Here’s an article that raises questions about invitro fertilization that I had not even (forgive me) conceived of! The crazy possibilities of what people can do to get what they want regardless of the feelings of the children being created are seemingly endless.
BY TAMARA RAJAKARIAR
Originally posted at Mercatornet.com.
IVF. Do you think it should be used for anything other than infertility? To fall pregnant after a husband’s death, for example, using his frozen sperm? Read more…
This is the state of things now. Young adults need classes, instruction, and added motivation just to date. Very sad.
BY NICOLE M. KING
Posted here on Mercatornet.com.
The News Story – Would you ask a peer out for extra credit? School offers dating classes
Recent research has shown that our current “hook-up” culture has proved unsatisfying, in particular for women. Given this, some colleges have begun to reintroduce and reemphasize the possibility of dating and committed relationships. Read more…
If you’re debating marriage with somebody and they bring up the interracial marriage ban (which was struck down by SCOTUS in a famous decision called Loving v. Virginia), show them this graphic and start talking about what the interracial marriage ban actually DID.
The interracial marriage ban enforced the separation of men from women, based on race. It used marriage policy to keep the sexes away from each other, in certain instances.
Same sex marriage is doing something similar. It does not enforce a separation, but it does endorse and foster a separation of men from women, based on sexual orientation. It is using marriage policy to encourage the sexes to separate from each other, in certain instances.
Same sex marriage supporters claim to be “on the right side of history.” But as Loving v. Virginia shows us, history did NOT side with those who were using marriage policy in order to separate the sexes from each other. Remind your debate opponent of this fact.
Regarding 101 Tips for a Happier Marriage
“As someone who, through the grace of God and a lot of hard work, was able to rebuild a marriage, I can say that this book offers so much to couples who may be struggling. First and foremost, it helps husbands and wives understand the true definition of marriage as God ordained it. Second, it is filled with practical and very doable action items for everyday people with busy lives. If couples truly make an effort to apply the advice in 101 Tips for a Happier Marriage, their relationship–not only with their spouse but also with the Lord–will be the best it can be.” –Teresa Tomeo, Host of Catholic Connection
Order a special autographed copy for your loved ones here!
P.S. Autographed copies are available for non-newlyweds too!
My doctor won’t give me Hormone Replacement Therapy to help relieve my menopause symptoms. He says those hormones are associated with increased health risks. Yet, if I were 40 years younger and asked the doctor for oral contraception, he would prescribe it in a snap. Even though hormone replacement therapy and oral contraceptives consist of similar hormones with similar risks for cancer and other illnesses.
The World Health Organization has classified oral contraceptives as Group 1 carcinogens since at least 2005. However, they issued a public statement, attempting to reassure the public:
Accolades for 101 Tips for a Happier Marriage
“How can something as wide and complex as marital conflict be addressed by a book so slender and simple? Our culture stresses the wedding day and forgets the married life–until the wheels start coming off and then it’s often too late. But there is hope. This wise and practical book is not only for couples who want to make their good marriages great, but even better for couples who, for their own unique and pain-drenched reasons, find themselves tempted to give up on the dream. To Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse and Betsy Kerekes go the laurels for this much-needed manual for strengthening men and women for what G.K. Chesterton called the ‘duel to the death which no man of honor should decline.’” –Patrick Coffin, Host of Catholic Answers Live
Pick up a copy here.
Note: since “equality” is paramount for “marriage equality” supporters, next time you are discussing the marriage issue with them, point out their unequal arguments and also how “marriage equality” is contributing to children’s inequality. See what their response is.
“Marriage equality” relies on unequal arguments. When it comes to “rights,” “marriage equality” supporters make arguments based on gay rights, but they refuse to accept arguments based on children’s rights. When it comes to “outcomes,” they refuse to argue about the outcomes of gay sexual activity, but will argue about the various studies regarding children’s outcomes under various family structures. Not only do they argue unequally, “marriage equality” is contributing to children being treated unequally under the law. Read more…
Yesterday, I predicted that the debate between two Princeton professors would not broach what I consider to be the crucial questions on the marriage issue.
Princeton Professors duke it out over the definition of marriage.
The opening salvo by Professor Emeritus James Doig seemed more concerned with catching Professor Robert George in some inconsistency than in really exploring what the redefinition of marriage might ultimately mean.
In my reaction to his article, I posed these question. I consider them the most crucial issues.
How will redefining marriage redefine parenthood? Are we happy with that redefinition? And do we really want to change the relationship between the State and the citizen in the way that this redefinition really entails?
And I predicted that the week-long exchange between the Princeton Professors would not address these issues.
Today’s response by Professor Robert George has many interesting arguments and ideas. But he does not remotely answer these questions.
Stay tuned. Maybe Professor Doig will take them up tomorrow.
I’m not holding my breath.
No one is doing what the Ruth Institute is doing: inspiring the Survivors of the Sexual Revolution to to recover from their negative experiences and share their stories with the young. Join us here.
Over at The Public Discourse, Professor Emeritus Jameson W. Doig of Princeton began a dialogue with Professor Robert George also of Princeton on the proper definition of marriage today. Professor Doig’s point appears to be that Professor George has not been consistent in his views. My point is not to defend Professor George: he is a big boy and can take care of himself.
My point is that Professor Doig’s entire article avoids some important questions. How will redefining marriage redefine parenthood? Are we happy with that redefinition? And do we really want to change the relationship between the State and the citizen in the way that this redefinition really entails?
The problem begins with Professor Doig’s very first paragraph.
I want to begin with two Vermonters, Ann and Ellen, who have been together as a couple for more than thirty years. They have three children—Bert, who has graduated from college and is now married (to Maria) and working in a small business in Vermont, and Alison and Beth, who are in high school, both doing well in their academic work and excelling in soccer. One of the three is adopted, and Ann is the birth-mother of the other two.
Ripped out of the picture, by design.
Do you see who is missing from this equation? Without knowing anything else about this family, we know that the father of Ann’s biological children has been safely and legally escorted off the stage. The children will never have the opportunity to have a relationship with their father.
Most children have a legally recognized right to know and be cared for by both of their Read more…
What is the purpose of government? Let us look around us to draw the conclusion. Based on what we observe our government doing, we would have to conclude:
The real purpose of the government is to give people the sex lives they want, with a minimum of inconvenience.
You want to have sex without having a baby? No problem, we’ll give you contraception at no cost to you.
You want to have sex and you got pregnant and you don’t want the baby? That’s inconvenient. We’ll give you an abortion.
You want to have sex with someone you aren’t married to? Your spouse and children are inconvenient. We’ll give you a no-fault divorce so you won’t be inconvenienced by your obligations to your spouse and children. Read more…