coordinator, and other seminars on the married life. The secular world will let pretty much anyone get married at the drop of a hat. This can result in what turns out to be an invalid marriage. By qualifying for Matrimony in the Church, a married couple can have a drastically higher chance for their marriage to not just survive, but to thrive and bear great fruit. Couples marrying in the secular world often have a trail of broken relationships and divorces behind them. Couples marrying in the Church are either starting out fresh, or have faced the music and cleaned up whatever trail of bad relationships they had in the past.

This is not to say that church-married couples do not get divorced. Some things can happen unexpectedly, even with the best of preparation. And the Catholic Church has not always been so rigorous. These requirements are largely a reaction to the high divorce rate in the world today. But I think that you’ll find the odds are ever in our favor when it comes to relationships.
 
This is not to say that church-married couples do not get divorced. Some things can happen unexpectedly, even with the best of preparation. And the Catholic Church has not always been so rigorous. These requirements are largely a reaction to the high divorce rate in the world today. But I think that you’ll find the odds are ever in our favor when it comes to relationships.
Cant say that I know about the preperation that these couples went through. At least one couple was Catholic (specifically the one that said something about shopping for a sperm donor like she shops for shoes), and they were all religious.

Pardon my mistakes. Sent from my mobile device.
 
There is no such thing as a secular world. What people think of is the poison they get from the media of all kinds: TV, movies, books, magazines and newspapers.

The high divorce rate did not appear overnight. It took decades of hard work by small groups to convince everyone: “Just live together and have sex. What’s the big deal?” Or “Sex is the most important thing - so even if you’re Catholic, make sure to have lots of sex to make sure you’re both good in the sack. Cause nothing else matters.” “Kids? Why bother? If you want one, make sure you use lots of contraception right after cause one is too many and you’re responsible for tha kid till he turns 18.” “And, make sure ya dump your kid in daycare.” “I mean, nobody has relatives anymore that might help babysit or even good neighbors.”

THAT WRONG BEHAVIOR IS BEING MODELED ALL THE TIME ON TV AND THE MOVIES AND ELSEWHERE.

Peace,
Ed
 
There is no such thing as a secular world. What people think of is the poison they get from the media of all kinds: TV, movies, books, magazines and newspapers.

The high divorce rate did not appear overnight. It took decades of hard work by small groups to convince everyone: “Just live together and have sex. What’s the big deal?” Or “Sex is the most important thing - so even if you’re Catholic, make sure to have lots of sex to make sure you’re both good in the sack. Cause nothing else matters.” “Kids? Why bother? If you want one, make sure you use lots of contraception right after cause one is too many and you’re responsible for tha kid till he turns 18.” “And, make sure ya dump your kid in daycare.” “I mean, nobody has relatives anymore that might help babysit or even good neighbors.”

THAT WRONG BEHAVIOR IS BEING MODELED ALL THE TIME ON TV AND THE MOVIES AND ELSEWHERE.

Peace,
Ed
You forgot the tie-in between no-fault divorce and so-called “women’s rights,” despite the fact that you’ve always been able to get a civil divorce in the case of abuse or mistreatment. It’s all about sexual “liberation” these days with no care whatsoever on what the proper moral order is.
 
You forgot the tie-in between no-fault divorce and so-called “women’s rights,” despite the fact that you’ve always been able to get a civil divorce in the case of abuse or mistreatment. It’s all about sexual “liberation” these days with no care whatsoever on what the proper moral order is.
I was there for that in the 1970s when the ground was made fertile by sowing it with lies, exaggerations and false fear. Were women abused by their husbands? Yes. What was the solution? Hate all men! Women’s Liberation was founded on immorality and anarchy. “A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle.” Feminist “icon” Gloria Steinem.

Betty Friedan, one of the founders of the National Organization for Women, was vicious regarding the family, comparing it to “a comfortable concentration camp.” Look at NOW today:

www.now.org/

Sex every which way but the moral and biologically normal way. Death to babies in the womb!

And I have hope, because the radicals are frustrated today that their plan turned out to be 100% wrong, which I and others recognized from the beginning.

From the Pacific Standard:

"It is a fictional portrait of a world in which traditional family roles prevail. Mothers do the caring and nurturing, while fathers are the providers who work outside the home.

The amusingly anachronistic Leave It to Beaver? Sure. But the description also fits some of today’s most acclaimed picture books for children.

That’s the conclusion of a recently published study, which finds sex roles in these illustrated stories have been surprising stagnant over the decades.

“Children’s picture books embrace tradition,” reports a research team led by Shepherd University sociologist Amy DeWitt. “Mothers are much more likely to be portrayed nurturing and caring for children, and men are more likely to work outside of the home. “These depictions have not significantly changed over time, so that these storybook characters often inhabit a bygone, male breadwinner-female homemaker era.”

"DeWitt and her colleagues analyzed a random sample of 300 “easy children’s books” from the more than 1,400 listed in the Children’s Catalog. That directory features volumes “selected by an advisory committee of distinguished librarians” and is “used to aid school and community libraries in selecting quality books,” the researchers write in the journal Sex Roles.

They divided the books by their date of publication, starting with a group of 50 published between 1900 and 1959. Additional groups of 50 were chosen from each of the final four decades of the 20th century. A final 50 were chosen from books published in the year 2000.

"The researchers looked for specific parental actions and noted whether they were taken by a mother or father. They were broken down into nurturing behaviors (such as expressing affection for or comforting the child), care-giving behaviors (such as preparing meals or cleaning the child), disciplining behaviors (such as spanking or scolding), companionship (such as playing with the child or taking him or her on a recreational outing), and working outside the home.

“Not surprisingly, they found a large amount of gender stereotyping. But contrary to their expectations, this tendency did not wane significantly over time.”

The tendency to portray normal families was “contrary to their expectations”? Thank God!

Peace,
Ed
 
I was there for that in the 1970s when the ground was made fertile by sowing it with lies, exaggerations and false fear. Were women abused by their husbands? Yes. What was the solution? Hate all men! Women’s Liberation was founded on immorality and anarchy. “A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle.” Feminist “icon” Gloria Steinem.

Betty Friedan, one of the founders of the National Organization for Women, was vicious regarding the family, comparing it to “a comfortable concentration camp.” Look at NOW today:

www.now.org/

Sex every which way but the moral and biologically normal way. Death to babies in the womb!

And I have hope, because the radicals are frustrated today that their plan turned out to be 100% wrong, which I and others recognized from the beginning.

From the Pacific Standard:

"It is a fictional portrait of a world in which traditional family roles prevail. Mothers do the caring and nurturing, while fathers are the providers who work outside the home.

The amusingly anachronistic Leave It to Beaver? Sure. But the description also fits some of today’s most acclaimed picture books for children.

That’s the conclusion of a recently published study, which finds sex roles in these illustrated stories have been surprising stagnant over the decades.

“Children’s picture books embrace tradition,” reports a research team led by Shepherd University sociologist Amy DeWitt. “Mothers are much more likely to be portrayed nurturing and caring for children, and men are more likely to work outside of the home. “These depictions have not significantly changed over time, so that these storybook characters often inhabit a bygone, male breadwinner-female homemaker era.”

"DeWitt and her colleagues analyzed a random sample of 300 “easy children’s books” from the more than 1,400 listed in the Children’s Catalog. That directory features volumes “selected by an advisory committee of distinguished librarians” and is “used to aid school and community libraries in selecting quality books,” the researchers write in the journal Sex Roles.

They divided the books by their date of publication, starting with a group of 50 published between 1900 and 1959. Additional groups of 50 were chosen from each of the final four decades of the 20th century. A final 50 were chosen from books published in the year 2000.

"The researchers looked for specific parental actions and noted whether they were taken by a mother or father. They were broken down into nurturing behaviors (such as expressing affection for or comforting the child), care-giving behaviors (such as preparing meals or cleaning the child), disciplining behaviors (such as spanking or scolding), companionship (such as playing with the child or taking him or her on a recreational outing), and working outside the home.

“Not surprisingly, they found a large amount of gender stereotyping. But contrary to their expectations, this tendency did not wane significantly over time.”

The tendency to portray normal families was “contrary to their expectations”? Thank God!

Peace,
Ed
I’m curious; what do you think of both parents working due to need? I feel like that’s more common these days than women working to “make a point.” It’s either that she’s always wanted to be a career woman or that she needs to for the family to survive.
 
Working due to need? There are Catholics who are doing without because one parent stays home and home-schools their children and the other works. They don’t have three TVs. They don’t have anything that is not necessary. Sure, they spend time together and enjoy some time off doing Godly and fun things. Or teach their children simple crafts. Or limit Christmas gifts to two inexpensive items per child. They’ll listen to Catholic radio.

Peace,
Ed
 
Working due to need? There are Catholics who are doing without because one parent stays home and home-schools their children and the other works. They don’t have three TVs. They don’t have anything that is not necessary. Sure, they spend time together and enjoy some time off doing Godly and fun things. Or teach their children simple crafts. Or limit Christmas gifts to two inexpensive items per child. They’ll listen to Catholic radio.

Peace,
Ed
:confused: I don’t know where you live, but I can barely afford to pay rent sharing a house with 3 other girls at a heavily discounted rent, to the point where I need help from my parents to get by. Yet I’m supposed to just accept that if I cut back enough, my future husband could somehow make enough money to pay for us two AND children? Clearly the ideal is to have one parent stay at home, but it’s virtually impossible to do these days with companies scraping wages to bare minimums.
 
:confused: I don’t know where you live, but I can barely afford to pay rent sharing a house with 3 other girls at a heavily discounted rent, to the point where I need help from my parents to get by. Yet I’m supposed to just accept that if I cut back enough, my future husband could somehow make enough money to pay for us two AND children? Clearly the ideal is to have one parent stay at home, but it’s virtually impossible to do these days with companies scraping wages to bare minimums.
The DC/Maryland area is (relative to my normal expense level ) quite expensive. From what I recall when I spent time near there (Silver springs, Maryland) traffic was a lot worst, gas prices were higher. My sister afforded living there though her full time job, her husband working, my mom flying up to babysit (as day car was rather expensive) and some occasional financial support from family members.

I share all this to say I know where you are coming from.

And it does seem in recent years the cost of living has grown faster than incomes have.
 
Working due to need? There are Catholics who are doing without because one parent stays home and home-schools their children and the other works. They don’t have three TVs. They don’t have anything that is not necessary. Sure, they spend time together and enjoy some time off doing Godly and fun things. Or teach their children simple crafts. Or limit Christmas gifts to two inexpensive items per child. They’ll listen to Catholic radio.
👍
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top