An interesting essay.
What is more interesting is Mal's book Fascinating Times.
The question arises as to whether Mal's book and the various "authorities" that he refers to (such as the dim-witted McGrath) even begin to take into account the real condition of the naive entirely exoteric mommy-daddy religion that they promote. And therefore the fact that the naive mommy-daddy religion they promote is very much part of the problem.
And thus by extension does he/they take into account the condition of humankind altogether in the "21st century".
I think not.
1. http://www.dabase.org/up-1-1.htm
2. http://www.dabase.org/up-1-2.htm
3. http://www.dabase.org/up-1-6.htm
4. http://www.beezone.com/news.html

the naive mommy-daddy religion
Daffy Duck,
?? I obviously don't get what you mean but since when is parenthood a religion ? Also, yes many parents are naive as are many non-parents in fact more people are naive than not.
Are you saying that a pair of queers are parents ? Maybe I've lived in the bush for too long but how can two individuals both with male organs become parents ?
Please explain.

yep the secularist hate the fact that the implementation of their anti family agenda has destroyed the fabric of society. Just keep killing the unborn, sleep with whoever you like, blow your brains on drugs, top yourself when you can't match the porn stars and be dumb enough to ask why. Good to hear of a judge who has a little integrity. Very unusual in this debauched secular society.

What, no feigned indignation from anyone ? Don't tell people are giving in to moral instead of their unhygenic desires ?

‘Far more beneficial for them is seeing their parents work through tough situations and disagreements and making things work.’

Far more detrimental is seeing their parents stay together for the sake of the children, because of their ‘vows’ or because marriage is the backbone of society and other such insipid reasons. Children are taught that people should remain in relationships even though it is quite obvious to a five year old that they despise each other. They learn that promises are more important than love and that a society based on a sham is more important than personal integrity. They grow up with the same attitudes as their parents and remain in miserable situations for all the wrong reasons. What they should be learning is that there is only one good reason for adults to remain in such close relationships and that is because they continue to love each other.

Children are not stupid and can easily see the hypocrisy in the lives of parents who no longer love each other. Such inherit dishonesty makes them not only suspicious and insecure about what their parents tell them of relationships but of most other things as well.

Those who promote the continuation of marriage beyond its use by date are not trying to protect children or society or save the taxpayers from funds spent in family law disputes - they are often trying to convince themselves that their own personal situation which is abhorrent to them is being maintained for good and noble reasons. It is much easier to try and get society to muscle up to their responsibilities than it is to extract oneself from a relationship that they may be remaining in for all the wrong reasons.

It may well be that two people can live lovingly together for their whole lives and raise families in that time but to promote that as the norm or even the desirable is to reduce human beings to robots who should not be free to search for love where they find it.

phanto,
I agree with you there but I draw the line at replacing Mommy with another Daddy or vs versa.