Marriage, Family Foundations, and De-Constructionism Exchange.

Short facebook exchange. Thought I’d put it up here for future personal reference. If it may have the additional benefit of helping you with the important question of what is marriage, then I will consider it an additional blessing. Short discussion regarding the De-Construction of Marriage by militant feminist and homosexual ideologies. 

Leonard Goenaga 

just got out of his Marriage and Family foundations course. Wow. Blown away at how good it and Dr. Heimbach were. The narrative of the de-construction movement, and how the feminist and homosexual ideological movements wish to use it to deconstruct marriages to further legitimize immoral behavior/lifestyle was a great way to get the class started.

Individual 1 feminism is immoral?
Individual 2 You can’t be serious…

Leonard Goenaga

Matters on what we mean by feminism. If we are talking about the idea that gender identity doesn’t exist, and that man and woman are the same accept for sexual reproductive organs, than yes, I would say it is inherently sin-driven/sinful/immoral. A rejection of the natural order, which being devised by God, would make it immoral (immoral being anything in opposition to God’s design and law). 

Now if we talk about feminism as the idea that men and woman are equal in worth, than that it overtly not immoral, as God designed us and intended us to be equal before him. We both were made in His image, affirming our equality. However, this does not mean we deny our gender-based differences, as well as the corresponding roles.

And yes, I am serious. As serious as Vivian Gorni when she stated that “Being a housewife is an illegitimate profession… The choice to serve and be protected and plan towards being a family-maker is a choice that shouldn’t be. The heart of radical feminism is to change that.” and the 1971 “Declaration of Feminism” that states “Marriage has existed for the benefit of men; and has been a legally sanctioned
method of control over women . . . . [I]t is the institution that has failed us and we
must work to destroy it. The end of the institution of marriage is a necessary
condition for the liberation of women”. 

It makes sense that two ideological movements, which seek an affirmation of their lifestyles as being normative, would find themselves in direct contrast with an ancient social institution that blatantly speaks and contrasts the immorality of such unnatural directives. 

Sex literally becomes deified, and the two movements, which once blatantly blasted this institution of marriage (1960-1991), seek instead to deconstruct their enemy in marriage, and thus legitimize their practice and convictions.

This ignores the natural and beneficial nature of marriage itself, and how needed it is to a healthy

society, let alone civilization. There was a reason why we find the deconstructive of marriage to be a precursor to the fall of many a powerful civilization.

Sociology itself affirms the necessity of healthy marriages. Children born of biological parents who do not separate in divorce score betters test scores, live happier lives, etc., whereas children born of divorce homes or out of wedlock are monumentally more susceptible to future divorce, abuse relationships, adultery, theft, depression, poverty, abuse, murder, and a host of other ills.

Society literally rests upon the foundations of healthy marriages, as they are a primal system to pass down social responsibility, as well as order, character, and virtues. 

These two ideological movements attempts to deconstruct marriage, by removing the structures that make up the very institution, and thus leave it as nothing more than an empty word, also attempt to unnaturally remove the meaning and importance of this very important

social institution. This in turn is dangerous to society. as such, it is immoral. Selfish ambition, the deification of sex and their associated world view, the relative individualistic nature that craves acceptance of immoral behavior as norm, in turn deconstruct an ancient institution that precedes any healthy society. The question is an ancient spiritual one: sinful individualism versus social responsibility.

Worse of all, the deconstructed purpose of marriage, as found in this terrible social decline, broods only more of itself. Removing the structure of marriage, and its natural intention, removes the structure itself, replacing it instead with a word, which gives way to a relative concept.

Divorce homes produce more divorced homes. Children of wedlock produce more of the same. This further breeds citizens who are more inclined, sociologically speaking, to cast upon more social ills, thus producing somewhat of a cancer.

Without the concrete structure of marriage in its natural form, the incentives against it grow, and such behavior outside of marriages prove hardly beneficial. The individual follows their desires, as relative as they wish them to be, because man is sinful, and desires himself. Perhaps he may not see it as such, but it broods more of its fruit. 

Individualism in place of social responsibility. Unnatural in place of natural. Relative in place of absolute.

Individual 2 No, Lenny.

1) Feminists are not seeking to destroy anything except patriarchy. 

2) Gays do not want to destroy marriages and families. In fact, they want nothing more than the ability to have both. They’re fighting tooth and nail for that, actually.

You may want to go out and meet a few of these individuals before you make assumptions about their agenda.

Leonard Goenaga

1) If God designed marriages to be Patriarchal, and this marital system is natural, and marriage functions in accordance to a specific system (“Wives submit to your husbands… Husbands love your wives as Christ loved the church…”), then an attempt to dislodge the very nature of marriage, in opposition of natural, would be immoral. Not to justify an abusive marriage with a dictator husband (as that itself defies the natural design of marriage, making it too immoral). I’m speaking more of militant feminism and homosexuality, as those two traditions inspired such movements, and have in their goals the destruction of patriarchal marriages, which if those are their natural conditions, would leave the same critique stated above. 

2) The homosexual ideological movement does not straight-forward state they want to destroy marriages. They instead want to legitimize their behavior and condition as not being immoral, but amoral. They wish acceptance of immoral actions by the public, and one way this goes about is by deconstructing the things that provides the contrasts which expose such immorality. By deconstructing the structure and institution of marriage, and sapping from it its meaning, they are in turn destroying marriage. There is a reason why an interesting pattern has developed in nations which legalized gay marriage in Europe: Gays are not getting marriaged in legitimate numbers, and the above-mentioned social ills are skyrocketing. The purpose was not outright straight-forward destruction, but the results of such deconstruction centered on legitimization of immorality had the same such affect.

The homosexual ideological movement at first outright attacked marriages in intellectual and political thought (see Franklin Kameny, Michael Swift, James Nelson, and Eugene Rogers), and it wasn’t until 1991 that the approach (obviously failing in its viciousness) changed, and sought instead to grab unto the de-constructionalist movement by attempting to not remove marriage, but deconstruct and re-define it out of its very natural existence. 

I also have met many, as have talked to them, with kindness, respect, and passion (could find them on my friends list and ask them). You’re statement to not make assumptions is grounded on a wrongly make assumption.

Whether they state they outright want to remove it (as some prominent founders and thinkers of the homosexual movement have done), or whether they use de-constructive language draped with flowery language, the result is still the same: a dangerous de-construction of the natural order, and a vital social institution. Radical, hyper-intentioned unhealthy social change.



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s