I disagree. Some years ago, I wrote online about numismatics ("coin collecting") as an addiction. On the heels of that, a real psychologist published his own findings. For me, the impetus was an open question by a collector in an online forum: "I missed a mortgage payment to buy a coin. Am I addicted?" Yes, indeed, I said. However, that does not justify a frontal assault on numismatics as catering to addiction, feeding greed, destroying our appreciation for real art, or real savings, as submerging spirituality to materialism, and all that accompanied by quotations from St. Paul. The Greeks had a word for it: philargyrion, the love of silver. And so, too, here, do we meet a fundamentalist Christian who defends family (and state) against the sin of lust.
D.C. McAllister wrote: "By removing this protective shield around children, the state exposes children to being intentionally and completely deprived of a parent or to government itself taking the parents’ place."
That is a false dichotomy. In the first place, historically, children have been out-sourced as far back as we have records. The roots of modern capitalism are in the medieval guild system. Children were apprenticed to craftsmen, a step up from life on the farm. It broke up the family, or created new "family" structures that had to be recognized by law. (Market stalls in Champagne became heritable property, and property owned by women, at that.) Read Horatio Alger stories. In Ragged Dick, our hero is 12 years old, living on the streets, sleeping in a favored cart in an alley, before he is able to pull himself up by his bootstraps. At one point, he and a 10-year old are successful enough to take a room together. The landlady only cares for her silver, not where their parents are or why they are not in school. How does D.C. McAllister instantiate their rights to parents?
President Gerald Ford was one of millions of adopted children. I fear that McAllister's agenda would prevent that. The children have a right to their parents. Therefore, the parents have no right to abandon them to strangers.
In fact, children historically and in the present have always had alternatives apart from their biological parents and ownership by the state.
McAllister has no new facts to offer, no statistical samples, not even real-life horror stories, only quotes from someone who said the same things she does: "What they find is more jealousy, possessiveness, manipulation, control, self-centeredness, lies, melodrama, chaos, power struggles, and pain.” -- Deborah Taj Anapol, quoted in the article.
I have another story. My first wife (Dagny 2.0 on my blog here) has been in a committed relationship for ten or fifteen years, and is polyamorous, and has no children. Where does she fit into McAllister's narrative?
Most people cannot image what kind of relationship Dagny, Francisco, Hank, and John could have had after the end of the book. We can. It is easy when people are rational and realistic, and adhere to values that enhance their lives.
We all know the cliches about divorce. Frankly, I am just sorry for all the divorced people who hate each other. Why did they get married in the first place? Usually - especially in modern Western cultures - they will claim that they were "in love." My grandparents had an arranged marriage. I once heard my grandmother say to my mother, "Fifty-two years I was married to your father. No one asked me if I loved him." It was a stable household, for sure, but not one overflowing with love - mostly a lot of duty, routine, and diligence.
McAllister writes poetically, but all she is saying is that sex is permissible only when sanctified by marriage.
This doesn’t mean husbands and wives consign themselves to a boring marriage without sex. We are sexual beings, and, if we’re healthy, we long to be physically close to the person we love. It’s important, and necessary, to have a meaningful sex life. But that doesn’t mean we need butterfly-inducing sex found with strangers. There is a beauty to familiar sex between a husband and wife that is a thrill all its own. The love is deep, and sex is an expression of real intimacy—a love built on promises that there is only one. No jealousy. No fear. No pain. And, I should add, no sexually transmitted disease
She just kind of runs it all together, wherease the thoughtful scholastics who wrote the Baltimore Catechism were more structured.
254. What is the sixth commandment of God?
The sixth commandment of God is: Thou shalt not commit adultery.
Thou shalt not commit adultery. (Exodus 20:14)
255. What are we commanded by the sixth commandment?
By the sixth commandment we are commanded to be pure and modest in our behavior.
I exhort you therefore, brethren, by the mercy of God, to present your bodies as a sacrifice, living, holy, pleasing to God. (Romans 12:1)
256. What does the sixth commandment forbid?
The sixth commandment forbids all impurity and immodesty in words, looks, and actions, whether alone or with others.
But immorality and every uncleanness or covetousness, let it not even be named among you, as becomes saints. (Ephesians 5:3)
257. What are the chief dangers to the virtue of chastity?
The chief dangers to the virtue of chastity are: idleness, sinful curiosity, bad companions, drinking, immodest dress, and indecent books, plays, and motion pictures.
258. What are the chief means of preserving the virtue of chastity?
The chief means of preserving the virtue of chastity are to avoid carefully all unnecessary dangers, to seek God's help through prayer, frequent confession, Holy Communion, and assistance at Holy Mass, and to have a special devotion to the Blessed Virgin.
Be sober, be watchful! For your adversary, the devil, as a roaring lion, goes about seeking someone to devour. (I Peter 5:8)