Archive

Archive for the ‘Politics & Marriage’ Category

Political Pressure to Change Language

July 8th, 2014 Comments off

rainbow flagAbout ten years ago, maybe longer, my kids started using the word “random” in a new way. At first it sounded very strange to my ears. They seemed to be using “random” as a synonym for “spontaneous,” or perhaps “weird.” All of the kids I knew used it this way. After a while I got used to it.

This change to the language occurred randomly (haha), ie, spontaneously, but wouldn’t it be strange to have political weight behind a change like that? Does “gender neutrality” amount to political pressure to change language? I think it does. I came across an example of this today and thought it was interesting. Written by a pro family activist who lives in Hong Kong and translates news stories from English into Chinese.

As a translator I can smell that the whole LGBT agenda is in fact an imperial expansion, especially when you look at language. I once doubted my translating skills, as whenever I translate LGBT-related news, I have never found a good way to translate the English words “couple” and “parent(s)” into Chinese. But when I read some very good articles pointing to the cultural imperialism of the LGBT lobby, I realized my difficulty was in fact due to my cultural inheritance, not skills. The Chinese language seriously do not have a word for “couple” or “parent(s)”. What we have for “couple” is actually a joint word “husbandwife”, and what we have for “parents” is actually a joint word “fathermother”! I find I simply can’t translate “couple” or “parent(s)” to fit the gay agenda, UNLESS we change our culture and the Chinese way of looking at family!

This is a very clear example of how language must change in order to accommodate “gay rights” and gender neutrality. The full post is located here.

I guess the big question is this: are these changes to language organic and natural, like the way my kids adopted “random,” or are they enforced due to what some consider to be “LGBT imperialism”?

H/T Bobby Lopez at English Manif.

Join us as we inspire the survivors of the sexual revolution! Click here to download our free booklet, Improve Your Marriage, by signing up for our newsletter.

 

I had Masha Gessen’s dream of five parents… and it sucked

June 25th, 2014 Comments off
Around March of 2013 I came across the words of a prominent LGBT activist named Masha Gessen:
I have three kids who have five parents, more or less, and I don’t see why they shouldn’t have five parents legally… I would like to live in a legal system that is capable of reflecting that reality, and I don’t think that’s compatible with the institution of marriage.

 

Imagine having five parents! Here’s what it means: it means going back and forth between all those households on a regular basis, never having a single place to call home during your most tender and vulnerable years. It means having divided Christmases, other holidays, and birthdays–you spend one with one parent, and another with the other parent, never spending a single holiday or birthday with both parents. Imagine having each of your parents completely ignore the other half of you, the other half of your family, as if it did not even exist. Meanwhile, imagine each parent pouring their energy into their new families and creating a unified home for their new children. These experiences give you the definite impression of being something leftover, something not quite part of them. You live like that on a daily basis for 18+ years.

Does this look like a fun way to spend your childhood?

As a child, would you choose a family structure advocated by Masha Gessen? Does this look fun?

 

I don’t have to imagine, because I had five parents. I had five parents because my mom and dad divorced when I was about three; my mom remarried once and my dad remarried twice. So I had a mom and two step-moms, and a dad and one step-dad. In this day and age children can already have five parents. That’s how badly marriage has deteriorated already. The main difference between what Gessen advocates and my experience is that my step parents were not legal parents; she advocates for all of the adults in her situation to be legal parents.

Read more…

Where is Murray Rothbard when we need him?

June 23rd, 2014 Comments off

Quick: what are the legitimate activities of government, according to libertarians?

Usually, libertarians will mention a short like including things like national defense, criminal justice, protection of property rights. Some, such as Murray Rothbard, are anarcho-capitalists and believe even these traditional functions of government could and should be handled by the private sector.

Murray Rothbard, self-described "Enemy of the State."  Where are you when we need you, Murray?

Murray Rothbard, self-described “Enemy of the State.”
Where are you when we need you, Murray?

Where, then were the libertarians when the United States supported efforts to impose the “Reproductive Health Bill” on the Republic of the Philippines?

This bill mandates that all school children receive Age- and Development-Appropriate Reproductive Health Education. – Read more…

Dissecting Sexual Revolutionary Propaganda

May 29th, 2014 Comments off

As I have said many times in my speeches (available at the Ruth Institute podcast page), the Sexual Revolution is irrational and its goals are impossible.  Therefore, those committed to the Sexual Revolution must also commit themselves to a steady stream of propaganda to over-write the basic facts of reality. This sometimes includes the subtle or not-so-subtle rewriting of history.

Today’s exhibit in understanding Revolutionary Propaganda comes to us from the Religion News Service, which describes itself this way.

The Religion News Service aims to be the largest single source of news about religion, spirituality and ideas. We strive to inform, illuminate and inspire public discourse on matters relating to belief and convictions.

So I find it odd, to say the least, to find an organization with this mission, taking for granted the arguments of Sexual Revolutionaries in an article, described as an “analysis.”

Let me confine myself to one particularly noticeable re-writing of history.

Written by Kevin Eckstrom, the Editor in Chief of the Religion News Service, the article claims in the section called, “A problem of overreach:”

Conservative groups resisted moves to compromise on a half-measure like civil unions; (Tony) Perkins’ organization (Family Research Council) calls civil unions nothing more than “a slow-motion surrender.” And that, said veteran gay marriage proponent Jonathan Rauch, was a critical mistake.

The author provides no context for cultural conservative Perkins’ comment, and he gives pro-gay Jonathan Rauch the last word. By doing this, the author suggests that Perkins’ assessment is incorrect, without actually taking responsibility for proving this, or even stating that his assessment is incorrect. Read more…

Betsy Kerekes on “The Drew Mariani Show”

January 29th, 2014 Comments off

(January 28, 2014) Betsy Kerekes is Drew Mariani’s guest on his eponymous show, where they discussed marriage–how to have a better one, Ruth’s recent publication “101 Tips for a Happier Marriage,” and related questions. Order the book on Amazon, or check out the store at our website–it makes a great wedding gift.

Oh, and the conference Drew and Betsy mentioned? It’s called “Healing the 21st Century Family.” One day in Carlsbad, California, full of encouragement, healing, and inspiration–and not a polar vortex in sight. Check out our website for the details.

Reframing the Marriage Debate

November 15th, 2013 Comments off

by , a Ruth Institute “It Takes a Family” 2013 conference alumnus

This article was originally published August 2nd, 2013, at ethika politika.

If there’s one lesson that conjugal marriage advocates should have learned by now, it’s this: While the best arguments win public opinion debates, rational arguments are almost never the “best arguments” to make. Read more…

Religious Freedom, Homosexual ‘Rights’ Clash in Supreme Court Appeal

November 11th, 2013 Comments off

by

Lawyers for a Christian couple have filed with the Supreme Court an appeal of a New Mexico court that said homosexual rights are more important than religious freedom.

In the case of Elane Photography v. Willock, Elane Huguenin and her husband, Jonathan,  are photographers who were fined by the New Mexico Human Rights Commission for refusing to photograph a homosexual “commitment ceremony.” The state does not recognize civil unions nor homosexual marriages. Read more…

The Battle over Marriage in our Military

September 12th, 2013 Comments off

from the Nom blog

In recent days, you might have read the news about the latest battlefront in the fight for marriage: a battlefront, this time, where real soldiers are involved.

I’m talking about the National Guard in Texas and Mississippi, whose leaders are choosing to obey those states’ marriage laws instead of a Department of Defense directive that would have the entire DOD recognize same-sex ‘marriages.’ The contention over that directive from Defense Secretary Hagel is just the latest fallout of June’s fateful Supreme Court ruling against Section III of the Defense of Marriage Act. Read more…

‘Get the Government Out of Marriage’ is a Red Herring

July 9th, 2013 Comments off

by Jennifer Thieme

This article was first published February 8, 2013, at AmericanThinker.com.

A red herring is something that distracts people from the issue at hand. It allows people who are otherwise thoughtful and intelligent to not think about another topic too deeply. Libertarians often make claim to “get the government out of marriage,” but this ends up serving as a distraction from the real policy issue at hand. There are a several reasons I believe it’s a red herring, or at least an idea that people haven’t thought through too well. Read more…

Supreme Court marriage rulings shift American government tradition

July 3rd, 2013 Comments off

by Sheila Liaugminas

We have always been a nation whose government serves by the consent of the governed, with separate and enumerated powers, states’ rights, rule of law and all that. Things have been ‘evolving, in popular parlance. With the Supreme Court rulings on marriage this week, we got a paradigm shift from self-government to ‘the tyranny of the majority,’ though that needs clarification to understand the meaning of “majority”, the way most of the language we’re using these days could benefit from clarification. Read more…