Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« How to handle China | Main | Toronto Star Doesn’t Understand (but that really isn’t news)! »

Monday, October 29, 2007

Family fare

The shrinking number of stable, two-parent, married families in Canada is a cause for concern. But I find it strange that "progressives" in this country don't think that it's all that important for kids to be raised by a married mother and father--strange, because the same "progressives" who downplay the importance of marriage were up-playing it (to coin an expression) when all the talk around marriage centred on homosexuals' access to it.

This and related subjects form the basis of my most recent Face to Face debate in the Tri-City News. Here's the full column. And here's that of my debating partner, Mary Woo Sims.

Posted by Terry O'Neill on October 29, 2007 in Current Affairs | Permalink


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Family fare:


There isn't much to add to your piece since it covered pretty much all the FACTS.

Mary Woo Simms is of course entrenched in the idea that if you can just get a 'feel good' going in your life, the butterflies and birds will hover nearby.

She is a loon and it's been proven that a dad and mom working and taking care of domestic biz is the best route to success in present day society.

Bill Cosby said best when telling his 'peoples' how to win. It goes like this ...

Finish high school
Get at job ... any job until you get a better one.
Get married and stay married.
Don't have kids unless you are married.

It's the way we got to the powerful functional society we have now, but sadly is vaporizing under the lunacy of people like Simms and the deviants who have cheapened the morality of the family.

Posted by: John | 2007-10-30 12:43:37 AM

Man, are these ever tired arguments. I have no doubt that children raised in a loving family turn out well and good strong families are always a positive thing to be admired. But in those nifty stats you quote about how badly kids can turn out if their parents divorce, does it say what the stats are for kids produced by loveless marriages? What happens if parents who grow to hate each other, but stay together because of pressure from ultra conservative family and friends, start taking out their frustration on their kids? What happens to kids whose parents ignore them? Or what if, heaven forbid, there is domestic violence in the house? What about those kids? Is it really better to force these families to stay together no matter what? Really?
I've never seen an easy divorce but it always happens for a reason. It's painful and nobody goes through it unless all else has really failed. And if it's really that bad, they shouldn't be trapped together because some Social Conservative yahoo starts quoting a bible.
And I'll never understand how two gay men or two lesbian women getting married has anything to do with any of you. How on earth does what two consenting adults do affect you? Conservatives always want the government to stay out their lives in every other way, but start talking about what people do in the privacy of their own bedrooms and suddenly there's no end to the laws Conservatives want passed banning this and banning that.
Time to lose the hate people.

Posted by: Jake | 2007-10-30 1:41:48 AM

"... the same 'progressives' who downplay the importance of marriage were up-playing it ... when all the talk around marriage centered on homosexuals' access to it."

Terry, you are not really this dumb, so why pretend? Of course you know there is a difference between thinking that it is important that people who WANT to get married be ALLOWED to get married and thinking people really should WANT to get married. The progressives who supported gay marriage were not saying to gay couples "you really MUST get married". They were saying to regressives (to coin an expression) like yourself that "you really MUST NOT stand in the way of people who WANT to be married."

So if there is any hypocrisy or inconsistency, it comes from regressives who claim that marriage IS an important thing, yet denying it to gay couples is not to deny them anything that matters. Progressives are consistent. They just think everyone should have equal access to marriage, regardless of how good an idea it might be.

Posted by: Fact Check | 2007-10-30 6:58:06 AM

Women do not think.

The thinking 1% of all women are the homosexual males, whom I would call "the girls."

The girls developed the "thought" of creating an itch for "Rights" to be fought for by the women, in order to achieve equality (in western nations, hugely Christian populations, and thus infused with a traditional understanding of profound equality of all humanity via the immortal Soul - "neither woman nor man, servant or free...but one in the eyes of the Lord").

So, the women stupidly followed the "girls" into the demonic creation of Feminism, the recipy for the destruction of the natural human family.

"Girls" are fickle and foolish and futureless and childless and burdened with the profound mental illness known as homosexuality.

The now nearly thoroughly corrupted Roman Catholic Church is the primary engine for this corrupt evil enterprise of "normalizing" the mental illness of homosexuality, by their corrupt, demonic and secret-stealthly action to insinuate homosexuals into the Catholic clergy, to create a polluted disruptive "trusted advisor" to all Catholic families via the women, right there in the Catholic Church confessional. "It's OK you poor little lady, he's a brute, you can get an abortion in your "special situation" or you can argue and nag about unimportant materialistic junk even though it creates a Hell on earth in your home, and then you can divorce and remarry and tear the children's lives apart, forget all about the centuries of Truth that "we" formerly heterosexual priests used to teach."

The destruction of the natural human family is absolutely essential for Communism to take over and complete the destruction of the world, in one (Hillary's) generation.

THERE IS HOPE! Evidently, Ms. Woo Sims was rejected by Canadian voters!

Who will stand up and run for election based on Truth rather than the "popular" girly evil (we don't have a man worth spitting on down here among our "top" Republican candidates - will Canada provide world leadership)?

Posted by: Conrad-USA | 2007-10-30 7:52:45 AM

Jake says:

"There's no end to the laws Conservatives want passed banning this and banning that."

Have you looked in your socialist mirror lately???

Posted by: obc | 2007-10-30 8:20:19 AM

Whatever happenned to: grow up-get married, and have children.

If the young do not have children--who will?

Let's face up to the facts folks--Canada needs people to have more children. We are suffering from a baby deficit!

Posted by: Lady | 2007-10-30 8:27:53 AM

There was a "gay" advocate on TV recently here in the US. His interviewer stated that marriage has been historically between one man and one woman throughout modern civilized history. He continued with his "gay" argument when the interviewer asked: "What's to stop 3 heterosexuals from wanting to get married because they "love" one another? That's what gay marriage will lead to!"

The "gay" activist had the gall to respond: "Marriage has always been between TWO individuals throughout modern history - not three or more. Therefore, that will never happen."

He didn't flinch as his stupidity was revealed for all to see.

Posted by: obc | 2007-10-30 8:29:01 AM


heheh, so his knowledge is at odds with facts--what an idiot.

Not too long ago, folks like him would be reduced to being eunics.

And facts are, we have a baby deficit in Canada--a very very real baby deficit. We need more support for families and couples, than ever before, to reverse this terrible problem--or we are not going to have enough people in a few years--to do all the lovely tasks we like being done--and our economy will fall quicker than you can spell monkey.

Posted by: Lady | 2007-10-30 8:50:56 AM


If we reduce out population by not having children, the left should be delighted. Then the planet will have more of it's resources to itself. The polar bears will have a better change to live, the forests will grow thick again, the water will be cleaner, the stars at night will be brighter.

Too bad there will be so few who can appreciate those things and be around to enjoy it.

However the more likely reality goes something like this. There will be a decline of white populations around the world as they are the ones not reproducing and are the targets of all others.

There will be a lot more Muslims, Blacks, East Indians and a couple of billion Chinese. The world's eco-systems will have deteriorated to a point where people's life spans will have reduced to preindustrial levels and the warring between the yellow, brown and Muslim sects will be raging on until there is so little left that no one will have any happiness at all and life on earth will have become nothing but a parody of itself.

Perhaps by then, there will have been a few settlements on the moon and Mars with a few condo complexes in orbit around the Earth. It those are self-sustaining, then there may be a lingering of humankind for a long time even after the asteroid eventually comes to put what's left on Earth out of it's misery.

Could be a good script for a depressing sifi movie eh?

Posted by: John | 2007-10-30 9:29:32 AM

karol -

I know that you have "been there" and possess hard wrought experience and knowledge. Thank you again for communicating some of it.

This issue is so profound and critical, time-critical.

I'm an old fashioned Roman Catholic.

EVERYTHING that the Catholic Church taught regarding life and family and growing up and raising children was 100% correct.

No pre-marital sex (ALL UNmarried people should be celebate until marriage). Lifetime marriage, or disolution in eggregious cases, but NO remarriage until the spouse died. Marriage sexual relations only-always "open to the values of both life and love" (e.g. no artificial birth control - trust in God and utilize self discipline and knowldege of natural fertility cycles). Absolute sanctity of innocent human life from conception to natural death.

Every bit of it completely True and workable and absolutely beneficial for every human being on earth.

But we got the Communist influence into the Church via homosexuals to destroy that which worked properly and the infection created that which is perverse and sick and dying (baby shortage? hardly; descency shortage, leadership shortage, Faith shortage, in spades!).

Posted by: Conrad-USA | 2007-10-30 9:41:34 AM

Lets hope that we come to our senses and start controlling population the right way. The generous use of nuclear weapons could easily set the clock back on the demise of western civilization. Rather than watch ourselves be swallowed up by this hyper-reproductive mob of non contributing populations, let's come to our senses and put a plan together.

I've been reading and listening to a constant, high pitched whine about helping Africa for over forty years now. It never ends. Biafra, Ethiopia, Sudan. In that forty years we have been convinced to stop having children while the African population soars. And what have they done to help themselves, other than learn how to scam the internet?

I think Madonna, Bono, and Geldoff should go to Africa and stay there.

Posted by: dph | 2007-10-30 9:46:47 AM

When it is scientifically proven that the acts of a homosexual union can produce a child, I will lead the parade to call it marriage.

Otherwise, it's just orgasmic pursuits.

Raising future generations has always been part of what marriage means and what better way is there for the future of humanity than the construct of marriage, which provides the potential of a stable and nurturing environment as a child grows to maturity?

C'mon all you homos. Prove me wrong. Start producing children today.

Posted by: set you free | 2007-10-30 9:54:07 AM

The comments to this entry are closed.