Or that girls don’t have mothers.
No, I don’t mean the time-honored military practice of sending soldiers off to fight in unnecessary wars that have nothing to do with national defense. As disgusting as that practice is, it is a corruption of a noble ideal: that fathers are willing to risk their lives to protect their families.
I’m talking about the perverse decision made by the Fort Bragg officer’s spouses club:
“A woman who is married to a female Army officer at Fort Bragg and who was recently denied membership in its officers’ spouses club said late Friday that she has been invited to become a full member. Ashley Broadway told the Associated Press that she received the invitation from the club’s board in an email Friday. The invitation came on the same day that Broadway also learned she’d been named Fort Bragg’s 2013 ‘Military Spouse of the Year’ by Military Spouse magazine. She is married to Lt. Col. Heather Mack, who gave birth this week to the couple’s second child, a baby girl.”
Let me start off by saying that, if the choice is being raised in a contemporary foster home, and raised by these two women, then I suspect he might be better off with them. But look at what we are being asked to accept.
We are not merely being asked to accept that consenting adults can do whatever sex act they want. I don’t think such a position is Biblical. Whether it is a good rule for a pluralistic society where no religion is in power, and where adherents to all religions and non-religions must get along, is a different question. My point here is simply that such a question has virtually nothing to do with what is being imposed on us.
We are being asked to believe that being raised by two mothers or two fathers is completely indifferent to the healthy formation of a child. Everyone knows that sometimes a child loses a parent. Dealing with that loss is considered difficult. But yet, at the same time, we are all being told that little girls being raised without a father to relate to, or without a mother, is an entirely indifferent thing. I heard an interview where the late Gore Vidal claimed that sexual orientation was no different than preferring potatoes to turnips (or some other vegetable; I can’t remember for sure). But even if that were true, does it follow that whether or not one is raised in a same-sex or a heterosexual family is of no concern?
What I’m trying to say is that we’ve never seen anyone attempt a neutral, empirical, psychological study of the long-term effects of being raised by “parents” of exclusively the child’s gender or exclusively the opposite gender. Rather, we are simply demanding that our children adapt to our perceived sexual needs and our claim that they are perfectly normal.
But no one wants to deal with any reality that might impinge on this pansexual fantasy. The spouse’s club gives her membership and the magazine makes her “spouse of the year.” Everyone insists that we consider the recognition of this family a basic human right without even pretending to be interested in how it can be human for the children.
A couple of last comments: 1. An added atrocity is the woman’s claim to be a devout Christian at the same time she demands acceptance for going the opposite direction of the way of Christ. 2. The picture of the couple is creepy: They could almost be the same woman. God makes us to love someone different to us and we insist on the self-affirmation of a mirror image.