Here's an experience I cannot share:

MINNEAPOLIS, MN—In a turn of events the 30-year-old characterized as "horrifying," Kevin Widmar announced Tuesday that his mother Lillian has discovered his weblog.

The reason I can't share the above experience is because I am an orphan. No mother no father. No real inlaws either (unless you count "virtual" inlaws...). No one who can really tell me what to do in a way that might carry the sort of guilt which generally goes with "family." Does this make me "anti-family"? I sure hope not, because after all I did come from a family and it isn't my fault that it's almost gone.

What does the word "anti-family" mean? Typically, if you put the word "anti" in front of something, that means being opposed to it. "Anti-war" means being against war. "Anti-Communist" means being against Communism, often vociferously.

I know plenty of people who are anti-war, and they describe themselves thusly. Ditto for anti-Communists. (I have known self-described anti-Fascists, too.) But in all honesty, I do not know (and I don't think I have ever met) anyone who refers to himself as "anti-family." This means that the term cannot be said to describe a group of people with an avowed or stated goal of being "against" families.

The term seems to be a political creation. It is used almost exclusively to refer to people who engage in or support activities deemed bad for families. Not so much bad for individual families, but rather, bad for "THE" family. THE family is an ill-described, I-know-it-when-I-see-it phenomenon. It's tough to analyze, but there seems to be agreement on several principal characteristics.

There must be a heterosexual marriage -- and not merely between a man and a woman. Notwithstanding the legality of homosexual marriage (see this post if you are confused), I think that the proponents of the idea would further insist upon a HETEROSEXUAL man and a HETEROSEXUAL woman. Otherwise, immorality would result, and any immorality means that there either is no family, OR, the family in question becomes an "anti-family" family.

Those who disagree are by definition anti-family, no matter what the nature of their families.

Not only are all homosexuals "anti-family" but even speaking to homosexuals is anti-family. So are television and too much work. For a more exhaustive list of anti-family activities, see this.

And while you're at it, be sure to visit the Homosexual Urban Legends Site! Fun for "the family!" (Link courtesy of this anti-anti-family activist, whose web site shows that Disneyland is against "the family.")

I am not defending all of the activities described above. But whether something is good or bad, what makes it anti-family? Doesn't this depend on the definition of family? I am not trying to be sarcastic, but it's hard not to, given the complete failure of the proponents of these terms to define them. (The left-wing has a myriad of equally undefinable terms; try finding a definition of "social justice" -- a term which caused immense human suffering -- for example!)

What, then, is the definition of "family"? Is it a religious one, i.e. one offered by proponents of a certain religion?

How can we even be sure of that?

Here's a Christian website maintaining that Jesus and the early Christians were "anti-family":

Christianity as a religion has varied in its stance toward the family as defined as a kinship group constituted by marriage and procreation. For much of its history Christianity took a negative or at least highly ambivalent view of the union of men and women in marriage, of sexual relations, and of procreation. The ideal Christian was seen as being unmarried, celibate, and childless -- a profile that renders the Christian Right's effort to sanctify its concept of "the family" as normatively biblical quite simply untenable. There are several types of family in Hebrew scripture, none of which corresponds with the modern nuclear model. The New Testament, for its part, offers no single view of family. It is even, at times, frankly antifamily, though desires for alternative family structures and for the restoration of the patriarchal family are also expressed.

The negative view of marriage promoted by earlier Christian tradition was reformulated in the Protestant Reformation of the sixteenth century. At this time, celibacy was abolished as a higher Christian vocation and as a requirement for ordained ministry. Modern Christians think Christianity has always championed "the family," but this belief ignores three fourths of actual Christian history. It also fails to account for the conflicted views of sexuality and of women that continue to plague Protestant as well as Catholic forms of Christianity.

This is all very confusing -- and leads to the conclusion that the word "anti-family" is being used by people who want to hijack the word "family" so that it no longer means what it means, but becomes just another political term. You must use the word "family" with great care these days.

In the old days, of course, the word "family" meant those who occupied the family home -- including relatives, slaves, and people taken in and supported for whatever reason.

Hell, when I was a kid, people used to describe household employees and pets as "members of the family" -- something in accord with the original definition of "family":

derived from the Latin word familia (Roman Era 100-300 A.D.) to refer to all members of a household: relatives, non-relatives, servants, slaves, and other employees.

Today much of that would be considered "anti-family."

I have to confess, I am more confused than I was when I started, so I think I'd better get serious and say that I am not against families. Not my own, not those of my friends, nor of strangers. I am not against "THE" family, either.

Hey, I didn't start this. But because these definitions suck, I just wanted to make it clear that I am NOT "anti-family."

I am against the anti-family people! Anti all those who are anti the family. Anyone who tells me he's against the family, I am anti whomever it is!