The War Against the Family Ideals Needed for a Society to Survive.

 

"Every tree that bears not good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire." Matthew 7:19

I remember reading a prediction a leading proponent of humanism made back in the 1980s in which he speculated that sexual orientation would, by the 2020s, become almost meaningless in regard to dating and relationships. His reasoning? He felt it was a logical progression after society had largely divorced sex from reproduction.  The more sex was seen as something just to be enjoyed, or as bonding between two people, the less reproductive aspects would play the governing factor, and thus, sex between people of the same biological sex would become tolerated, mainstreamed and then non-controversial.  Was he right? Apparently he was.

People under 25, particularly females, are quickly abandoning the strict label of heterosexual or homosexual.  Now true, most young women today who identify as pan-sexual (a more cool way of saying ambisexual) or bi-sexual are now, or will be, in relationships with men. However, many will not, and there are implications beyond just sex acts themselves. Yet before delving into that, how has this evolved? Birth control is not the only variable involved.

Well, for one thing, one could go deep into the population control agenda, especially from the 1960s and 1970s where babies were often seen as an existential threat to humanity.  The idea of normalizing or even promoting same-sex relations could be found, and of course the rational was that if two women got together then few babies, if any, would result. So, assuming two children per woman average (then, it's lower now) then two women with dogs equals four potential children erased.  Of course, one can only speculate how influential such proposals were, but the ethic was clear, reducing marriages between a man and a woman was seen as a net positive result.  

Then there was the idea of land-use planning, Agenda 2030 in its infancy.  Lock up land, or make it so expensive to build new, or renovate old, housing that young couples can't easily afford any private housing.  This results in couples delaying marriage until that so-called right time comes about where people feel secure in doing so, and able to create a family.

We also know the influence of feminism, something promoted by government agencies, to get women into the workplace, thus reducing births. Even Ronald Reagan as California's governor (he was more liberal in those days) said the best contraception is a paycheck. And what started out as a way for a family to pull in extra money eventually evolved into an almost necessity to have more than one income in order to even have a home like one's parents had in the 1950s. 

Then we had education (public and higher education) which instilled a fear of the future if people had children.  Anyone attending school after the 1960s was subjected to ecological messages aimed at making humans the enemy of the planet. And virtually all wildlife documentaries (shown in school or if you turned on a TV) had a segment about how humans were destroying the earth. The message? Babies are the enemy of not just earth, but all the fuzzy critters in the forest. Maybe abortion could save baby chipmunks?

Yet these were developments that might reduce marriage and childbearing, what of changes in societal norms and values?  Starting in the 1980s you saw a push to integrate the acceptance of same-sex relationships into mainstream movies and TV shows. Still, you could not air any lesbian kissing scenes...people had to become more comfortable with that, but eventually they did through the process of desensitization.  And the effect on young women was particularly apparent as we entered the late 1990s where lesbianism, or more correctly, bisexuality became trendy. And this would become more popular as young women began to become the new customers of internet porn where scenes between two women were often presented as highly romantic and dreamy. Of course, you also had music videos that featured this as well. So, is it any wonder that if trends continue, we could expect most young women to no longer identify as straight by 2030? And as fewer and fewer males seek traditional marriage relationships, will a substantial percentage of marriages become two women unions?

Please check out and subscribe to my YouTube channel:

Freud noted that most progressed from childhood to adulthood as heterosexual as there was the instinct to reproduce, the dynamics of family interactions and societal norms and expectations. Well, reproduction is optional in the western nations of today, family interactions are often replaced by daycare and school, and societal norms are, if anything, neutral or even hostile to the traditional married ideal. Not even many religions are willing to take the heat if they question today's society too much, so we keep marching to a Brave New World, so the speak. And what is meant by that reference? It is doubtful that women's instinct to reproduce can entirely be erased.  However, today, at least with more affluent women, a woman doesn't need a husband to reproduce once or twice. A single woman or a women married to another woman can get pregnant with the help of donor sperm.  In the past, 80% of women reproduced at least once, but only 40% of men.  This ratio will grow further apart as many men will just settle on living alone, but a few "eugenically fit" men will donate sperm for maybe six or seven women to have families. So, you get major population curtailment, but perhaps the few children born will be upgraded, as the so-called "elite" of society might wish.

So how can we get back to marriage and family ideals as they used to exist? You don't, unless you get more leaders like exist now in places like Hungary or Italy.  And we have yet to see if they can reverse the decades of propaganda aimed at breaking down reproduction.  The USA? Our politicians, like our religious leaders, are not keen on taking the heat for advocating for pro-natalist policies. Therefore, it is critical for families to teach their children and grandchildren the importance of following traditional values while inoculating them against the psychological warfare aimed to persuading them not to be like their great-grandparent's generation.  That may involve a lot of learning about what the agendas really are, and teaching what benefits avoiding those agendas are, but it will be highly worth it. Not to do so is really not an option, now is it?