Jennifer Johnson, Director of Outreach
My name is Jennifer Johnson and I am the Director of Outreach at the Ruth Institute. Since you linked to an important document created by my organization in your post called, “Conservatives Can’t Be Pro-Marriage and Oppose Gay Marriage,” I would like to respond to you.
You said that you haven’t found a conservative to “give you a satisfactory answer” as to “how gay marriage tangibly undermines traditional marriage arrangements.” That’s unfortunate, and I’m not very surprised. However, this kind of answer is the kind of answer specialize in here at the Ruth Institute (which is no longer part of NOM, BTW).
Before I answer, let me pose a question, Melanie. Have you researched the precise manner in which gay marriage is implemented into the legal code? I would like to make a prediction: that you have not done this research. Very few have. What I have observed, instead, is that gay marriage supporters make an assumption. Their assumption goes like this: 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.
Found this on Twitter today. Question: if there are really no gender roles, who will bear the children? Maybe that will be outsourced?
If there are no gender roles, who bears the children?
Men and women are different. You can learn more about why men and women are different by ordering our brochure, “77 Non Religious Reasons to Support Man/Woman Marriage.” It’s available as a PDF download, as well as a physical brochure. Learn how to counter the lies of the Sexual Revolution and order the brochure today.
I think this would apply in many countries.
by Carolyn Moynihan
You might think that people in Kenya had more to worry about than how men and women annoy one another, but that is what pollsters Ipsos Synovate decided to quiz them on. And the results indicate some serious issues in one of the more developed and stable African countries. Read more…
by Denyse O’Leary
The new science of neuroeconomics is making big claims. Can they be justified?
Can neuroeconomics rescue shattered economies?
We are asked by some to believe that it can. “Neuroeconomics” is one of many new directions in neuroscience – scanning the brains of floor traders, for example. In ” Testosterone and high finance do not mix: so bring on the women ” in a recent issue of The Guardian, Tim Adams tells us that the new science of neuroeconomics is proving beyond doubt that “hormonally-driven young men” should not be left alone in charge of our finances. Research shows that too much testosterone impaired the risk assessment abilities of traders, and so does too much cortisol. The solution, he thinks — riffing off Michael Lewis’s The Big Short — is to get more women involved: Womenomics. Read more…
Writer Erica Jong, one of the flag-bearers of the sexual revolution, wonders, in the New York Times, why her daughter’s generation is not interested in sex. Sexual passion, that is. “Fear Of Flying” stuff, perhaps, though I have never read her famous women’s lib tract. Read more…
by Carl Olson
Perhaps someone with more time and a stronger stomach than myself will take the time to wade through the dark depths of this NPR article, “The End of Gender?”, which is the sort of “news piece” that causes me to ask myself: “In the great scope of things, faced with the vastness of the cosmos and the grand mystery of life, how warped must a person be to spend their time obsessing over ‘gender’ as if it is some sort of Rosetta Stone that will bring everlasting peace, joy, and beatitude?”
In fact, the piece has a sentence that at least hints, in many ways, at some answers to that question; here it is: Read more…
Occasionally on this blog, same-sex ‘marriage’ proponents have challenged those of us who would seek to protect the institution of marriage to explain why, if we truly believe that (part of) the public purpose of marriage is to attach parents to their children, we nevertheless maintain that even a man and woman who are (for whatever reason) incapable of procreating together, or who simply have no desire or intention of doing so, should still be allowed – and even encouraged – to enjoy the benefits of married life. Read more…
Categories: Artificial Reproductive Technology, Babies, Book Suggestions, Demography, ethics, family, fathers, feminism, Marriage, Parenting, popular culture, sex differences
Betsy blogged this story about a week ago, and no one has picked up on it and chatted about it. The bulk of the story was about women in depression: a depressing enough story in itself. I read the whole thing, hoping the authors might have some insight as to why this is all happening just now. No luck, I’m afraid. But, at the bottom, I found this tidbit:
Colin Walker… welcomed the report but said his organisation’s research showed men and women experienced mental health problems such as depression and anxiety in roughly equal numbers.
“But men are less likely to speak out or ask for help,” he said. “This tendency to suffer in silence is reflected by the fact that men account for 75% of all suicides.”
Not suicide attempts. Not suicidal fantasies or plans. Men account for 75% of all actual, completed suicides.
Where is the outrage?