UFI

Archive for the ‘Abstinence’ Category

Only Men Can Father

In Abstinence, Child Development, Diane Robertson, Education, Families, father, Gender, Marriage, motherhood, Parental Rights, Parenting, Research, Sanctity of Life, Schools, Sexual Freedom, Single Mothers, The Family, Values, Violence on November 12, 2014 at 7:59 am

father throwing daughterDiane Robertson

New Research being conducted on the differences between mothering and fathering has found that children need to the complimentary parenting styles from both genders.

Jenet Erickson, research sociologist and author for the Deseret News, presented research that is being conducted, and not yet published, during the Wheatley Conference. She has given me permission to summarize this research in progress.

Last week, I discussed some scientific reasons why only women can mother. This week, I will discuss why only men can father.

Although mothers and fathers both experience an increase in Oxytocin levels as they become parents, these hormones exhibit important differences behaviorally in mothers and fathers. Each study finds that men parent similarly to each other and likewise women parent similarly, making women mothers and men fathers. The compatibility of the two sexes in parenting contributes to the complete and normal development of children. When one parent is missing, children suffer.

Even with the emergence of stay at home fathers, mothers engage with, care for, and provide routine care for their children 3 to 4 times more than fathers. Yet the father’s influence and different ways in which he is involves himself with his children is very meaningful.

A father in the home improves the emotional, social, economic, and sexual outcomes of children.

The unique way in which fathers play with and hold their infants and children affects their children’s behavior and ability to form relationships throughout their lives. Jenet Erickson explains:

Mothers tend to exhibit unique capacities for emotional attentiveness and responsiveness, which facilitates the security necessary for the formation of healthy identity in children. Fathers’ involvement and closeness also appears to be related to almost every aspect of children’s social-emotional health, but fathers seem to distinctly influence children’s capacity for prosocial behaviors and healthy relationships. Play is a critical way through which children receive these important contributions from fathers. Consistent with the way mothers and fathers tend to hold their infants (cuddling vs. football hold), mothers seem to make distinct, even critical contributions to children’s identity formation, while fathers make distinct contributions to children’s capacity for healthy relationships with others.”

The way in which fathers interact with their children correlates well with the educational outcome of children. Children who have an involved father, do better in school and are much more likely to graduate high school, attend college, and graduate from college. In fact, a father’s interaction with his children has a more profound effect on education than mother’s interaction with her children.

There seems to be three main reasons this is the case.

  1. Father’s physical play stimulates and activates children. This unique ‘destabilizing’ orientation corresponds with typical approaches in other father-child interactions that may play an important role in ‘stimulating children’s openness to the world’ by exciting, surprising, and destabilizing them (Palkovitz, 2012, p. 226). These unique characteristics have led researchers to describe a father’s relationship with his children as an ‘activation relationship’ primarily developed through play (Paquette, 2004).”
  2. Father’s interaction with children helps the children to develop independence. According to Jenet Erickson, “Daniel Paquette found from his research that fathers ‘tend to encourage children to take risks, while at the same time ensuring safety and security, thus permitting children to learn to be braver in unfamiliar situations, as well as to stand up for themselves.’” Fathers also tend to insist that children do things for themselves, while mothers will step in to help and explain.
  3. Fathers are more “cognitively demanding”. While helping with homework, for example, fathers will stand back and offer verbal cues without intervening, and mothers will actively help their children solve a problem and complete their tasks.

 

Fathers are an important part of sexual and gender development for both boys and girls. Maggie Gallagher summarized this well. She has said that:

What a boy gets from experiencing the dependable love of a father is a deep personal experience of masculinity that is pro-social, pro-woman, pro-child…Without this personal experience of maleness, a boy (who like all human beings is deeply driven to seek some meaning for masculinity) is vulnerable to a variety of peer and market-driven alternative definitions of masculinity, often grounded in…aggression, physical strength, and sexual proclivities…

She continued, “The importance of a father in giving a boy a deeply pro-social sense of his own masculinity may be one reason why one large national study found that boys raised outside of intact marriages were two to three times more likely to commit a crime leading to imprisonment. Similarly a girl raised without a father does not come to adolescence with the same deep experience of what male love feels like when it is truly protective, not driven primarily by a desire for sexual gratification. At the same time, fatherless girls may experience a hunger for masculine love and attention that leaves her particularly vulnerable to use and abuse by young adult males. Girls raised without fathers are at high risk for unwed motherhood.”

Boys without a father in the home are more aggressive and are much more likely to engage in anti-social behavior. Girls without a father participate in early sexual activity. Fatherlessness is the number one indicator for teenage pregnancy.

Closeness to both a mother and a father provides the best outcome for children in all areas of their lives. Mothers do not provide what fathers do and fathers do not provide what mothers do. The physiology of the separate genders primes each for complimentary roles as mother and father. The unique ways in which men and women rear their children provide them with an essential balance they need to develop emotionally, socially, educationally, and sexually.

Jenet Erickson concludes:

This review provides social science underpinnings for the intuitive sense and experience of those fathers. It is clear that there is much overlap in the capacities, skills and behaviors of mothers and fathers that enable children to develop and even thrive. But as this review demonstrates, mothers and fathers retain distinctive capacities, styles, and orientations that emerge as important, if not critical, contributors in children’s social-emotional, cognitive, and sexual development, as well as their safety and protection.”

 

References

Hart, C. H., Nelson,D. A., Robinson, C. C., Olsen S.F., McNeilly-Choque, M. K. (1998).Overt and relational aggression in Russian nursery-school-age children: Parenting style and marital linkages. Developmental Psychology, 34(4), 687-97.

Koestner, R., Franz, C., and Weinberger, J. (1990). The family origins of empathic concern: A 26-year longitudinal study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 709-717.

Parke, R. D. (2012). Gender differences and similarities in parental behavior. In W. B. Wilcox, & K. K. Kline (Eds.), Gender and Parenthood (pp. 120-163). New York: Columbia University Press.

Palkovitz, R. (2012). Gendered parenting’s implications for children’s well-being: Theory and research in applied perspective. . In W. B. Wilcox, & K. K. Kline (Eds.), Gender and Parenthood (pp. 215-248). New York: Columbia University Press.

Paquette, D. (2004). Theorizing the father-child relationship: Mechanisms and developmental outcomes. Human Development, 47, 193-219.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Something Wicked this Way Comes…

In Abstinence, Child Development, Education, Homosexuality, Parenting, Schools, Sex Education on November 7, 2014 at 4:31 pm

Contemporary sex education prepares young men and women not for the fullness of friendship, intimacy and love, but for casual relationships and recreational sex.

Something WickedA 1962 fantasy novel, later made into a Disney movie, borrowed its title from Shakespeare’s Macbeth:  “Something Wicked This Way Comes.”  It was the story of a traveling carnival who arrived at idyllic, unsuspecting “Green Town,” offering promises of restored youth and dreams. But it wasn’t too long before the citizens of Green Town tragically learned that “for every wish there will be a price, and for every desire there will be a cost”– a cost that almost destroyed their community.

If truth is stranger than fiction, some parents in Las Vegas, Nevada might relate with the idea of “something wicked” coming into town. However, unlike the residents of fictional Green Town who weakly submitted, when Las Vegas residents saw a threat to their children, hundreds of them courageously stood up in opposition.

In September, the Clark County School District considered replacing their existing abstinence-based sex education with a comprehensive sex education curriculum based upon the SIECUS “Guidelines for Comprehensive Sexuality Education” for kindergarten through 12th Grade. The proposed guidelines were so offensive that a high school student told the school board, “I think I went through about 20 pages and I couldn’t continue with it because some of the stuff was just too disturbing to me at [my] age, and I’m 17-years-old.”

Clark County, school board mtg.Concerned parents filled every seat in the School Board Meetings and spilled out into the halls, waiting for an opportunity to speak.  One parent said, “Words can not even begin to describe my shock when I read what is being suggested to be taught to my daughter at age 5.”  Another parent said, “I was sick to my stomach. My wife and I read it. We’re sick to think elementary age kids would be exposed to these types of things.”

After much public outcry, Superintendent Pat Skorkowsky wrote a public letter of apology, “asking our community to forgive how we handled this situation.”  But the situation is not over yet.  A comprehensive sex-ed bill that died in the 2013 Nevada legislative session is coming back in 2015AB230 would change Nevada’s current “opt-in” policy to “opt-out,” and allow Planned Parenthood to teach comprehensive sex education in the schools.

This statewide option supported by Planned Parenthood would do essentially the same thing as the previous SIECUS proposal, only on a larger scale.  As one parent told the school board, “SIECUS is supported by Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood openly supported AB230. It is the same. It is a shift to teach sexuality education.”

In response to these worrisome proposals, over 600 Las Vegas parents have recently formed Power2Parent to help parents get informed and get involved.  We applaud their efforts!

Gilbert Public SchoolsParental involvement can make a huge difference.  Because of parental involvement, the Gilbert [Arizona] Public Schools board is now removing a page from a biology textbook that instructs students how to have an abortion. The textbook states, “If a pregnancy has already occurred, the drug mifepristone can induce an abortion during the first seven weeks of pregnancy.”  The decision to edit the text has attracted national attention, and all of this came about after one “parent had raised concerns that the textbook being used the text was not compliant with state legislation.”

What is wrong with comprehensive sex education?  

In addition to the risk of exposing young children to explicit sexual concepts, it simply does not work.  For example, an American CDC study revealed that contraception education and availability was not effective in preventing many teen pregnancies. In fact, almost half of the teens who gave birth were using contraceptives when they conceived.

England has experienced similar results. Dr. Monique Chireau of Duke University reports,  “Despite 10 years of intensive efforts using typical prevention strategies including expanding sex education, increasing availability of contraception, increasing access to abortion (without parental consent) the teen birth rate continued to rise at 4% per year, and 50% of teenage pregnancies in Britain end in abortion.”

In short, there is no such thing as “safe sex” for unmarried teens.

Child and matchesWe expect our schools to teach the best practice in every other subject. Abstinence education–or “sexual risk avoidance education”– is the best practice in this subject.  We don’t teach kindergarteners how to play with fire safely, we teach them fire-playing abstinence. We don’t teach teens how to drink or do drugs safely, we teach them drug and alcohol abstinence. We teach abstinence from virtually every behavior that hurts individuals and society. Is there anything more potentially harmful than the life-long consequences of early sexual activity?

Comprehensive sex education undermines happy marriages.

Cassandra Hough, Princeton graduate and a founder of the Love and Fidelity Network, recently wrote an excellent article arguing that comprehensive sex-ed programs “undermine happy marriages.”  She explains how they prepare young people “not for the not for the fullness of friendship, intimacy and love, but for casual relationships and recreational sex.”

“These programs assume young men and women cannot and will not abstain from sex before marriage, and therefore emphasize ways to reduce the risk of unplanned pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections.

“Comprehensive sex education. . . may purport to aim at sexual risk reduction, but it effectively instructs young men and women in sexual risk-taking. It sets up abstinence as an unrealistic ideal and. . . encourages condom use as a means of reducing risk while simultaneously normalizing behaviors that make the incidence of sex more frequent and that create environments of increased vulnerability. In reducing sexual safety and responsibility to the use of a condom and the acquisition of consent, comprehensive sex education sends the inaccurate and dangerous message that these two precautions allow one to have lots of sex without consequences.

“As if this weren’t bad enough, comprehensive sex education programs. . . regularly disconnect sex from the context of a committed, loving, exclusive relationship (i.e. marriage). This saturates the young imagination and whets the appetite not for a relationship but for sex itself, disconnected from any person or commitment of love. Contemporary sex education prepares young men and women not for the fullness of friendship, intimacy and love, but for casual relationships and recreational sex.”  (Click here to read more)

Conclusion:

As in “Something Wicked This Way Comes,”  the traveling carnival of comprehensive sex education requires adults to stand against its many false promises. In the story, it was the weakness of the parents that placed their children in danger.

One reader of the novel noted that the “adults were weak with temptation and worn down by regrets. If The Shining terrified me with the possibility that my own father might try to kill me, Something Wicked posited something much more frightening and much more likely– that he wouldn’t be able to save me if someone else did.”

Parents, please be on guard and ready to protect your children’s innocence when “something wicked” your way comes.

Laura BunkerFaithfully for Families,

Laura Bunker, President
United Families International

 

Here’s What You Can Do

Sex ed in schools1.  Begin today by reviewing the content of the textbooks used by your children.  You can shortcut the process by going directly to the Index of most texts and looking under the listings of: “Homosexuality,” “Sexuality,”  “Family Life,”  “Religion,” etc.

2.    Send United Families International (ufi@unitedfamilies.org)  the name of text, publishers, and a scanned pdf file of the pages or send the exact quotes with source.  UFI will then post the submissions on our website along with a data base listing “Acceptable” and “Unacceptable” text books.

3.    Contact other like-minded individuals and alert them to the problem. Together, go to your district and ask to see copies of the textbooks that are being used in all courses. Begin a systematic review of all textbooks.

4.    Go directly to your school board members and request a meeting to explain the unacceptable nature of text books being used. Ask the Board Members what their plan of action is to correct the problem.

5.    Research your state’s statues and laws that preclude this type of material from being taught in the school.  Chances are that there are laws that will be on your side and will support your parental rights in this area.

6.    Be pro-active. Inform the district that you would like to be part of a parent curriculum review board that will preview all books before they are purchased by the district. As a parent, it is your right to be involved in these decisions!

7.    Keep United Families informed of your efforts so we can share your success with others.

Public schools belong to you.  Together we can protect our most precious resource–our children.

Take Out the Textbook Trash!

Make the Choice

In Abstinence, Birth Rate, Child Development, Cohabitation, Demographic Decline, Divorce, Education, Families, Feminism, Government, Marriage, Parenting, Population Control, Schools, Sexual Freedom, The Family, Values, Women's Rights, working mothers on November 7, 2014 at 9:49 am

mother teaching daughterMekelle Tenney

Over the last 50 years the fertility rate among Americans has dropped from 3.65 to 1.89. The rate of households with one child or more under the age of 18 has also made a significant drop from 48.8% to 32.3%.

In 2010 only 30% of high school girls and 40% of high school boys reported that they believed they would have a fuller and happier life if they were legally married as opposed to cohabitation.

Sixty three percent of high school female seniors and 69% of males agreed that it was a good idea for couples to live together before marriage to make sure that they “get along.”

What exactly are these statistics saying?

  • Children are no longer a priority.
  • Marriage is not seen as a means for a happier and fuller life.
  • Marriage is not essential and shouldn’t be entered into unless you have given the relationship a “test drive”.

In short, family is not worth the sacrifice.

This same sentiment was shared by our President just recently. On October 31 President Barack Obama delivered a speech to a crowd in Rohde Island. President Obama stated,

“Sometimes, someone — usually mom — leaves the workplace to stay home with the kid, which then leaves her earning a lower wage for the rest of her life as a result. And that’s not a choice we want Americans to make.”

The purpose of President Obama’s speech was to promote equal opportunities for women in the work force. Though this statement invokes many different discussions, one stands out. Let’s say that many women do choose to stay at home, they do give up career opportunities. Since when does family not require sacrifice? Are our children not worth it? The idea that we can have a family without sacrifice and work is unrealistic and dangerous. Obama has implied that we do not want Americans to make that choice?

America’s families cannot afford not to. If we are to save the state of our families we must not make decisions for ourselves alone, but for our families. We have all seen this in our lives. We saw our parents sacrifice sleep, personal goals, ambitions, dreams, and desires, all to raise their family. And where this sacrifice was given, the families are closer, stronger and more united. Everyone was blessed.

I believe that the desire to create and cultivate a family is a natural desire. And yet society it telling us not to. Each generation has to decide for itself what its priorities are. What will it be America? Will we choose to make the sacrifice for family?

The Wheately Conference: The Supreme Court Decided, Now What?

In Abortion, Abstinence, Child Development, Cohabitation, Constitution, Courts, Democracy, Diane Robertson, Education, Families, father, Free Speech, Gender, Government, Grassroots, Homosexuality, Human Rights, Marriage, Non-Discrimination, Parenting, Religious Freedom, Research, Same-Sex Marriage, Sanctity of Life, Sexual Freedom, Sexual Orientation, Supreme Court, The Family, Values on October 22, 2014 at 8:25 am

marriage equality and supreme courtDiane Robertson

Yesterday I had the unique opportunity of attending a 4 hour long conference hosted by the Wheately Institute and titled: Family is Crucial: Views from Law and Social Science. Sherif Girgis, Ryan T. Anderson, Mark Regnerus, and Jenet Erickson spoke. These speakers have all vested a lot of time and resources to help form the marriage debate. Over the next couple of weeks, I am going to recap a few of the important points as well as some fascinating scientific and statistical information presented in this conference.

Two weeks ago the Supreme Court made a decision about marriage, simply by remaining silent. Many people have either been celebrating that the debate is over or they have been wondering if there is anything else that can be done. This question was answered in a couple of ways during the conference. Ryan T Anderson discussed how the pro-marriage movement needs to look to the pro-life movement as its model. He reminded us that when the Supreme Court handed down Roe v Wade, pro-lifers could have gone home discouraged. Instead, they got to work. Pro-lifers began relying on scientific and legal arguments.

Through the science of ultra sound imaging, pro-lifers proved the pro-abortion movement wrong. Through psychology and statistics, pro-lifers taught about the stress of abortion on the mother’s mind and body. Through compassion and love, pro-lifers set up pregnancy centers to help women with crisis pregnancies. Now the younger generation is more pro-life than the older generation, and there have been more limits on abortion passed through state legislatures than ever before.

Ryan Anderson suggested that we continue litigating in circuit courts, because we don’t know what will happen. The Supreme Court did not hand down a Roe v Wade ruling. As religious freedom, freedom of conscience and even churches are attacked and forced to accept gay marriage, we can still continue battling through litigation and even state laws.

One of the hosts, Jason Carroll, suggested that we need to be positive. Do not be against same sex marriage, be for the family. Marriage has been broken not only by the advancement of same sex marriage, but by the acceptance of pre-marital sex, no fault divorce, co-habitation, and the acceptance of single parenthood. All are at fault and all are enemies to the family.

Be confident. When people see your confidence in your stance, they are less likely to attack that stance. Be really good at what you do. Always do your best and always know your facts. Mark Regnerus only kept his job because he was thorough and careful with his research and statistical report.

The Supreme Court decided, now what? We just keep going. The fact that children do best with their married mother and father has not changed and will not change. The fact that a society is most prosperous when it offers sincere freedom of religion has not changed and will not change. It may seem like we are fighting a losing battle, but we are not. The world needs children and the world needs freedom. The war may be long and hard. Chin up. Be confident. We are on the right side of history.

Too Many People…

In Abortion, Abstinence, Birth Rate, Drug Use, Eugenics, Euthanasia, Families, Family Planning, Government, Health Care, Human Rights, motherhood, Parental Rights, Physician Assisted Suicide, Planned Parenthood, Population Control, Sanctity of Life, Values on September 6, 2014 at 2:22 pm

over population

 

The next time you think that everyone else sees the world as you do, remember the following.

 

http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/08/30-population-control-quotes-show-elite-truly-believe-humans-plague-upon-earth/

Consequences of a Sexually Desensitized Society

In Abortion, Abstinence, AIDS, Birth Rate, Child Development, Cohabitation, Divorce, Families, Health Care, Marriage, motherhood, Values on August 27, 2014 at 3:07 pm

youth in love (lust)

 

Tashica Jacobsen

In a review of many scholarly journals studying negative effects on youth, sexual promiscuity and early sexual activity, are listed as a risk factor along with drug use, delinquent behavior, and violence. However, society is now changing its standards, and is actually encouraging what once was considered (and still is) a risk factor. The encouragement of promiscuity and experimentation along with “sexual rights” are desensitizing our society to sex, and the consequences are great.

Promiscuous behaviors and beliefs are not only risk factors in themselves, they are also a catalyst for a variety of negative consequences. Widely known is their potential for causing pregnancy and STD’s. Other less known consequences are confusion and the destruction they cause to relationships.

During sexual intimacy powerful chemicals are released in the brain. One of these chemicals is oxytocin, also known as the “cuddle hormone.” Oxytocin plays a role in adult bonding and is released during sex. It creates a powerful bond between the two people. This bond is good in a long term committed relationship where it unites a couple. However when couples engage in casual sex this bond leads to confusion and heartache; couples may verbally deny any attachment but cannot change the bonding taking place in the brain.

Dr. Van Epp’s RAM model is used to show the healthy progression of a relationship. In this model couples move through five different stages: know, trust, rely, commit, and touch. Each level moves up as the relationship progresses, but to remain healthy the previous level must be higher than the proceeding one. Touch is the last of these stages because it solidifies what a couple already has established. It is an expression of all they have gone through. Since sexual relations are the ultimate touch it needs to follow after the ultimate commitment of marriage.

Sexual intimacy has also been described as a funnel. Individuals enter in and experience a narrowing of mind and focus. When this takes place in a healthy marriage, it leads to bonding and fulfillment. However when this funnel is entered into alone it leads to isolation, confusion, and guilt. The same process, when entered into in a healthy versus unhealthy relationship, has dramatic consequences, yet society is teaching that sex is good, regardless of the circumstances or outcomes.

This devaluation of sexual intimacy is also affecting marriages. Premarital sex increases the likelihood of infidelity in a marriage. In a premarital relationship individuals are laying the ground work for patterns that will continue throughout their marriage. If there is a lack of sexual self-control before marriage, the likelihood of sexual self control within marriage also decreases. The rate of divorce is also higher for those who have sexual relations before marriage. One study found “women who lost their virginity before 18 doubled their risk of divorce, as nearly 31 percent and 47 percent dissolved their marital unions within five and ten years, respectively.”

Sexual intimacy is a uniting act. It unites people in the ultimate way; no other act can do this. “It is the union of their whole selves—heart, mind, flesh, spirit.” But what we are teaching our children is to disconnect this act from others, and focus solely on personal gratification. If we cannot connect the most uniting form of human expression with another person, how is it that we are able to interact and connect with others on a day to day basis? We won’t be able to. We will start to view every interaction in terms of our wants and desires, regardless of others, and view our urges as uncontrollable things we have no choice but to give into. As this happens we give up our power to make decisions.

Given the confusion and destruction of relationships that comes as we devalue sex, it is easy to see why sexual active teens are more likely to suffer from depression and attempt suicide. This new standard of morality is destroying relationships leading to isolation that then spills over into other aspects of our lives making us even more selfish, isolated, and alone.

 

Debating Marriage

In Abstinence, adoption, Child Development, Courts, Diane Robertson, Divorce, Domestic Violence, Drug Use, Education, Families, father, Free Speech, Gender, Government, Health Care, Homosexuality, Marriage, Parenting, Religion, Research, Same-Sex Marriage, Sanctity of Life, Schools, Sexual Orientation, Single Mothers, The Family, Values, Violence on August 20, 2014 at 9:57 am

marriage debate

by Diane Robertson

As the many marriage cases move through the court system supporters of marriage often find themselves in conversations in which they must defend their stance on marriage and family. This can be a very stressful conversation. Even the best and smartest debaters risk losing friends, isolating family members, or becoming victim to harsh words. Here are some ways that may be helpful while having the conversations and hopefully staying on the good side of family and friends.

  1. Ask a question before giving an answer. Catholic blogger, Jonathan Van Maren described a situation where responding with a question was the best answer. His story goes thus:

    “One friend demanded to know why I wasn’t sleeping around. I responded with a question: ‘How many of the people that you were with do you wish you hadn’t hooked up with?’ After a pause, the thoughtful response: ‘Most of them, I guess. Maybe even all of them.’”

  2. Be wary of smoke screen or strawman arguments and use social science and reason to call them out. I had an encounter with a stranger online. I had posted this website which addresses conjugal view of marriage and why it is important for society to support mother/father families.

    This man replied:

    “Diane that whole article can be summed up in the conclusion: ‘if we are correct about the likely harms of redefining marriage,’ That’s a big if don’t you think? So what your saying is we should round up all families that are not Father, Child, Mother because they are bad for society?


So is it better to have a father who beats his kids or molests them than to send him away to jail and not have one present at all? If two parents are killed in a car accident and the kids are taken in by an Aunt who is single then that too is destroying the fabric of society?”

Here is how I replied to his nonsense:

“You are using smokescreen arguments to avoid the real points. Obviously most people are better off without an abuser and there are laws to protect victims of abuse as you well know.

 

Here are some honest arguments addressing your smokescreen.

 

  1. Has it ever occurred to you that denying a child of one of their biological parents for the sexual advantage of another is not its own kind of abuse? Biological roots are deeply ingrained into the human soul. Everyone desires to know who they are and where they come from. Adopted children fought for a long time to have adoption records open so they could more easily trace back to those roots. Donor children are currently fighting that same battle.

 

  1. Children whose parents have died are disadvantaged and they know it. It would not be fair to pretend their suffering at the loss of their parents is fake or wrong just because other people want to purposely inflict a similar situation on children for the sexual advantage of the adults.

 

  1. Fatherless children are indeed disadvantaged. If you do not believe fatherless children are harming the fabric of society then take a look at the statistics and then try to imagine what it will be like when a whole bunch of children grow up without a mother. Taxes will surely increase so that government can take up the slack where the parents failed.

 

Statistics of the Fatherless

 

63% of youth suicides are from fatherless homes (U.S. Dept. of Health/Census).

90% of all homeless and runaway children are from fatherless homes.

85% of all children who show behavior disorders come from fatherless homes (Center for Disease Control).

80% of rapists with anger problems come from fatherless homes (Justice & Behavior, Vol 14, p. 403-26).

71% of all high school dropouts come from fatherless homes (National Principals Association Report).

70% of youths in state-operated institutions come from fatherless homes (U.S. Dept. of Justice, Sept. 1988).

85% of all youths in prison come from fatherless homes. (Fulton Co. Georgia, Texas Dept. of Correction).

71% of pregnant teenagers lack a father. (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services press release, Friday, March 26, 1999)”

 

  1. Speak the language of the person you are debating: If your conversation is with someone who has religious beliefs then use religion. If your conversation is with someone who does not believe religion, then use social science.
  2. Be prepared. Really know your topic and don’t be afraid to mimic the language of the pros. Spend time researching and reading the issues. Know the current events associated with marriage. (Personally, I think Ryan Anderson is a great person to read and learn from.)
  3. And remember no matter how hard or tense it gets. Remain calm, smile, and never, ever call names.

Principles that Impact

In Abstinence, Child Development, Families, The Family, Values on August 10, 2014 at 1:52 pm

family holding hands

Maddi Gillel

Principle- a comprehensive and fundamental law, doctrine, or assumption-a rule or code of conduct-a habitual devotion to right principles—a distinguishable ingredient that exhibits or imparts a characteristic quality.

Virtue-strength-conformity to a standard of right-moral excellence-beneficial quality or power-strength/courage- a capacity to ayt – chastity especially in a woman. 

Value – degree of excellence – intrinsically valuable or desirable.

Principles and values are essential in our lives if we want to be happy, contributing, peaceful, integral components of our families, homes, neighborhoods, workplace, and culture. Over the next few months, we will address some values and principles which are critical in the above areas of our lives.

HONESTY is a good principle to start with. It means free from deception; truthful; genuine, respectable, sincere; trustworthy; honorable; having a good name.

“Let honesty and industry be thy constant companions, and spend one penny less than thy clear gains; then shall thy pocket begin to thrive; creditors will not insult; nor want oppress, nor hungerness bite, nor nakedness freeze thee.”

Benjamin Franklin

 

“Make yourself an honesty man, and then you may be sure there is one less rascal in the world.”

Thomas Carlyle

 

THE QUESTION

 Were the whole world good as you – not an atom better-

Were it just as pure and true,

Just as pure and true as you;

Just as strong in faith and works;

Just as free from crafty quirks;

All extortion, all deceit;

Schemes its neighbors to defeat;

 

If the whole world followed you – followed to the letter –

Would it be a nobler world?

All deceit and falsehood hurled

From it altogether;

Malice, selfishness, and lust,

Banished from beneath the crust,

Covering human hearts from view –

Tell me, if it followed you,

Would the world be better?          Anonymous

 

“The time has come to cease emphasizing the gadgets of everyday living and to set over against them the imperishable qualities of honesty, integrity, unselfishness, and respect for law.”

Anonymous

“In our quest for knowledge, there is no room for cheating, for dishonesty, or that which would degrade us or cause the loss of our precious self-respect. In decision making we ask not, “What will others think?”, but “What will I think of myself?”    Anonymous

 

 

More than two Parents: Not so New and Not so Enlightened

In Abstinence, Child Development, Courts, Diane Robertson, Divorce, Families, Family Planning, father, Government, Marriage, Parenting, The Family, Values on July 16, 2014 at 9:25 am

child sad 2

Diane Robertson

In 2013 California made it legally possible for children to have more than two parents. More states will surely follow suit. The diversity-in-family-structure-loving-liberals think this is enlightened. They’re working hard to bring society out of the dark ages of Married mother and father families into the “Brave New World” of many parents.

Except this idea isn’t so brave and isn’t so new. Some children have already had a similar experience through divorce and they are speaking out. The Ruth Institute is collecting stories from children of divorce. As it turns out divorced couples, remarried couples, step families, broken families, and shared custody don’t actually feel so enlightened to the children who grew up in these situations.

One such personal story, told by Jennifer Johnson, illustrates what it actually feels like growing up with 5 parents. Johnson’s parents divorced when she was about three. Her mother remarried once and her father remarried twice. Johnson explains what her life was like growing up with five parents:

“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.”

So why would so many adults push for this type of family brokenness and even make it possible for many adults to have legal control over a child? It’s called selfishness. Adults want this so they can have children and have sex with whoever they please and at whatever stage of life they wish. They want this sort of life legal so their partner can make medical and educational decisions for their children. They want convenience for themselves, but not their children.

Johnson writes about a woman, Masha Gessen, a prominent LGBT activist, who grew up with a married mother and father and speaks frankly about how her children have 5 parents. Gessen bemoans the fact that there, as yet, isn’t a way for her children to have all of their parents legally:

“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.”

Johnson’s replies to Gessen simply calling out the truth of the matter:

“If what I had is so great, then why don’t they want it as children? Here’s my conclusion: they want it as adults but not as children. They want the benefits of the socially conservative family structure when they are children. But as adults, they want sexual freedom, or at least they want to appear ‘open minded’ and ‘tolerant’ about others sexual choices, even at the expense of children, even though they themselves would never want to live under what they advocate. It’s a bizarre sort of a ‘win-win’ for them, I guess.”

Children don’t need more than two legal parents. Society doesn’t need diversity in family structure. All children and all of society needs responsible adults who marry before having children, work daily on a loving relationship and together raise their children in stable, happy homes. It can be done and would be the source of a truly “enlightened” society!

Poll: What Is Morally Acceptable?

In Abortion, Abstinence, Child Development, Cohabitation, Diane Robertson, Divorce, Euthanasia, Families, father, Gender, Homosexuality, Marriage, motherhood, Parenting, Physician Assisted Suicide, Polls, Population Control, Pornography, Same-Sex Marriage, Sanctity of Life, Sex Education, Values on June 4, 2014 at 4:00 am

moral compass noneFor the past 12 years Gallup has been conducting a poll on moral acceptability in America. Gallup published the 2014 results on May 30th. This year’s findings are a disturbing indication of the break down in the general morality of the American public.

Contraceptives are largely accepted as moral by nearly all Americans. Additionally between 60% and 70% of Americans now believe pre-marital sex, divorce, homosexual relationships, stem cell research, and gambling are morally acceptable.

The majority of Americans still find pornography, teenage sex, polygamy, and extra marital affairs as unacceptable. Yet the percentage of people who believe these things to be morally right is on the rise.

One bizarre finding is the difference in general acceptability between suicide and assisted suicide. Only 19% of Americans find suicide to be morally acceptable while 52% of Americans believe assisted suicide is moral.

Abortion and Assisted-suicide are the most contested categories. 42 % of Americans believe that abortion is morally acceptable and a stunning 52% of Americans believe that euthanasia is acceptable. Although, the numbers indicate that Americans lean pro-life, the percentage of people who say abortion is acceptable is at an all-time high and rising, according to the pollsters.  Only 43% of Americans opposed assisted-suicide.

From the bullying and thuggery of the “gay-mafia” to the immoral indoctrination of comprehensive sexual education pushed in the public schools to the explicit sex, abuse and violence portrayed in popular movies and music, these results are not all that surprising. The alarming number of children born into single parent homes and the high divorce rate also continue to add this moral decline in America.

This decline can still be reversed. As parents, strong moral and religious couples who honor marital vows with full fidelity have the greatest power and influence over their children. If they do not allow statistics and popular opinion to sway their beliefs and if they teach strong moral values to their children they are the ones that will save society. Indeed the family unit of mother and father and children is the basic unit of society. When families are moral, society is moral.

 

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 140 other followers