Dear Marriage Supporter,
Are dads disposable?
As Brad Wilcox, director of the National Marriage Project at the University of Virginia, put it:
Dads are disposable. This is the story now being told in certain precincts of our culture, from the Hollywood Hills—"Women are realizing it more and more, knowing that they don't have to settle with a man just to have that child," in the words of Jennifer Aniston—to the Ivy League—Cornell psychologist Peggy Drexler recently wrote a book, Raising Boys Without Men, that celebrated women raising children without fathers.
There is only one problem with this story: it is a myth that does not fit the facts.
Do not get me wrong. I was raised by a single mom, and I think I turned out OK, as do many children raised in fatherless homes. But as a social scientist, I can also tell you that one consistent conclusion from hundreds of studies on child well-being is this: on average, children are much more likely to thrive when they have the good fortune to be raised in a home with their own married father.
With marriage on the ballot in four states this November, what better way to stand up for dads this Fathers' Day weekend than with a gift to defend marriage? Volunteers in Washington and Maryland have just submitted record numbers of signatures to protect marriage and send the message that kids need their mom AND their dad! Campaigns in Minnesota and Maine are making the same argument to voters in advance of the November elections.
Make sure that the state campaigns have the funds needed to take their message straight to the voters through advertising, phone calls, emails, and campaign rallies.
I hope you'll join me in making a generous gift to these state campaigns today. With a gift of $40, you can donate $10 to each campaign—and its impact will be doubled as NOM matches your gift dollar for dollar. Give a gift in honor of your own Dad this weekend!
Happy Fathers' Day!
Contributions or gifts to Minnesota for Marriage, Protect Marriage Maine, Maryland Marriage Alliance - No on 6, and Preserve Marriage Washington are not tax deductible.
MN - PAID ADVERTISEMENT: Prepared and paid for by the Minnesota for Marriage committee, 2355 Fairview Ave N, Box 301, Roseville, MN 55113, in support of the marriage protection amendment.
WA - Paid for by Preserve Marriage Washington, 16212 Bothell-Everett Highway, Ste. F, #276, Mill Creek, Washington 98012.
MD - Maryland Marriage Alliance - No on 6, Brian Duggan, Treasurer.
21 Comments
But isn't NOM's position that men are not even necessary to conceive a child, and that two women should be allowed to use artificial gametes if and when they become available? Would the woman who had her stem cells turned into artificial sperm be considered the "father" of the child? I don't think so, unless of course she was a FtM transgendered "man" - which I know Maggie says should be allowed if it is possible to do.
This stuff may or may not ever be possible or practical, but it is being claimed as a right anyhow, and that claim needs to be rejected, there is no right to reproduce as the other sex, or with the same sex.
@ John
Good fight John!
I'm right along side of you.
But I think for the most part NOM continually expresses the importance of a mom and dad, and biological attachment). Though your comment about Maggie is interesting. And I accept that nothing is clear in our day. What I know is that saving a unique and distinct value given to the man-woman union in our society (marriage), and outlawing the free market of baby making, are 2 issues worth fighting for, which hold no room for negotiation nor sympathies.
But how to fight them? Those American (and the Western) money lovers. Who themselves do not hesitate in going to war and killing around the world using the most powerful tools of modern war fair, if doing so can get them more money? How to fight them, without the sword? With paper, votes? Really?
Your anger frustration is justified! Justified a thousand times over!
And this has what to do with SSM?
Obviously there are children today that not being raised by their biological mother/father and yet SSM is not permitted in most states.
So obviousely, denying same-sex couples the right to marry does nothing to ensure children are raised by a mom & dad.
@Carlos
Its relevance is not that hard to understand Carlos. But you have to be open minded, and able to think toward the future rather than in the past.
But maybe you should stick with the easy to understand subjects for now.
1) man-woman union is different than man-man union. Enough so that it merits a different word to name it. To help you out, I suggest that you start with a picture book.
Well said, Brian.
Carlos....the way it works here on NOM's site is that if you don't agree with their opinions or their very own facts then you are stupid. I agree with your point but I get told how simpleminded I am here too. Obviously, it makes them feel better when they put you down.
Guys, it really isn't about feelings.
Please, read Good News' #4 above- which, by the way, just might be the most succinct and crushing refutation of all marriage corruption movement arguments I have ever had the pleasure to encounter on this blog.
It really is just that simple.
When did *GOD*change *HIS*law of marriage from man& woman2 ssm?*HE* didnt.Man did!Who r we 2 go against *GOD*??? Isnt that what got Adam&Eve in trouble? Isnt that what the bad angel did? Look where it got him! Do u want2join him? I sure dnt!Then do the rgt thing & agree with MARRIAGE OF MAN& WOMAN? *GOD*made it that way as a whole family.Take *THE HOLY FAMILY*as an example! There r ALOT of GOOD dads out there.But then there r ALOT of dead beat ones, cheatin or abusive ones!Men,own up 2 ur responsibility. Couples nd 2 work things out.What r the vows?4 better,4worse, 4 richer,4 poorer,in sick ness,in health til death do u part! Ppl,quit changing *GOD'S*LAW!
The article is about disposable dads, which apparently they are these days. However, same-sex marriages are not recognized in most of US.
Recognizing SSM isn't going to make dad's disposable, they already are according to the article.
@Carlos
Just a quick note. There is the very real possibility of opening up a rich new commercial market. That of making babies etc. The best way to make the market limitless, is to psychologically and legally bring down all distinctions between the man-woman union and the man-man or woman-woman union. The absolute best and most important way of going about that is taking away the only word that signals out the the civilization the man-woman union (marriage). That is one way how it has a direct relation to the subject of the definition of marriage that NOM is fighting for. It is the woman who will be at first the biggest and easiest market to sell babies to. Hence an added slap in the face of men and boys in our culture.
This is not psychologically helpful to our growing young boys; who already are not shown, or given a clear place in our society. (When the woman still has the clear place of birthing children.) Our culture has done all it could over the last few decades to educate its men that they don't have a natural and strong instinct for fatherhood (nor legitimate equal right to fatherhood as the woman has to motherhood). Which is completely falls. The man is being oppressed in our culture.
It France, by the end of the year. No doubt gay marriage will be allowed; and also “married woman will have the legal right to have an artificially inseminated baby which will be legally named the child of the two woman and no one else. When two men getting married will not have the legal right to have a artificially inseminated baby. Again separating man farther from their own children. Of course in a few years they will no doubt be allowed to have these children through highering a woman birthing a baby for them. For the commercial market wants no limits. And the culture plans on breaking us in little by little...
All of this commercializing of human being will be made much easier by taking the word marriage away from the man-woman union. Again this is 'one' reason that we do not want the word marriage to become a word that denotes a sex-irrelevant union.
Ones sexual preferances is almost beside the point in our fight for the word marriage.
Why don't you help us in our fight? We need you!
No, Dads are not disposable:
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/06/14/father-day-plea-let-stop-anonymous-sperm-donations/
Nice article, AM.
Children are less likely to be raised under a gay sex relationship if gay marriage is not made legal.
John Howard:
I overlooked your #1 above, and would appreciate clarification.
Can you please provide the citation for this statement of Maggie's?
When did god change his position on marriage? The bible hasn't changed in thousands of years, even though evolution has been considered a fact not just a theory and the story of Adam and Eve is just a story. The great flood of Noah has been proven it could not have happened that way, just building a ship of that magnitude could be difficult to do in that time frame and no evedence of this ship, to make it clear I do agree of a massive flood occured science proved that, its just the reality of 2 of everything. The stairway to heaven making god so mad his punishment was to seperate people with different languages and different colors has been proven wrong. The point is the Bible has NOT changed in thousands of years but it does not mean it is correct. So NO the god in the bible did not change its opinion on gay and lesbians the biblical god won't chang anything even if the facts are right there in front of them. Sadley niether will many people who believe these stories of the bible even if the facts are there. May I suggeset reading Richard Dawkins or Steven Hawkings as a clearer idea of reality rather than all of this mythology or for those who don't like reading the History channel or Science channel would be helpful to you.
"Children are less likely to be raised under a gay sex relationship if gay marriage is not made legal."
I question the validity of this claim; however, even if I accept it as a possibility, the fact remains that same sex couples are adopting children anyway, and the children of those unions would be better off if their parents could legally marry.
Bruce,
Your position does more to bolster the slippery slope argument than it does to support your own. When the push for expansion of adoption laws began these sexual deviants denied that it would lead to other concessions.
Rick, I read that here:
http://www.nomblog.com/9240/
Bruce, their children would be better off if they could get a Civil Union that gave all the benefits and had recognition in more states and the federal government, their children are NOT better off if we give same-sex couples the right to conceive more children together, with each other. Not only would it distract the parents attention and cost them lots of money to attempt it, but the message it would send, that their parents really want to both be related to their kids and that their existing kids are not truly family and they are not good enough, would be devastating to them.
Civil unions?
Please.
That particular scam was revealed as nothing other than a legal setup for an assault on marriage long ago.
Next.
Civil unions?
Please.
That particular scam was revealed as nothing other than a legal setup for an assault on marriage long ago.
If you read Poster #15, these are the exact type of people Jesus warned against and said would arise in the last days.
As the great prophet Peter said:" Just as it was in the days of Noah so shall the coming of the Son of Man" There is overwhelming evidence of a worldwide flood. The movie "In Search of Noah's Ark" proved this case. Notice how South Americia would fit in with Africa. The discovery of the ruins of a tropical existence on Anarctica. The Grand Canyon was the result of a flood. The story of Noah is true. It did happen.
Evolution is a phony science and not a proven fact. I suggest readers read the blog from "Why I am Conservative" who does a brillant blog proving evolution to be the lie that it is.