I am pleased to see that the community of natural marriage defenders is taking notice of kids in gay households:
Dear Gay Community: Your Kids Are Hurting
Wonderful! But what if I told you that it’s only a start?
Consider this: kids in gay households are often there due to a prior divorce and later remarriage, or a prior divorce and later cohabitation. These structural issues are not being adequately addressed within the larger context of same-sex marriage, and this has created a logical gap in our arguments.
Filling this gap is our opportunity to reach the younger generation.
Largely, the younger generation favors same-sex marriage. But if we addressed the family structure problems first created by heterosexuals, this may help us persuade the younger generation:
- that we care about their family structure inequalities and the pain caused by them
- that gay marriage adds to the structural inequalities children face
- that we are being fair in our assessments–we’re targeting all adults who are the impetus of structural inequalities for children under their care.
Here is why I am hopeful about this line of thought. The author of the above post retracted her support of same-sex marriage because she realized something important: Read more…
One man plus one woman = two legally recognized parents for children.
I believe that the divide between conservatives on the marriage issue runs deeper than marriage. Over on Ricochet, on Peter Robinson’s marriage thread, several times I asked a question that went something like this:
Does society have a duty to place a nature-based limitation on the number of legally recognized parents for children?
There is a specific reason I asked this question. When it comes to legally recognized parents for children, there is a divide between the socially conservative view and the libertarian view. In fact, I don’t believe there is a principled difference between the libertarian view and the extreme Left on this particular point. By “extreme Left” I am referring specifically to Melissa Harris Perry’s remarks that she made in about March or April of 2013: 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.
Is this what we have come to with the redefinition of marriage–that a man, a lawyer no less (not sure if that helps or harms my case) wants to legally marry his computer? The second part of this article speaks about the actual, physiological changes that occur in the brains of porn addicts. Spoiler alert: these changes are not good!
This article comes from Mercatornet.com.
BY NICOLE M. KING
The News Story – Florida man demands right to wed computer
A recent article in The Telegraph reports that a former lawyer, Chris Sevier, recently sought a marriage license to marry his Mac-book computer. In trying to argue his case, Sevier explained that he had become addicted to pornography via his computer, and so, “over time, [he] began preferring sex with [his] computer over sex with real women.” Read more…
A woman in France married her dead fiancee in a cemetary so why not this?
by B. Christopher Agee
Whether they will ever receive the same level of legitimacy that our culture has afforded same-sex ‘marriage’ is unclear.
Social leftists have been quick to dismiss the argument that changing the time-tested definition of marriage would lead to increasingly unorthodox demands from individuals seeking to wed relatives, inanimate objects, or even their pets. Read more…
Further redefinition of marriage
Two major polls demonstrate that the majority of Americans believe marriage SHOULD NOT BE redefined.
First, a Rice University poll has surfaced showing that a majority of Americans — 53% — STILL believe marriage should only be between a man and a woman! This comparative study demonstrates that the idea that droves of Americans are changing their minds in favor of redefining marriage is a myth.
And today news of a recent Fox News poll has come to light that is even better. Fox asked the question, Would you approve or disapprove of changing the definition of the word marriage to also include same-sex couples?
56% said they would disapprove, while only 39% would approve!