Children and society
Statistics show an increase in child nausea all the time. The reason is the selfishness of adults in the area of sexuality and the changed morality of society
This text discusses children’s increased vulnerable position, which has been affected by legislation and selfish behavior of adults. The text brings up the most crucial negative turning points and trends that have affected children’s position over the last few decades. This is almost like a letter to a politician who is interested in the wellbeing of children. First, I will present some facts on the constant downward development of children’s wellbeing. It is nicely illustrated in two different quotations that are 24 years apart. From those quotes, one can see how already at the beginning of the 1990s, the state of children had already gotten worse, but 24 years later the situation is much worse.
Children’s distress and problems are increasing. One reason for this could be the economic depression of the last few years.
Family guidance centers have more and more families visiting them, due to their problems with their children’s anxiety, unsocial behavior, abnormal disruptiveness, depression and maladjustment.
A typical customer is 7-8 year-old boy, who is disobedient, aggressive, restless and constantly harasses other peers.
Children are forced to be alone too much. Even a ten year-old child might think about suicide. (Helsingin sanomat 16.12.1996)
Almost a billion euros used in institutional care for children and youth
Problems with children experienced strong rise since early 1990s
The expenses arising from institutional and family care in child welfare are currently increasing by more than 10% per year.
This year, institutional and family care for children and the young will cost around EUR 670 million. If the sum continues to increase, it will exceed the billion-euro limit in five years.
The number of children in institutional care has doubled since the early 1990s. Problems with children have increased to such an extent that most custody decisions are now urgent.
There are many reasons why more and more children are in institutional care: drugs and alcohol, crime, mental health problems and unemployment.
Inequality reigns in society, and the number of poor families with children has tripled.
The institutional care of one child can cost up to EUR 100,000 per year while proactive supporting measures in outpatient care could be offered with a couple of thousand euros. (Newspaper Etelä-Suomen Sanomat, 31 October 2010)
In addition, I will bring up some news that illustrate the direction of the development in society. It is clear how bad behavior towards others and selfishness have increased significantly over a few decades. People often say how we are getting better all the time, but that is not true. People behave worse than they did before:
Violence experienced by the local council workers increased
In under ten years violence and its threats to local council workers have increased immensely, which comes apparent from the indicator of working conditions of the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Employment (TEM).
Last year almost half of the local council workers had detected violence or experienced its threat. Over 20 per cent experienced violence themselves of felt its threat. In 2008 the corresponding numbers were a little under 30 per cent and a little above 10 per cent… (Etelä-Suomen sanomat 15.2.2017)
… As a professional of healt care, I bring to your attention the behavior of patients. When I was on call in the central hospital in the emergency room in 1974, it didn’t even come to mind that a patient would be violent or make threats. Today it occurs continuosly in the emergency room. They must have learned it from somewhere. What happens, when no one (from Finnish people) doesn’t want to serve – or teach?
With the loss of discipline, we have also lost civilized behavior. Giving discipline is simple if you want it to be. Volition seems to incline towards adapting to unruliness.
More resources, more resources, more debt. Well, that is what the undisciplined policymakers will do.
Jyrki Joensuu, a specialist doctor in general medicine and psychiatry, Lahti (Etelä-Suomen sanomat 17.10.2016 / Lukijalta [Etelä-Suomen sanomat 17.10.2016 / from the reader])
A fourth quite recent article or its heading also refers to current day (Etelä-Suomen Sanomat 23.10.2016). It shows, how teachers are under pressure due to students and their parents. The article then tells, among other things, how 74,4% of teachers thought that the behavior of students had gotten worse.
The heading of the front page:
School: ESS poll reveals, teachers subjected to violence, vandalism, threats and parents’ rage
The poll that the teacers took part in:
How do you think the behavior of students has changed over the last few years?
2,6% it has gotten better
23,1% it has stayed the same
74,4% it has gotten worse
The poll of OAJ: Students are the worst bullies to teachers in the whole country
according to the poll 50% of elementary school teachers have experienced bullying over the last year.
Sex without commitment. Now, back to children, the topic of this text. The former news articles told how the well-being of children and teens has diminished and how their bad behavior in schools has only increased. (ESS also told about the direction of the development (20/11/2013): “Violence among children is becoming more common …Aggressiveness of small children has increased in Finland”.). Moreover, when these children grow up, they will become ill-behaved adults. This poor behavior has only increased over time, as shown in the above articles.
What causes the increased worsened state of children and their bad behavior?
I am convinced that it is due to abandoning God and Christian values, which began during the late 1960s. The following facts illustrate the direction we are headed to:
• Unmarried couples living together were still called “wolf couples” in Finland in the 1950s. Furthermore, only 5 % of children were born outside of marriage up until the end of the 1960s. This shows how Christian teaching and the permanence of marriage were still respected during our grandparents’ time. It also meant that most of the children were allowed to grow up in an intact family where both parents were present.
• These days more than 50 % of children are born outside of marriage to a situation where the parents are not fully committed to each other. More and more children grow up in single parent families, which in some areas is the most common family form. It is especially common to have an absent father.
The following quotation from a book shows the importance of having both parents in the family. The quote tells about children who struggle in school. However, most often the reason is the absence of the father:
When I was speaking at a certain men's camp in Hume Lake in California, I mentioned that the average father spends only three minutes of quality time with his child a day. After the meeting, one man questioned my information.
He scolded, "You preachers only say things. According to the latest research, the average father doesn't spend even three minutes daily with his children, but 35 seconds."
I believe him because he worked as a school inspector in central California. Actually, he gave me another startling statistic.
In a certain school district in California there were 483 students in special education. None of those students had a father at home.
In a certain area on the outskirts of Seattle, 61% of children live without a father.
The absence of a father is a curse nowadays. (1)
Here are a few more comments to illustrate how important it is to have both biological parents present in the family. The presence of parents is the best option for children. Other options are not as good.
David Poponoe, sociologist, the University of Rutgers: Social sciences research probably never achieves certain results. However, during my three-decade-lasting work as a social sciences researcher I have become familiar with only a few sets of facts, where the weight of the evidence is really crucially on the one side: all in all for a child it is best that he or she grows up in a family with two (biological) parents than with a single parent or with a blended family. (2)
Research clearly shows that the structure of the family matters for children and that they are best supported by a family structure, that has two biological parents in marriage leading the family, and that the parent’s level of conflict is low. Children in single parent families, children born to unmarried women, and children in blended or unmarried families have a greater risk at developing bad habits - - That is why it is important, for the child, to promote strong and stable marriages between biological parents. (3)
If we were asked to design a system to ensure all children’s basic needs are being taken care of, we would probably end up somewhere, what is similar to the ideal of having two parents. In theory, this kind of plan does not only ensure that the children get two adult’s time and resources, it also provides a controlling and balancing system, which promotes high-class parenthood. Both parent’s biological relationship with the child increases the probability that the parents are able to identify themselves with the child and are ready to make sacrifices for the child. It also decreases the probability of the parents exploiting the child. (4)
It has been cogently showcased that children do not flourish, despite good physical care if they are being held in impersonal institutions, and that separation from the mother – especially during certain periods – is very damaging to the child. Typical implications of institution care are mental retardation, indifference, regressing and even death, when a sufficient surrogate mother is not available. (5)
The main reason for the increase in nausea among children can thus be considered the deterioration of the concept of marriage. This development, the sexual revolution, began in the late 1960s. That’s when it came to individuals who emphasized, by no means the amount of sexscenes, but the fact that one can have sexual intercourse without commitment and marriage. This was defended by saying that “I guess there is nothing wrong with it if both people love each other”. This issue was raised by the value liberals of that time, who gained space in the media and appeared in the name of love, just as new moral notions are now justified.
What is the consequence of a child being born into a situation where the parents are not committed to each other? It usually means the following options:
1. The happiest is, of course, the option where the parents immediately commit to each other and the child is born in a home where he or she has both parents.
2. Another possibility is that the socializing couple is divorced, but the child is born and lives with the other parent. Indeed, more and more family models are single mothers with their children so that the father is absent from the family. In some areas, nearly half of families may be single-parent families.
3. The third common option is abortion, which is actually killing of children, although some argue against this claim. Such people lie to themselves. With current technology, it is possible to see how fetuses 8-12 weeks old, at which most abortions are performed, have the same body members as an adult and a newborn.
The so-called sexual revolution and the associated free sexual relations are thus a major cause of children's suffering. It is difficult for children to be born if they do not have a home ready when they come into this world and the parents are not properly committed to each other. This is easy to understand. It does not require great wisdom. Proponents of the new morality have not taken this into account. For them, the most important thing has been their own enjoyment, not the best for the children.
We are still looking at a quote on how development set in motion in the late 1960s. Matti Joensuu, who has worked in family counseling, explains how he saw a change in attitudes. There were groups - usually young people - who advocated free sex and illegitimate cohabitation. The same groups also demanded free abortion and advocated homosexual relationships, so the seeds for current development were sown at the time. They received a lot of media publicity for their opinions, and this contributed to a change in attitudes in society. Now we get to reap the harvest of what these people accomplished.
I was away from my homeland for three years, the years 1965 to 1968. When I returned in the autumn of 1968, I was very surprised at the change that had taken place in the atmosphere of public conversation. This concerned both the tone of conversation and also the framing of questions.
(...) In the world of high school, those who demanded justification of sexual relationships were the ones blowing their trombones loudly. They insisted, for instance, that boys and girls should be allowed to live together in university dormitories even though they were not married.
It seemed as though the Teenager Union had been conquered by new leaders, who announced not only socialism and school democracy but also an idea of free sexual relationships.
All in all, what was new with the situation was that there were reference groups speaking about sexual questions much more openly than it had been normal in public. These groups accused the society and the church of double standards.
The tone of the conversation was to a large extent ethical. Morals were regarded as bad, and were blamed. However, a new moral was simultaneously announced, often very moralistically and intolerantly. It was discussed earlier that the sexual behavior of young people must be understood, but now some groups announced that it is right to have free sexual relationships. The institution of marriage and real genuine love were even set aside. Illegal couples were interviewed in public, as though they were some kind of heroes of a new moral standard, who had dared to rise against the morals of the bourgeois society. Homosexuals were interviewed in the same way and people demanded abortion to be legalized.
(...) Even though, according to my observations, the atmosphere of public conversation in Finland had changed surprisingly much between the years 1965 and 1968, the topical questions discussed everywhere else in the world were the same as in Finland. The difference was only in the vehemence of conversation and perhaps in the fact that in a small country like Finland, small active groups can almost overpower the media. In addition, we are probably still unaccustomed to public conversation. So the simple attitude of being right becomes dominant in a small country like Finland much easier than in larger countries. (6)
Then to political decisions. We often make the mistake of not learning from the past, but this should not be succumbed to. It is worth examining the past in the sense that we can avoid the same mistakes of the past. So one good example of the past is the Soviet family experiment. It happened in the last century and was implemented right after the Communists came to power. This family experiment involved 200 million people.
What was done in this family experiment? It made e.g. divorce easy, abortion was legalized and it was taught that there should be no barriers for free sex. However, the consequences of this were catastrophic, both in economic and social terms. It led to an increase in crime, an increase in abortions, a breakdown of families, and an increase in the number of orphaned and homeless children (just as child custody has increased today). When false teaching was first sown, it later had to be reaped as problems in society. Matti Joensuu talks about this experiment. Bolds have been added to the post:
Very extensive experiments connected to the family institution was carried out in the Soviet Union since the revolution. When in Oneida Community it was a question of 300 persons, in the Soviet Union it is a question of at least 200 million people who also represent perhaps 170 nationalities.
(…) In 1917, in the second month of the new governmental power, laws concerning marriage were published. Marriage in church was replaced with civil marriage. Divorce was permitted if one of the spouses asked for it. The following year these laws were complemented by imposing the birth of a child as the basis of marriage. There was to be no difference between children born in or outside of wedlock.
(…) A more radical change came into effect in Russia in 1926 and immediately after also in other parts of the Soviet Union. According to this change, the registration of marriage was not necessary. (…) Thus, none of the responsibilities and rights of the spouses or children were dependent upon the registration of the marriage. In 1926, divorcing was made even more easy. Either both spouses or one of them could apply for divorce without giving any justification.
(…) At first, there were no laws concerning sexual behavior. In 1920, abortion was legalized. Another law made adultery, bigamy, and incest acts not requiring punishment. The prevailing attitude was that there were to be no hindrances to free sexual relationships and no reactionary morals. Attempts to take contraceptives into use were taken and the idea was to abolish all shame concerning illegitimacy.
(…) The consequence was that divorces became more common (…) the number of illegitimate children increased. (…) The number of abortions, according to some statements, ‘horribly’ increased. Women were in many cases forced to choose between their social status or maternity. (…) When the number of abortions increased, the birthrate in towns decreased. Worried statements concerning this were presented already in 1926. It was assessed in 1922 that the number of homeless children rose to about nine million.
(…) Obviously, however, the breaking up of family relations caused an increase in juvenile delinquency. Many newspapers wrote about this phenomenon, called hooliganism, in the late 20s and in the early 30s. In 1929, hooliganism was deemed the most difficult problem. The number of juvenile delinquents was said to have doubled between the years 1929 and 1935. Groups of young people hanged around the towns and did all sorts of bad acts, such as attacked helpless citizens. There was talk about vandalism, thefts, burglaries, rapes, even murders that had increased over a short period of time.
A turning point in the family politics of the Soviet Union took place in 1934-35. (…) There is no need to clarify here in what way the official way of thinking changed. The main point is that the social defects and decay were acknowledged and powerful propaganda against hooliganism, irresponsible sexual behavior, and abortions was begun. (7)
Easy divorces and children. One matter that has weakened the position of children was mentioned above. That is free sex which has been advocated by proponents of the new morality, including journalists and politicians.
In addition to the vague commitment of parents, there is another important factor as to why children's problems have increased sharply and why society's costs have increased by hundreds of millions of euros. This reason is easy divorces and unions that are easy to leave. In some situations, such as serious violence, the difference may indeed be the only sensible option, but in general, the easy break-up of families generates a wealth of economic and social problems for society. In addition, children suffer from adult choices.
One milestone in the dissolution of marriage in Finland was the 1987 Marriage Act. It shows how important legislation is. In the past, marriage was understood to be a lifelong union that could only be dissolved by the spouse's adultery, violence, or rejection. Instead, the new law made divorce so easy that it no longer required the consent of both, but either spouse alone could apply for the divorce and enforce it. Thus, the result was a drastic increase in the number of divorces, and most of the divorces concerned marriages where there were no serious problems. Indeed, one scholar said of the ease of divorce: “How much stability in family life can we expect when a person has a stricter liability before the law in a contractual relationship with a plumber than his wife?) (8)
How did this divorce law affect children? It meant that the number of children growing up in the care of single parents has risen sharply. This means that children usually have to grow up with their mother and without their father. This was a change similar to the above-mentioned Soviet family experiment, which made divorce as easy as possible. The marriage could be dissolved for no reason. It greatly increased disparities and the number of homeless children.
I will take a quote here that talks about how growing in a single-parent family is not an ideal option for children. Such children have far more problems than those raised in intact families:
A Swedish long-term study compared 65 000 children from single parent families to 921 257 children who grew up with both of their biological parents. The study reached almost all children who were born between the years 1973 and 1985. At the end of the study, the oldest children were 26 years old and the youngest were 14. According to the study, a severe mental illness, suicides, attempted suicides, and alcohol use are two times more common in children of single parents, when compared to children who grew up with their biological mother and father. Severe drug use is three times more common among children in single parent families and four times more common among boys. Even death as a result of accidents and violence was more common among children in single parent families. (Ringbäck Weitoft ym. 2003.)
When the study was published in a distinguished magazine publication, some criticized it by saying that it blames single parents by stating that their children are particularly prone to suffer from severe issues. The head of the study, Gunilla Ringbäck Weitoft, however explained that the aim of the study was to improve the position of children growing up in single parent families: “We were astonished that the causations were so simple, although we accounted for a number of background factors. But our study aimed to improve the conditions of single parents’ children, and not to point fingers at the families.” (9)
Financial expenses. In between, a small deviation from the economy. As proponents of the new morality have brought forth their new views, it has become costly to society financially. At the beginning of the article, the news was told: Almost a billion euros used in institutional care for children and youth. Problems with children experienced a strong rise since the early 1990s ... The institutional care of one child can cost up to EUR 100,000 per year ... (Etelä-Suomen Sanomat, 31.10.2010). In addition, Aamulehti (a Finnish newspaper) reported on March 3, 2013: Marginalized teen costs 1.8 million. Even one successful Rehabilitation back into society is a huge plus. That is, the more families break up and the more false designs are favored, the more housing benefits, income support, and other benefits will have to be paid to remedy the situation. The following quote shows what is at stake:
Divorce is costly for many
Economist Pasi Sorjonen of Nordea Bank wonders why the financial impact of divorces is not discussed much even though divorces are very common and the financial impact caused by a divorce can be great for the people involved.
A study by Nordea Bank suggests that a divorce can lower the living standard of a family even more than unemployment. It is a very extensive social phenomenon: almost half of marriages now end in divorce.
"Divorces are very costly to the society," says Executive Director Heljä Sairisalo of the Finnish single-parent family association.
According to Sairisalo, as many as 25% of all single parents must live on relief. Among the entire Finnish population, 10% live on relief, and the figure is even lower for families with both parents.
In a survey done by Nordea Bank last year, only slightly over a third of families with children estimated that they would be able to live in their old home when one of the parents moves out. A parent living with the children alone needs almost as much room as a family with both parents: after all, the number of bedrooms needed will not change. (...)
"Fixed costs will increase," Sorjonen points out.
Sorjonen also pays attention to the use of time: a single parent has to handle the transport of the children alone because there is nobody to help. This will lower the everyday standard of living and, according to Sorjonen, can even be a threat to the single parent's ability to work: many day-care centres are not flexible in terms of the parents' working hours. (Newspaper Etelä-Suomen Sanomat, 25 January 2011)
A fairly recent newspaper article says the same thing. Housing benefits have grown at an accelerating pace in the 21st century, and in 2016, for example, more than EUR 917 million in general housing benefits was paid throughout the country. Part of the reason for the increase in subsidies is also the fact that politicians removed rent regulation from Finland twenty years ago:
The rate of giving allowances is accelerating in Finland… Housing allowance is being paid at a more and more rapid rate. In November Kela paid public housing allowances for over 93 million euros, when the same amount last year in November was a little under 87 million euros and in the year before that it was 65 million euros. The total sum of the money that goes into public housing allowances has doubled in the 21th century.. (Etelä-Suomen Sanomat, 8.1.2017)
Gender neutral marriage and children. As noted, children’s problems have clearly increased in a few decades. It is mainly due to the breakdown of the marriage. This development started in the late 1960s in the so-calledsexual revolution. It was initially driven by liberal journalists. It then affected politicians who changed the legislation in the same direction as what happened in the Soviet family experiment decades before.
What about modern time? Now many marche for homosexual relationships, just as people before marched for free sex or abortion. Many will surely sincerely think of it as helping these people who have an interest in the same sex. The marchers ignore the fact that it is a question of sinful lust that often has its roots in traumatic interpersonal experiences - including sexual abuse. At least many homosexuals themselves deny that it is an innate trait and may refer to events in their lives.
How does this matter relate to children? After all, people of the same sex cannot have children with each other.
However, this is not the case here, because children can be procured either through artificial methods (fertility treatments, uterine letting) or through temporary heterosexual relationships. A child can also be born through them. What makes this problematic for children, is the fact that the child is born into a situation where he or she is missing at least one of his or her biological parents at home from the beginning. A child is made fatherless or motherless only because the desires of adults would come true. The longing of the children’s father or mother is insulted and considered a trivial matter, even though it is known how abandoned children experience a lack of parent, father or mother’s longing. Television shows, among other things, have often told how children want to find a biological parent they have not met and who has disappeared from their lives. They have a longing to find their own roots and meet the biological father or mother who is missing from them. This has become increasingly common in modern times, e.g. due to increased differences.
Thus, the acquisition of children in the so-called gender-neutral marriage is always problematic because the child is separated from the other biological parent from the beginning. It is the selfishness of adults towards a child, even if something else is claimed. Adult freedoms take precedence over the fundamental rights of children.
The following quote refers to the subject. It shows how gender is considered an important factor for adults, but not for children. It is not considered important that the child has parents of different sexes. Anthony Esolen has drawn attention to this inconsistency where the adult feelings and desires are more important than the children's desires:
We cannot say at the same time that: ’The genders of a child’s parents doesn’t matter’, and say straight after that the gender of an adult’s sleeping partner matters so much that he or she cannot adjust his or her life style in accordance with nature at all. A son doesn’t need a father, because gender doesn’t matter. But his mother needs a ‘wife’, and we simply cannot expect her to take a husband, because in this case gender matters more than anything else in this world. (10)
What about the concepts of love and equality that usually come up when discussing gender-neutral marriage? Is this really the case, that is, is it a matter of love, or is it really a matter of selfishness because children’s right to father and mother is denied? Robert Oscar Lopez, who grew up in a lesbian home, has drawn attention to such rhetoric:
We often hear that same sex couples have loving homes, and that they love children. This doesn’t convince me, because love means that you make sacrifices for other people, instead of expecting other people to make sacrifices for you. If you are a homosexual and love the child, you either sacrifice your homosexuality and raise the child in a home, where he or she has a mother and a father, or you give up your dream of being a parent and accept that adopted children are given to homes, where they will have a mother and a father. If a child is an orphan, disabled or abandoned into a government institution, a child like this needs a mother and a father more than anyone, as he or she needs stability and normality due to the trauma he or she experienced. You cannot ask a child to sacrifice something so universal as a mother and a father. (11)
In France many homosexuals themselves have taken a stand in the matter. They believe that the gender-neutral marriage law violates the rights of children to have both mother and father. That is why they oppose gender-neutral marriage:
Atheist and homosexual Bongibault has noted in an interview (Wendy Wright, French Homosexuals Join Demonstration Against Gay Marriage): Before anything else, we must protect the child. In France the aim of marriage is not to protect love between two people. Marriage is especially designed to provide a family for a child. The most heavy research to date – indicates clearly that children, who grow up with homosexual parents, have struggles while growing up. (12)
Jean-Pierre Delaume-Myard: Am I a homosexual homophobe… I am against gender neutral marriage, because I defend a child’s right to have a father and a mother. (13)
Jean-Marc Veyron la Croix: Everyone has their limitations: the fact that I don’t have a child and that I miss a child does not give me the right to take the love of a mother from a child. (14)
Hervé Jourdan: A child is a fruit of love and he or she must stay as the fruit of love. (15)
Fertility treatments for single women fall into the same category as the previous one, and it has been advocated by some journalists and politicians. It means that a child is intentionally rendered fatherless from an early age. From the beginning of his life he doesn't have own father.
What, then, is the consequence of a child being deprived of the opportunity to know his or her own father? Many children born like this have openly told about their identity problems and their longing to meet their biological father (sperm donor), whom they have never seen. The following quote and example tells more about the topic. Journalists and politicians pushing for new morals have forgotten the children’s perspective on this issue:
Katrina Clark was born to a mother, who used artifical fertilization and an unknown donor. The mother was always open about it to her daughter and they had a close and loving relationship. Growing up, however, the daughter began to struggle with identity issues and started to observe her friends, who had both parents. At 20 years old she writes in Washington Post column: “Then a feeling of emptiness took over me. I realized I was an oddity in some sense. I would never have a father. I finally understood, what it meant to be a child produced with the help of an unnamed donor, and I hated it.” (16)
Polygamy has been supported by some journalists and politicians, and it has been a common practice in some countries – especially in Muslim countries, where men have had the right to have more than one wife. This issue has been defended and advocated, especially by the representatives of the Green Movement. However, this practice seems to have brought inequality and problems into society.
Firstly, even if someone was not going to take another man or a wife after getting married, there is no guarantee that their spouse will not do the same. Marriage that was first between two people, could become a union of three, even though the other person of the couple would not want it. This kind of adverse situation could happen, and in Muslim countries it is everyday reality. Wife of a Muslim man can never be sure whether he will take yet another or even a third wife into the family. She will live in an unstable situation, because she can never be sure of her position as the wife.
What about social problems following polygamy? The following quotation refers to how the practice can lead to criminality, violence, poverty, and inequality in society:
According to anthropologists, in most societies at least some men have been polygamous, even when the majority of the men have had to settle for one wife. Rivalry between men in cultures accepting of polygamy leads to crime, violence, and poverty, as well as to an increased inequality between the sexes, when compared to societies that have institutionalized monogamy. So is claimed by the professor at British Columbia University, Joseph Henrich. (17)
Polygamy is difficult in terms of children. Turkish human rights defender, Halide Edib Adivar told ca. a century ago how her family life changed when her father brought another wife home. It brought mutual distrust and a power struggle into the atmosphere of the home:
...In the case of polygamy, suffering extends to three large groups of people – children, servants, and relatives – three entire groups who benefit more or less from opposite factors due to the nature of the situation, and they’ll live in destructive atmosphere of mutual distrust and power struggle.
In my own childhood, polygamy and its consequences brought on an extremely ugly and anxiety induced effect. The constant tension in the home probably made every simple family gathering feel like physical pain, and the awareness of this pain hardly ever left me.
The rooms of the wives were opposite to each other and my father would visit them both in turns. (18)
Teaching about the wrong sex. One thing that was hardly mentioned in the media a few decades ago is the teaching that man can be born into the wrong sex. This is a relatively new issue, maintained by reformist media representatives and, of course, by transgender people and organizations such as SETA in Finland (just as they maintain the notion that homosexuality is innate, although this issue has been overturned in many conferences and twinstudies, and even though many homos deny this).
So what is behind this matter? We don’t have to belittle anyone’s inner experiences because they are personal. However, in trans-matters it is a question of very common problem: a person’s dissatisfaction with himself or herself. Dissatisfaction with one’s own sex is no worse than people being dissatisfied with their appearance, the smallness of their muscles, or being too fat. For example, eating disorders such as anorexia nervosa are a good example of this. A person may consider himself/herself too fat even if he/she is quite skinny right now. The fault, then, is not in his/her body, but in the person not accepting himself/herself and his/her body. The same problem can be seen in the lives of transgender people.
So why discuss this? The problem is that it can confuse many children or young people, and as a result, many may go for irreversible surgeries - healthy organs are amputated - such as breast removal, which they later regret. Many people who have done so have since expressed the hope that the psychiatrists and doctors who treated them would have tried to make them understand the deeper psychological factors that led them to fight their own bodies and genders. Several of them regretted that experts supported their sexual confusion instead of highlighting psychological factors. This topic has also been discussed on the Internet, e.g., by a blogger called Musta Orkidea:
“Some of my body parts have been removed. I have no breasts, because they were removed, and there are scars in my lower stomach that were wounds, through which other parts of my body have been removed, parts that were naturally a part of me. My face shape has changed. Hair grows on my face. My voice has changed into something completely unrecognizable… I cannot conceive a child, and I am entirely sterile even as a woman… My current name is not my real name. My identity is a made-up identity and I have the wrong papers. I am not a man but a mutilated woman… For years, I have lived in a lie, and made myself think that I am something I’m not… I have crossed a line and there is no coming back. I can never get back something that has once been cut off. Sex change surgeries are irreversible. Once the body is broken, you can never repair it. I am completely unfixable. Nothing can be done… It is not possible to be born in the wrong body. The human body has existed long before there has been any awareness, or formation of identity. The body and mind are not separate from each other, nor do they exist as separate or singular entities. They are always one. The thought of the possibility that one could be the opposite gender on the inside is ridiculous. Trans-sexuality and identity disorders and this disorder exist between the ears, not in the body. Sex is a physical quality of the body like height, shoe size, or hair color. One cannot change their sex, like you cannot change your race or height… Trans-sexuality is very much like anorexia. It is like having symptoms of the same condition but in a different form” (Musta orkidea: Viimeisen muurin takana on totuus. [The truth lies behind the last wall])
Michelle Cretella, pediatrician and chairman of an American pediatric organization, has also stated that one should not disturb a child’s understanding of reality by talking about a possibility of being a captive in a wrong body: “Preschool-aged child’s normal intellectual development and understanding of reality are being disturbed if they are told false notions about a possibility to be trapped in the wrong body. This kind of instilling is mistreatment of children” (19). Cretella describes guiding children and teens into trans-sexuality as “widespread mistreatment of children”.
Tolerant people support child murders.
- (Mark 10:19) You know the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Defraud not, Honor your father and mother.
Report: Once upon a time there were two groups. Both groups spoke in favor of human rights and love. Both of these groups also agreed that 10-year-olds were genuine children who were not allowed to be killed. The groups were unanimous on this issue.
Instead, the difference between the two groups was evident in attitudes toward 5-year-olds. Group 1 considered them as equal people to 10-year-old children. Group 2 members, on the other hand, thought that 5-year-olds were not real children but some kind of lumps of tissue. Therefore, their lives could be ended if the parents so wished.
How does this relate to the topic being addressed? In short, it is precisely a similar issue in abortion. One group of people considers a small child in the womb to be a real person and the other group does not. They think differently about this. However, it must be taken into account that 10-year-olds, 5-year-olds and children in the womb have the same body members, because ...
- A 10-year-old has a head, eyes, nose, mouth, hands, feet, etc.
- A 5-year-old has a head, eyes, nose, mouth, hands, feet, etc.
- The baby in the womb also has a head, eyes, nose, mouth, hands, feet, etc. A person who has made abortions says:
One cannot perform abortion eyes closed. One must be sure that everything has come out of the womb and one must count that there are enough of legs and arms, rib cage and brain that is coming out. Then when the patient is waking up from their narcosis, and asks, whether it would have been a girl or a boy, my resilience has reached its limits and that is when I usually walk away. – If I perform a surgery, where I clearly kill a living being, I think it is folly to talk about destroying nascent life. It is killing, and I see it as killing.” (20)
This is a good place to shift our attention to tolerance. As noted, many cultural liberal politicians and journalists want to be seen as tolerate, progressive, and sensible. However, it all crumbles in this one aspect, as they accept child murders. They are content with killing unwanted children.
We can pose a question, however, whether this is any different to that how Hitler killed people in gas chambers, or how the Canaanites burned their children, which provoked the wrath of God. The only way to deny this is to deny the human status of the child in the womb, as illustrated in the following quotation.
If it is so that a developing fetus is morally equivalent to a child, then abortion is morally equivalent to infanticide. Only a few think that the government should let parents decide on their own, whether they want to be responsible for killing their child… Those, who are willing to defend women’s right to abortion, should make a statement on the argument that a developing fetus is equivalent to a human being, and then try to demonstrate, why the argument is wrong. It is not enough to say that the law should be neutral when it comes to moral and religious questions. Defending the right to abortion is equally as unneutral as demanding to ban it. Both parties await for an answer for this moral and religious dispute, which lies in the background. (21)
What about the future? As this is about children, I fear that next we need to be worried about pedophilia slowly becoming more accepted. People begin to claim how it is also a form of sexuality among the others, which is why “one should be understanding towards it”. Similarly, love will also be used to bring this matter forth – as was the case during the sexual revolution (“there is nothing wrong if two people have sexual intercourse, as long as they love each other”) or with homosexuality (that is, when homosexuality was brought up, people did not speak about sex as much as love – forgetting that love exist between anyone, only sex with the same gender separates homosexuality from other behavior). That is why I am certain that there will be TV shows first depicting sexual relationships between adults and teens, and later between adults and children in a positive light. This has already happened abroad.
You must know that in the Netherlands there was a “pedophilia party” about ten years ago already, and it was bringing this phenomenon to light. Moreover, Amsterdam has been the capital for child pornography production in Europe. In the same way, Amsterdam is a forerunner in other forms of wickedness. United Nations have listed Amsterdam as the number one target for human trafficking, the Netherlands was first to legalize euthanasia, Amsterdam is the drug capital of Europe, and it is also considered the gay capital.
Therefore, I believe as Finland has taken guidance from the Netherlands, especially in the homosexual matters and euthanasia, we will soon see similar emphasis in Finland too. I am convinced.
I have nothing against homosexuals, but I think that when homosexuality is accepted, people will also start to accept other distortions. Well-known homosexual magazines and leading figures abroad have brought forward pederasty and pedophilia for years, as seen in the following quotations:
In the past decades, we have noted how the breaking of one social taboo related to sex has cleared the way for the acceptance of the next, more serious taboo. Pre- and extramarital sex has become more and more publicly accepted, starting in the 1960s. The next in line in the 1990s were homosexuality and transsexual-ism. The only things left now are paedophilia and pederasty.
This is usually considered to be an exaggeration and an attempt at intimidating people. Homosexual movements are also opposed to comparing homosexuality with paedophilia. This is not an issue that can be lightly set aside, however. Most regular homosexuals are not even familiar with what the international homosexual movement has done or with the discussions that are currently taking place in academic homosexual publications. (22)
Although the things that wide audiences talk about with each other are not widely spread, they are not secrets and surely can be distributed to wide audiences. Do the supporters of abortion, e.g., publicly deny their hostility towards motherhood? Publish Eileen L. McDoagh’s description of an unborn child as an aggressive intruder, who is to blame for the precnancy. Do homosexual activists publicly deny the link between homosexuality and pedofilia? Publish the double copy of Journal of Homosexuality magazine about the topic “The generational love between men”, which is full of articles praising “the loving pedofile”. It can be said that every societal movement has embarrassing allies. Absolutely, but in this case there is a fundamental asymmetry. Proper societal movements reject those, who aspire to be their friends, but say bad things. Movements advocating for immorality take these friends to their side, because they don’t consider what they are saying as being bad. This speaks volumes if only we are willing to hear. (23)
Small glance at alcohol policies. The previous chapters referred to two things that have put children in a more vulnerable state: poor legislation and adults’ increased selfishness. We discussed, e.g., how sexual revolution and loosened divorce legislation have made things worse for children. More and more children have had to grow up in families or institutions without one or both parents. It has not been good for their development.
Other factors have, of course, also influenced poor behavior in society. One of the major contributors not dealt in this text is the media. Shows in TV have constantly become more violent and give bad examples of sexuality. What will be God’s judgment for these producers and media executives, as they have spread so much evil in society? Only God knows. The following words of Jesus are worth keeping in mind. The judgment for those who have mislead others is always greater than for those who have not:
- (Matt 18:6,7) But whoever shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.
7 Woe to the world because of offenses! for it must needs be that offenses come; but woe to that man by whom the offense comes!
- (Luke 12:47,48) And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.
48 But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For to whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more.
Another area affecting children is legislation concerning alcohol policies, especially, loosening the regulations. The fact is, there are hundreds of thousands of people who are more or less addicted to alcohol in our society. They are unable to control their drinking and do things under the influence which they would not normally do.
A situation where the parents are alcoholics, or perhaps drug addicts, truly is not ideal for any child. Children are easily neglected, or the whole family might fall apart due to alcohol use. It is not difficult to understand how it can complicate the normal life of a child and make him or her feel less safe.
I have also commented on the matter in a newspaper. A person, “Mister X” (their real name does not matter) demanded more loosened alcohol policies, talking, e.g., about moral politicians and regulation-Finland. In a sense, his views are correct, but sometimes legislation and restrictions are there to prevent many harms. At the same time, it will keep societal cost on the low side. The piece of writing was published in Etelä Suomen sanomat -magazine (24/7/2018). The name mentioned in the text has been changed:
Alcohol problems have far reaching effects
Regulation: Drawbacks of large-scale alcohol consumer addictions also reflect to family and working life
Mister X wrote on the op-ed of ESS (20/7) about moral politicians and regulation-Finland. He wished for a looser alcohol policy and increased availability of alcohol. He also stated that “responsible regular folk are being regulated from every direction into a narrow box, because five percent of the population don’t know how to live properly”.
It just is a fact that although alcohol is a problem to 5-10 percent of the population only, it affects others. 5-10 percent in itself means hundreds of thousands of addicted major alcohol consumers, but once you add families, employers, and other relatives, the number rises close to a million.
Mister X should also familiarize himself with previous statistics. Each effort to make alcohol consumption easier has increased problems. It was the case in Finland in 1969 and in Sweden in 1955.
When medium beer was introduced to regular shops in Finland in 1969, criminality increased by 27 percent and the growth kept increasing over the following years. Moreover, in the 1970, a study was conducted in Norway that stated adding one liter per person in alcohol consumption (transformed to pure alcohol) produced a 16 percent increase in violence. The number of convicted violence felonies was used as the measure.
These kinds of facts cannot be overlooked, like Mister X does. One should listen to those who have practical experience from the field.
Another thing is costs caused by alcohol consumption, which are being paid by every one of us. Kauppalehti (16/9/2011) told how “alcohol causes around billion-euro costs directly in a year to society. Indirect costs rack up to five billion euros”. These kinds of sums are not nothing. In addition, when Mister X wants to break the monopoly held by Alko, it would mean a decrease in the government’s tax revenue. This proposition by Mister X would either mean higher taxes or more debt to society. It is not worth doing foolish politics!
It had only been a month from the former writing, when the same newspaper reported the effects of the new alcohol regulations. This new policy was implemented during the same year in Finland and it affected in a way, e.g., that emergency duties for the police increased by 12 000. This shows how alcohol regulations affect people’s behavior.
Police: New alcohol law increases emergency calls
The new law on alcohol has increased emergency calls for the police, the police estimated on Monday. The emergency calls for the police grew during the January-July period by over 12 000, and according to the Police Board, the increase can be blamed on changes to the law on alcohol.
From March onward the new law allowed all restaurants to serve alcohol till four am. The served alcohol can be drunk till five am.
The new law also released the opening times of restaurants. Before, restaurants had to close at four am at the latest.
In practice, the change is visible in some restaurants closing their doors at five am. According to the Police Board, police duties concerning alcohol clearly start from five am onwards, lasting always until eight am.
Emergency duties are mainly concerned with intoxicated people, abuse, disruptive behavior, and vandalism.
The biggest increase has happened between five and six am. For example, abusive cases increased during that timeframe with almost 65 percent, in comparison to the previous year’s March to July period.
However, arrests of intoxicated people by police are decreasing. According to the Police Board this is due to many municipalities increasing their detoxification centers.
The new alcohol law has also affected the working shifts of the police.
- Police departments have had to move their resources to after mid night and to the early-morning hours, which adds costs and the workload, says the Director of Police, Sanna Heikinheimo, at the Police Board, (ESS 21/8/2018)
Value liberals often seek to promote free access to mild drugs, but it has its problems, both for adults and children.
The so-called gate theory is still valid, ie it is easy to drift from mild drugs to harder drugs. About 80 to 90% of all heroin addicts have started with mild drugs. When they are ineffective and their effect diminishes, they become craved for stronger substances. Why deliberately go to a society where drug use is easy to drift into?
In addition, if drug users have children, they are more likely to have the diseases than other children. This is also the case for children whose parents use alcohol. For example, hundreds of children are born in Finland who have serious illnesses due to their parents' alcohol use. Another problem for children is that parental drug addiction and drug use do not benefit children, nor does alcohol use. It is more difficult for drug-addicted parents to take care of their children.
Drug and alcohol addictions are also a major reason for the rising costs to society. The more drug addicts and alcoholics there are, the more families break up, people are marginalized, forced out of work and the number of illnesses increases. All of these things become financially expensive. It has been estimated that in Finland, for example, alcohol costs a billion euros a year directly to society and indirectly up to five billion euros (Kauppalehti 16 September 2011). Hundreds of thousands are dependent on alcohol.
Closing remarks. Many issues that impair the lives of children were discussed above. Personally, I consider the reason for this negative development that our society has turned away from the Christian world of values, the sanctity of marriage, and that sex is right only between husband and wife in marriage (1 Cor 7: 2: Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.). The more we go down this path, the more we can expect an increase in society’s costs. These things are interconnected.
Then from one thing to another, that is, to everyone’s relationship with God. Each of us has done wrong in some area of our lives, and we certainly can’t point the finger at anyone. We should first make sure that we first focus on our own shortcomings rather than our neighbors.
In spite of everything, God has a good plan for us deficient people. He wants the best for us, and the best of his gifts is eternal life. So you who have hitherto rejected God’s will and have not cared for him, turn to him! Confess the sins that come to your mind and ask Jesus to your life, because He has paid the full price for your sins. Through him, you can receive the gift of eternal life. You can pray, for example, as follows:
THE PRAYER OF SALVATION: Lord, Jesus, I turn to You. I confess that I have sinned against You and have not lived according to Your will. However, I want to turn away from my sins and follow You with all my heart. I also believe that my sins have been forgiven through Your atonement and I have received eternal life through You. I thank You for the salvation that You have given me. Amen.
1. Edwin Louis Cole: Miehuuden haaste, p. 104
2. David Popenoe (1996): Life without Father: Compelling New Evidence That Fatherhood and Marriage Are Indispensable for the Good of Children and Society. New York: Free Press.
3. Kristin Anderson Moore & Susan M. Jekielek & Carol Emig:” Marriage from a Child’s Perspective: How Does Family Structure Affect Children and What Can We do About it”, Child Trends Research Brief, Child Trends, June 2002,
4. Sara McLanahan & Gary Sandefur: Growing Up with a Single Parent: What Hurts, What Helps, p. 38
5. Margaret Mead: Some Theoretical Considerations on the Problem of Mother-Child Separation, American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, vol. 24, 1954, p. 474
6. Matti Joensuu: Avoliitto, avioliitto ja perhe, p. 12-14
7. Matti Joensuu: Avoliitto, avioliitto ja perhe, p. 85-91
8.Ryan T. Anderson: Truth overruled: The Future of Marriage and Religious Freedom.
9. Tapio Puolimatka: Seksuaalivallankumouksen uskonnolliset juuret, p. 47
10. Anthony Esolen: Defending Marriage: Twelve Arguments for Sanity (2014), Charlotte, NC: Saint Benedict Press, p. 149
11. Robert Oscar Lopez, p. 114
12. Wendy Wright: French Homosexuals Join Demonstration Against Gay Marriage, Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute, January 18, 2013
13. Jean-Pierre Delaume-Myard: Homosexuel contre le marriage pour tous (2013), Deboiris, p. 94
14. Jean-Pierre Delaume-Myard: Homosexuel contre le marriage pour tous (2013), Deboiris, p. 210
15. Jean-Pierre Delaume-Myard: Homosexuel contre le marriage pour tous (2013), Deboiris, p. 212
16. Tapio Puolimatka: Yhteiskuntakoe lapsilla?, p. 109
17. Timo Vihavainen, Marko Hamilo, Joonas Konstig: Mitä mieltä Suomessa saa olla, p. 205
18. Paul Gingsborg (2014) Family Politics: Domestic life, Devastation and Survival 1900-1950, New Haven: Yale University Press
19. Mark Hodges: ”Transgender hormone blockers are ’institutionalized child abuse’: pediatrician”, LifeSite News Oct 17, 2017
20. Suomen kuvalehti, n:o 15, 10.4.1970
21. Michael J. Sandel: Oikeudenmukaisuus (Justice. What’s the Right Thing to Do?), p. 283,284
22. Ari Puonti: Homoseksuaalisuus – hämmennyksestä selkeyteen, p. 166
23. J. Budziszewski: Tätä emme voi olla tietämättä (What We Can,t Not Know. A Guide), p. 278,279
Jesus is the way, the truth and the life
Grap to eternal life!