Conspiracy of silence on value of marriage: Politicians frightened to admit fathers are vital, says top family lawyer
Supporting marriage has become a ‘no go area’ for our politicians says Baroness Deech
She says an absence of fathers is ‘harming’ the next generation of children
Politicians are ‘too afraid’ of offending cohabiting partners or single parents
By Steve Doughty
PUBLISHED: 18:28 GMT, 15 February 2013 | UPDATED: 02:20 GMT, 16 February 2013
From the indicated article:
We live in a world where we are encouraged to take care of our own and our childrens health: we are constantly admonished to take exercise, eat healthily, wear a cycle helmet, study the side of the package, stop smoking, recycle, combat global warming, brush our teeth, control our drinking habits and have health checks.
But when it comes to the one issue that does more harm to the next generation than any of these the absence of a father in the family there is a conspiracy of silence.
My attention was drawn to the article at the Facebook discussion forum “Friends of Protection for Men“.
Go there if you wish to see the discussion thread that follows the posting. Here are some of the comments I mentioned there,
- If I could , I would give this two-thumbs-up.
- The article identifies a few consequences of fatherlessness that were known for many years, but it does not identify any others. I assume that the reason for that is that the mainstream media is a big and dominating part of the conspiracy of silence. See: “It’s Official: The Experiment Has Failed : Experiments in Living: The Fatherless Family“, by Rebecca O’Neill; Sept. 2002, CIVITAS Civitas is an independent think tank which seeks to deepen public understanding of the legal, institutional and moral framework that makes possible a free and democratic society.
- “Lady Deech added that same-sex couples who have entered civil partnerships are pressing to have marriage, which is seen as a better alternative.” If that is all she added, then she is either part of the conspiracy of silence or exhibits her ignorance on why family is seen a better alternative to other modes of cohabitation. Without a doubt, Lady Deech’s explanation is seriously incomplete and avoids very important issues. Those missing aspects are addressed by a definition of the family that she should without a doubt be familiar with: “The “family” in all ages and in all corners of the globe can be defined as a man and a woman bonded together through a socially approved covenant of marriage to regulate sexuality, to bear, raise, and protect children, to provide mutual care and protection, to create a small home economy, and to maintain continuity between the generations, those going before and those coming after.It is out of the reciprocal, naturally recreated relations of the family that the broader communitiessuch as tribes, villages, peoples, and nationsgrow.” Allan Carlson, in “What’s Wrong With the United Nations Definition of ‘Family’?”, The Family in America (August 1994), p. 3
- We need fathers in families, not families without fathers.
- I will break another taboo that contributes to the conspiracy of silence and come right out and say it: Lesbianism is homosexuality, and homosexual activists but especially lesbians were the driving force of the sexual and cultural revolution that sped along the deliberate deconstruction of marriage and the family. Its is therefore extremely ironic, adding insult to injury, that Lady Deech singles out homosexuals who yearn for marriage as proof that the public sees marriage as being important.
- You may wish to play around a bit with this plot of trend-lines pertaining to fatherhood, motherhood, family, and feminism, so as to better understand the forces that are at play.Make sure to think about what that tells you and how the trend pertaining to the issues of “family” is related to the other trends identified on that graph. It is a minuscule number of people who steer and control public opinion, and the power of public opinions to influence the Brahmins at our universities who decide what is and is not politically correct is vastly overrated. Still take the same graph and remove the trend-line of “family”. That make[s] what I am getting at very obvious.
- Can it be true that we should have greater concerns about lesbianism than about fatherhood?
- The answer to that question is [this]. Books tell us what those who write and publish them think our priorities should be. Books, TV, and newspaper articles indoctrinate the public as to what should be the moral and ethical standards of the day, on account of the impact of the indoctrination that they induce. Because of that (and perhaps in spite of that), public opinions differs from what the public is supposed to think. Here is how the public interest (as per the total world-wide number of searches containing those terms) was affected by the propaganda war against fathers and families:
http://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=fatherhood,lesbianism,gay%20rights . There is an important addition to Lady Deech’s politically-correct plug for gay rights in relation to the importance of the family: Gay rights are *not* more than three times as important as is fatherhood, regardless of what the public thinks or what it is supposed to think according to those who drive the re-engineering of humanity.
I rest my case. Comments at this blog have been closed for some time and will remain closed. There are not enough hours in the day to permit me to moderate a blog, too, and I have no help with any of this, other than from my wife. If anyone wishes to comment on or discuss any of the issues raised here, contact me on Facebook, at http://www.facebook.com/dadsandthings .