NOM BLOG

Category Archives: Children

The Effects of Same-sex "Marriage" on Children's Mental Health

ThinkstockPhotos-471188516While social scientists are busy faking studies to show growing support for redefining marriage, or designing studies with a small number of participants who have an interest in the outcome of the study, it’s striking to note what they are not studying: the mental health impact on students of the cultural and media movement to proclaim all things gay to be good and healthy. An article at The Federalist reviews this phenomenon in the field of social work, a field that ordinarily would be expected to help assess mental health issues among their clientele:

Joseph Turner, who has a masters in social work, comments on the adverse effects the current political correctness can have on the mental health of people:

Mental health treatment requires close analysis of every aspect of a person’s life. We put together the puzzle pieces that make up a human being. We inquire how many hours someone slept last night and how often he or she woke up. We form theories around their precise level of eye contact or rate of speech. We ponder how closely they were held as infants. To declare that all claims to sexual orientation are above scrutiny is to analytically cripple ourselves. We’ve replaced the microscope with rose-colored glasses.

. . .

We live in a society where LGBT has saturated both political agenda and popular culture. Broken family structures, abuse, and relationship instability are tragically prevalent. In such a climate, reported same-sex attraction could occur for a lot of reasons. Some of them might be uncomfortable. To demand its blind, universal acceptance is both delusional and damaging to mental health. Dogmatic affirmation of all claims to sexual preference might well encourage behavior rooted in pathology.

He continues to suggest that the effects on children can be devastating, especially if it was the choice of the “parents” to switch from a heterosexual relationship to a same-sex relationship:

ThinkstockPhotos-477399995The mommies (or daddies, as the case may be) might do everything “right” to give their children a healthy, stable upbringing, yet the kids are still at risk to grow up troubled and unsure how to relate to the world around them… nobody among my colleagues acknowledged a problem. There was no questioning of the arrangement, no hint of concern. Everyone involved with the family was wholly positive about the mommies, even as they scratched their heads and wondered what was making the kids angry or depressed or confused.

It seems that the dangers of not only same-sex marriage, but also the same-sex mind control in popular culture is real and adversely affects the average person.

But the mental-health field is mostly professional, and thus subject to the academic and political authorities. It’s aimed at the practitioner rather than the pioneer. This leaves it unknowingly vulnerable to the powerful LGBT lobby. Even as we work to build people from the ground up, we blindly accept the ideas coming from the top down. If a professor or a textbook states that all sexual or gender orientation is above question, then so be it. The contradiction this presents to our greater body of psychological thinking goes unnoticed.

As any devoted parent will attest to, all parents want what is best for the child. While it can be hard for some to admit, the facts are there: children do best with a mom and a dad. And when they are told that gender is irrelevant, it is the children who suffer the devastating effects.

There is Always Hope for Marriage

Marriage has been in a free fall for several decades, but new research shows that the tide is ready to turn. Over at The Federalist, marriage scholar Dr. Brad Wilcox makes the case that despite falling marriage rates, the institution is poised to make a comeback:

Over the last half century, marriage has taken quite a beating. Since the 1960s, the rate of new marriages has fallen by more than 50 percent, and rates of divorce and single parenthood has more than doubled. The end result is that marriage is no longer the anchor for the adult life course or the family foundation for the bearing and rearing of children that it once was. Forecasts expect the marriage rate to hit an all-time low next year.

stk307181rknBut a close look at recent trends in marriage, non-marital childbearing, and single parenthood suggests that the nation’s retreat from marriage may be slowing… the marriage rate has not declined in recent years; the ratio of babies being born outside of wedlock has held steady at 41 percent since the Great Recession; and the share of children living in single-parent families has hovered around slightly more than one-quarter for more than a decade.

It was also suggested that marriage and having children, in that order, will be on the rise in the upcoming years:

Moreover, a growing number of college-educated millennials are now moving into the stage of life where they are poised to start families by marrying and having children—in that order—in the spirit of “high-investment parenting” (HIP) recently identified by Richard Reeves at Brookings. The movement of college-educated millennials into family life should keep these trends on a stable course. Taken together, the data suggest that the reports of marriage’s death have been exaggerated.

Dr. Wilcox also notes that studies continue to show that an intact marriage is not only about children, but is actually the best environment for children:

First, and foremost, marriage is about providing the best environment for our children. Virtually every week, I run across another study showing this. But what is striking about some of the new research is that it suggests boys, in particular, benefit from being raised in an intact, married home. For instance, in the last week I read fascinating new studies from Harvard University economist Raj Chetty and from Princeton University sociologist Sara McLanahan and their colleagues. These new studies indicate that family structure has especially powerful effects on boys. The new study from Chetty and his colleagues found that areas “with high crime rates and a large fraction of single parents generate particularly negative outcomes for boys relative to girls” when it comes to predicting their future income.

All of this is good news indeed, and a wonderful reiteration that marriage, as between a man and a woman, will always be a fundamental part of society. Science, logic, and history have demonstrated this, and nothing will ever change this truth.

Source via The Federalist.

Data Faked by Same-sex Marriage Researchers

Last year, the media was awash in stories reporting what was considered a major study that “proved” that once people had a conversation at their home with a same-sex canvasser, their minds were changed on whether same-sex ‘marriage’ should be accepted.

ThinkstockPhotos-467417087Further, the study claimed this was such a profound tactic, that follow up research showed that the change had lasted for an entire year, and that it had spread to others in the person’s family. This is reminiscent of what Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said (in her now infamous interview), claiming that the reason attitudes on same-sex ‘marriage’ had supposedly changed was that people were interacting with gay friends and neighbors who support it.

Now comes proof that the study was a fake, and it appears that the data was completely fabricated. The study’s lead author, a professor from Columbia, has formally retracted the study, blaming his co-author for the irregularities:

A study claiming that gay people advocating same-sex marriage can change voters’ minds has been retracted due to fraud.

The study was published last December in Science, and received lots of media attention. It found that a 20-minute, one-on-one conversation with a gay political canvasser could steer voters in favor of same-sex marriage. Not only that, but these changed opinions lasted for at least a year and influenced other people in the voter’s household, the study found.

Donald Green, the lead author on the study, retracted it on Tuesday shortly after learning that his co-author, UCLA graduate student Michael LaCour, had faked the results.

While this development is proving to be an embarrassment to those orchestrating the movement to redefine marriage, it reflects much deeper issues:

First, it shows how willing the media is to massively publicize any claim that shows people are changing their minds on same-sex ‘marriage’ because it feeds into the narrative that this is inevitable and they are on the right side of history.

Second, it shows how the underlying methodologies of many- if not most -studies supporting the same-sex ‘marriage’ movement are questionable – often using small convenience samples featuring people who have an interest in a study turning out a particular way.

This phenomenon was discussed in a ground-breaking report by Professor Loren Marks on the many studies used to support the claim that there are “no differences” for children raised by same-sex couples. Professor Marks looked at 59 of these studies and concluded that not one of them compared a large, random, representative sample of lesbian or gay parents and their children with a large, random representative sample of married parents and their children:

“I am deeply embarrassed by this turn of events and apologize to the editors, reviewers, and readers of Science,” Green, a professor of political science at Columbia University, said in his retraction letter to the journal, as posted on the Retraction Watch blog.

People – including Supreme Court Justices – would do well to remember these fake and flawed studies when the media trots out the next claim purporting to show how beneficial it will be if we redefine the most important social institution civilization has ever known.

Source via Buzzfeed

Parents Shouldn't Provide What is Best for Their Children?

There are proponents in academia who have suggested that parents who educate their children to the best of their ability, is “unfair” to other children who do not receive the same opportunity. As ridiculous as this idea seems, it is an honest, though outlandish, theory that some want put into practice. Adam Swift (Prof. at University of Warwick) is a key proponent of this theory, and he seems to have backing from other academics such as Peter Singer (Ethics Prof. at University of Princeton) as well as public figures such as Pres. Barack Obama:

Parents Helping Their Children With Their Homework

President Obama used language of inequality to critique parents who send their kids to private schools and health clubs just this week.

“Kids start going to private schools, kids start working out at private clubs instead of the public parks, an anti-government ideology then disinvests from those common goods and those things that draw us together,” he said.

“One way philosophers might think about solving the social-justice problem would be by simply abolishing the family,” he (Adam Swift) continues, cheerfully. “If the family is this source of unfairness in society, then it looks plausible to think that if we were to abolish the family, we would create a more level playing field.”

The article continues to explain the folly of holding ‘equality’ as the highest good:

Sarcasm aside, we owe Swift a real debt of gratitude for demonstrating the folly of Progressive equality-worship. Although his ideas are at the extreme end of the Progressive spectrum, the language of “equality” and the decrying of “inequality” is pervading our culture.

Of course, American liberty was founded on the idea that all men are created equal. But when people speak of equality these days, they usually mean not fundamental equality before the law, but rather state-engineered equality of socioeconomic outcomes. Perhaps by seeing this ideology taken to its insane extreme, we can recognize its failings more clearly.

The idea is to take all power, even from the parents, and center it into the State (Federal Government) so that it may decide what is best in all things.

It’s hard not to see that beneath all the egalitarian language lies a bald-faced power grab. Swift—and those who share his worldview—believe they are entitled to make mandatory rules for others which they refuse to adopt for themselves… Swift is operating squarely within the tradition of all Marxist dictators past and present, who style themselves champions of the common man but never deny themselves the luxuries of the ruling class.

Full article available via The Federalist.

Mothers and Fathers Are Not Interchangeable

"If same-sex marriage is constitutionalized, the message the law will send is that the gender of parents becomes valueless, since any two adults will do." - Jenet Erickson 

In marriage and parenting, both mothers and fathers (as a couple) are necessary for the creation and rearing of a child, as well as for the health of the marital relationship. Redefining marriage to include same-sex marriage threatens to strip marriage of its two essential purposes: unity and procreation.

In the late 1970s, Azim Surani tried to create new life using two sets of genes from only a mother, or a father. Everything then known about genetics suggested that with the right number of chromosomes, life would develop normally, even if all of its genetic material came only from a female or a male. But the eggs with only the mother’s genes could not survive. A similar fate met the eggs implanted with two sets of father’s genes.”

Mixed Race Young Family with Newborn Baby

As science reporter Paul Raeburn describes, Surani discovered that mothers and fathers each contributed something in their genes that was critical to sustaining life. These “paternal” and “maternal” genes appeared completely indistinguishable in every way, yet expressed themselves differently depending on whether they came from the mother or the father. And both were essential to the survival of the egg.

The essential need for both a mother and a father to provide genetic material for survival parallels what social science tells us about the importance of mothers and fathers in children’s development. Fathers and mothers bring similar, even indistinguishable, capacities that enable healthy child development. But like the complementarity of the left and right halves of the brain, they also bring distinct capacities that provide complementary, irreplaceable contributions to children’s healthy development.
. . .

“In each of these developmental areas, the natural complementarity between mothers’ and fathers’ parenting strengths is surprisingly precise. Whereas mothers are biologically prepared to nurture, teach, and provide care that is especially important for foundational development, fathers are predisposed to take a facilitative approach to parenting, fostering self-reliance, achievement, and healthy peer relationships in ways that are particularly important especially as children begin to transition to adult life. Both mothers and fathers are needed to create life, and both are needed to best facilitate the nurturing of that life. Mothers do not father, and fathers do not mother. Each emerges as a unique source of distinct and critical nurturing in the development of children. Indeed, evidence of these distinct contributions confirms a long assumed proposition: namely, that the direct, continual involvement of both a mother and a father in the home is ideal for the child’s development.”

Full article is available via The Public Discourse.

Mark Regnerus: The Evolution of Science on Same-Sex Households

Social science was never going to save marriage’s male-female infrastructure. What it can do—if the narrative the data reveals isn’t manipulated—is reveal what is really going on.

From Public Discourse:

croppedshadowNow that the Supreme Court’s oral arguments are behind us, and the justices have already privately cast their votes about the future (and the history) of marriage, perhaps it’s possible that the social science of marriage, sexuality, and child outcomes can catch its breath. Better yet, perhaps it can operate without the pressure-cooker of politically acceptable narratives.

But after three years, and two separate inquisitions by my own university, I’ve come to conclude that “the beatings will continue until morale improves,” as the saying goes. Or in my case, until I capitulate and admit I was wrong. I’m not above admitting mistakes, but neither am I prone to the sort of reeducation that is being pursued.

And so it is that a Washington Post blog recently covered the release of a study that re-analyzes the data I collected and described back in 2012 in my pair of studies of the adult children of parents who have had same-sex relationships, continuing a contest over the meaning of the New Family Structures Study (NFSS) that’s nearing three years in length now. Social science has become a spectator sport.

Full article available here.

Corrections: Where the Same-Sex Advocates Got It Wrong

In an article recently posted on The Public Discourse, James Phillips, an assistant professor of law at Brigham Young University, highlights and responds to errors made by pro-same-sex marriage justices Kennedy and Sotomayor. Phillips points out that there were 6 major errors in logic, precedent, and history made to support the passing of a same-sex marriage bill last week.

This post will outline these 6 errors, as well as the arguments against them.

Error #1: Massachusetts Marriage Rates Have Stayed the Same

Justice Sotomayor claimed that Massachusetts’ heterosexual marriage rates have remained constant since the state allowed same-sex marriage. If she had paid attention to an opposing amicus brief filed by 100 Scholars of Marriage, she would have seen that data clearly tells us otherwise, for instance:

Marriage rates have dropped by 8.9 percent since the state [MA] redefined marriage. And Massachusetts is not alone. The marriage scholars were also able to obtain data on opposite-sex marriage rates from three other states that have legalized same-sex marriage… Vermont (-5.1 percent), Connecticut (-7.3 percent), and Iowa (-9.2 percent).

ThinkstockPhotos-131579672Error #2: Because Some Men Leave Their Wives and Children, Marriage Does Not Help Keep Fathers Around

Justice Sotomayer argued that marriage between a man and a woman doesn’t actually increase the likelihood of creating a stable family life:

‘Marriage doesn’t do that on any level. How many married couples do fathers with the benefits or the requirements of marriage walk away from their children? So it’s not that the institution alone does it and that without it that father is going to stay in marriage.’

But as Phillips points out:

This is a classic example of the exception fallacy. Of course some men and women walk away from their marriage and their children. But that is the exception, not the rule, and it is certainly counter to the social norm of marriage.

Error #3: The Purpose of States’ Recognizing and Regulating Marriage is to Bestow Dignity on Couples

When Mr. Bursch brought forth the argument that the states are not in the marriage business to bestow dignity, Justice Kennedy expressed surprise at this, stating that he believed that whole purpose of “traditional marriage” was to bestow dignity on both man and woman. Now same-sex couples want that same “ennoblement.” But as Phillips explains:

Justice Kennedy was missing the point. He was confusing the reason that a couple may desire to be married with the reason that a state would want to recognize and regulate marriage. Those are distinct.

Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that states were interested in bestowing dignity on couples by allowing them to marry, that would be a means to enticing couples to marry. The end or purpose of encouraging marriage in this way would still be the fact that society—particularly children—benefits when men and women marry. It makes no sense for the state to go through the trouble and expense to regulate and subsidize marriage if the state gets nothing out of it in return—and it’s not simply about bestowing dignity on consenting adult love of all sizes and shapes.

Error #4: The Only Harm to Legalizing Same-Sex Marriage Is Making Marriage More Adult-Centered

ThinkstockPhotos-465562267When several justices struggled to comprehend how redefining marriage to genderless terms would impact and harm the institution of marriage, Mr. Bursch correctly, but incompletely, argued how it would change the focus of marriage from fulfilling the needs of children to fulfilling the desires adults. If marriage is redefined, then the norm of fulfilling a child’s need to be raised by a man and a woman in order to learn how necessary interactions from each one, would be eliminated. And this is only one effect.

Error #5: There Is a Parallel between: Brown/Loving and Lawrence/Obergefell

The time between the Supreme Court decision calling for desegregation of elementary schools, the famous Brown v. Board of Education, and the decision invalidating state laws that prohibited mixed-race marriages (Loving v. Virginia), was thirteen years.

But man-woman marriage has been the law in every state since the birth of the nation—and in every Western nation for millennia. As Justice Kennedy put it, “I don’t even know how to count the decimals when we talk about millennia.

Not all thirteen year periods are equivalent. They certainly are not here.

Error #6: Age Restrictions on Marriage Are Equivalent to the Definitional Element of One Man and One Woman

Several justices tried to form the analogy of recognizing exceptions to age restrictions to recognizing same-sex marriages. But as Phillips explained:

Not all exceptions are equal. Age has never been a part of the definition of marriage... There are two historical and universal components to the definition of marriage in the United States, and in the Western world: gender diversity and only two spouses, one man and one woman. All other features—age, race, religion, coverture, dowry—are not part of the fundamental definition.

The American people want our justices to base their decisions on facts, and not make such errors in their decision as outlined here. Since the citizens of the United States will have to live with this decision for the entirety of America’s future, it would be best if such a decision had a basis in not only what the public wants, but also the truth of such matters.

Source via The Public Discourse

Same-Sex Marriage: Not a Constitutional Right

The collective wisdom and experience of the human race teaches us that marriage between one man and one woman is the foundation of a vibrant, self-sustaining society. - Ken Connelly 

ThinkstockPhotos-178371055In a recent opinion piece on CNSnews, Alliance Defending Freedom's Ken Connelly coherently outlines why same-sex marriage is not a constitutional right, as well as why the state, up until the 21st century, has supported marriage as a union that can only take place between one man and one woman.

Same-sex marriage is not a fundamental constitutional right. Each and every time the Supreme Court has spoken of the fundamental right to marry, it has done so with the clear understanding that marriage is the relationship of husband and wife. Furthermore, to establish that a right is fundamental from a constitutional perspective, the Supreme Court has required that it be deeply rooted in the nation’s history, a requirement that the proponents of same-sex marriage obviously cannot satisfy.

Man-woman marriage laws are not a violation of equal protection, either. That constitutional doctrine requires the government to treat similar groups similarly. But same-sex couples are not similarly situated to opposite-sex couples with respect to the state’s main reason for being involved in marriage, which is the creation and rearing of children. A man and woman can naturally create children and provide those children with both a mother and a father—same-sex couples cannot. Thus there is no constitutional requirement that they be treated the same in this context.

ThinkstockPhotos-492544249No matter what one’s conclusion as to the propriety of redefining marriage, it must be said that the resolution of this issue by direct political participation is proper in a democratic republic like ours. For as the Supreme Court recently reaffirmed in Windsor, the states, and by extension the people in those states, have the “essential authority to define the marital relation.”

This clear guidance from the Supreme Court as to the centrality of the people’s will on this issue has not stopped proponents of same-sex marriage from seeking to skip the debate and the legislative process entirely, opting rather to redefine marriage through the courts instead. Unfortunately, many lower federal courts have erroneously concluded that Windsor established a constitutional right to same-sex marriage. In so doing, these courts have usurped the right of the people to govern themselves.

The full piece is available here. As Connelly has noted, same-sex marriage proponents do not care what marriage truly is, nor do they care about what is best for children. Same-sex marriage is a blatant attack on the family, and an outright affront to American liberties. Strip marriage of the man-woman definition, and you strip all children of an equal chance at a stable family. Try to control the American people’s conscience, and you will see the fighting spirit that built this nation.

Whenever same-sex marriage activists try to shut down debate, or silence opposition, take heart: their violent actions are a testimony to the truth that marriage can only be between a man and a woman.

Does the Definition of Marriage Matter? Ask the Children

As the Supreme Court decision on marriage continues this week, it is important to remember the group that will be most affected by this decision: our children.

ThinkstockPhotos-471500304Even those who are not married and/or have no children, regardless of their gender or sexual orientation, have a stake in this battle, as each child is a future adult who will eventually have a hand in choosing the path of our nation and culture.

So what happens to children if we tell them that gender doesn’t matter? That they don’t need a mother and a father? That children raised by same-sex couples are no worse off than children raised by heterosexual couples? Brandi Walton, who grew up as an only child in a same-sex household, can tell us exactly what happens:

ThinkstockPhotos-57435315I knew from a young age that living with two women was not natural. I could especially see it in the homes of my friends who had a mom and a dad. I spent as much time with those friends as I possibly could. I yearned for the affection that my friends received from their dads. I wanted to know what it was like to be held and cherished by a man, what it was like to live with one from day to day.

As far as I was concerned, I already had one mother; I did not need another. My dream was that my mother would decide she wanted to be with men again, but obviously that dream did not come true. My grandfathers and uncles did the best they could when it came to spending time with me and doing all the daddy-daughter stuff, but it was not the same as having a full-time father, and I knew it. It always felt secondhand.

Growing up without the presence of a man in my home damaged me personally.

...As an adult, I have tried to talk to my mom about how difficult my life was, but she simply cannot relate because she was raised by a mom and a dad. As a child, I would not have spoken out about the way I was being raised, either. I love my mom. She was the center of my universe and the thought of saying something to outsiders that would have hurt her devastated me. Writing this letter right this very moment is devastating me.

ThinkstockPhotos-78181522

While adults are clamoring for the definition of marriage to be fundamentally altered, their children are silently crying out for a mother and father. The beautiful innocence of children allows them to see the world with clarity: children don’t care about politics; they don’t care about ethnicity; they don’t care what any judge, politician, or world leader tells them. Children just want their mom and dad.

This Supreme Court decision is not about liberals vs. conservatives, Republicans vs. Democrats, or even about gender: it is about children. Every child deserves to be raised by their mother and their father, and no adult has the right to deny a child either one.

Whatever the Supreme Court decides, one thing is certain: there will always be men and women who will fight to protect the true definition of marriage, and the family: one man and one woman, who together, bring children into this world.

The Cost of Same-Sex Marriage: Children's Well-Being and Happiness

“How are heterosexuals harmed by same-sex marriage?” “Why don’t you want two people of the same gender who love each other to be married?” “Same-sex parents are just as good as heterosexual parents.”

ThinkstockPhotos-185028425Many of those advocating to redefine marriage have sought to turn marriage and parenthood into a political cause. But the truth of the matter is that marriage and parenthood are anything but political. Rather, they are universal truths that are ontologically, sociologically, and not to mention, spiritually based.

Already, we see an increasing number of adults who were once raised in same-sex households speaking out about the void in their lives. These courageous individuals are giving a face to the powerful social research findings uncovered by researchers such as Mark Regnerus and others.

As more and more same-sex couples assert their "right" to children, the voices of the children themselves are becoming more prominent. Here are excerpts from two of them who are speaking out on why children will always want and always need a mom and a dad:

In an open letter published on Public Discourse, Katy Faust writes to Justice Kennedy, explaining not only how same-sex marriage hurts children, but how it encourages an alternative form of parenting that denies a child their right to biological parents. She writes:

ThinkstockPhotos-83115964While it’s true that parents will be missing from a child’s life for many different reasons, redefining marriage will change marriage as a whole and thus parenting for many kids. Because the government’s interest in marriage is children, and the historic basis for marriage has been a procreative relationship, this new genderless definition which excludes a mother or father actually encourages “one or both biological parents to be missing from a child’s life.”

She goes on to laud the UN for recognizing the right of a child “to know and be cared for by his or her parents”:

We should follow the lead of the UN and prioritize the rights of children, who have an inherent right to their parents. Adults have the right to choose to enter into a partnership that cannot produce children, and government should not prevent such a decision. But as a society, our laws must uphold and encourage the family structure that best protects children’s rights.

Another woman recently shared her story with The Christian Institute:

A woman raised by two mothers has admitted the experience was “damaging and confusing”, and has warned of the potential for “irreparable, long-term damage to a child”.

Hetty Baynes Russell, 58, said her unconventional parental setup fostered “a life of confusion and a lack of emotional security”, which landed her in therapy for many years, “trying to make sense of it all”.

"Far from being a healthy, nurturing state of affairs, this arrangement — where I was caught in a destructive, triangular battle for my mother’s affection with another woman, while forced to watch helplessly as my father was emasculated and airbrushed from our lives — was simultaneously damaging and confusing”.

As same-sex marriage proponents continue to push hard for marriage redefinition, they falsely claim that they are "on the right side of history.” However, as these voices and many others are telling us, factual history will never be on their side: history shows us that marriage is and has always been between a man and woman. Our ancestral identity, and the very fact that we are here today is a testimony to the natural union of a man and a woman. These children raised in same-sex households understand the cost of redefining marriage. Let's listen to them: the real voices from the same-sex marriage movement.

Designers Dolce & Gabbana: "The Only Family is the Traditional One"

Domenico Dolce and Stefano Gabbana have spoken out strongly against same-sex marriage, same-sex parenting, and the use of surrogacy to procreate.

The pair, business partners since 1985 who were once romantically linked, spoke out this past weekend about their support for the traditional family – children raised by a mother and father – while also expressing their belief about the irresponsibility of conception through surrogacy or IVF.

In an interview with the Italian magazine Panorama, Dolce and Gabbana explained their reasoning on these very sensitive topics:

The only family is the traditional one. No chemical offspring and rented uterus. Life has a natural flow; there are things that cannot be changed.”

They also said, “Procreation must be an act of love.”

Mr. Dolce has been attributed with the following remarks:

I'm not convinced by what I call chemical children, synthetic babies. They are wombs for hire, semen chosen from a catalogue.”

As Mr. Gabbana added, “The family is not a fad. It is a supernatural sense of belonging.”

Following this bold defense of the family, celebrities and other outspoken opponents have been calling for a boycott of the Dolce&Gabbana label, with the most vocal opposition coming from Elton John, who claimed the pair was “out of step with the times, just like your fashions.”

While Dolce and Gabbana continue to be attacked as “hypocrites”, what their critics have failed to do is prove them wrong. Every child is born to and deserves to be raised by a committed, married father and mother, and same-sex marriage will always strip away at least one essential piece of the family.

Bravo to Dolce and Gabbana for daring to speak the truth; they are as bold in their speech as they are in their designs, and deserve to be applauded. While others will continue to vent their disagreement, the billionaire pair are wonderful advocates for the true definitions of marriage and family.

Mark Your Calendars for the 2015 March for Marriage!

"This triangle of truisms, of father, mother and child, cannot be destroyed; it can only destroy those civilizations which disregard it." - G.K. Chesterton

2015 March for Marriage

When: Saturday, April 25, 2015, at Noon ET

Where: Union Square, South of Capitol Reflecting Pool, Washington, DC

 

Who: Marriage defenders, champions, and leaders from across the nation join together to defend marriage, family, and American liberties!

Why: To defend marriage as the unique union between 1 man and 1 woman; to protect the family as the building block of society; to ensure that our children will have a future where basic American rights and liberties are honored, preserved, and protected.

Stayed tuned for more information to come!

No Child Deserves to Be Orphaned

459428949In today’s world, it is not unusual to hear of fathers who are so busy with their work that they hardly, if ever, have time to spend with their children. In a recent address to his general audience, Pope Francis warned that such a lifestyle creates “orphans at home.”

He explained that many problems children encounter can be traced to these “absentee fathers”- fathers who when physically at home, don’t take time to actually be with their kids.

The absence of the paternal figure in the life of little ones and young people produces gaps and wounds which can also be very grave. And, in fact, the deviances of children and of adolescents can in good part be traced to this absence, to the lack of examples and of authoritative guides in their daily life – to the lack of closeness, to the lack of love on the part of fathers. The sense of orphan-hood that so many young people live is deeper than we think.

They are orphans, but within the family, because the fathers are often absent, also physically, from home but above all because, when they are home, they do not behave as fathers, they do not have a dialogue with their children. They do not fulfill their educational task; they do not give to their children – with their example accompanied by words --, those principles, those values, those rules of life that they need.

470157601

Compared to his recent remarks praising mothers, Francis’s words for fathers seem harsh. However, the Bishop of Rome is not looking to praise only one parent or disparage the other, but rather highlight the importance of children being raised by both their mother and their father.

Francis stated that “a society without mothers would be a dehumanized society, for mothers are always, even in the worst moments, witnesses of tenderness, dedication and moral strength.” In the same way, a society without fathers is “lost”. Children look to their fathers as leaders of the family, as the one who will defend them and their mothers from the world, and quite simply, children need fathers for paternal guidance.

Francis himself acknowledged that his words were tough, but promised that next week he would speak about “the beauty of fatherhood.”

To state it simply, children need both a mother and a father. To deprive a child of one or the other is akin to orphaning them. Every child deserves a mother and father to foster, teach, and love them. No child deserves to be orphaned.

Nebraska School Insists: Stop Referring to Students by "Gendered Expressions" Such as "Boys and Girls"

A school in Lincoln, Nebraska is demanding that teachers no longer refer to students as “boys and girls”, but ... purple penguins?

Fox News reports on aLincoln Public Schools handout that included the following advice and explanation:

Purple Penguin“Don’t use phrases such as ‘boys and girls,’ ‘you guys,’ ‘ladies and gentlemen,’ and similarly gendered expressions to get kids’ attention,” reads a handout from the Lincoln Public Schools that was given to teachers.

“The agenda we’re promoting is to help all kids succeed,” Brenda Leggiardo the district's coordinator of social workers and counselors told the newspaper. “We have kids who come to us with a whole variety of circumstances, and we need to equitably serve all kids.”

So instead of asking boys and girls to line up as boys or girls, teachers have been encouraged to segregate the children by whether they prefer skateboards or bikes, or whether they like milk or juice.

“Always ask yourself, ‘Will this configuration create a gendered space?’” the handout stated.

The handout, provided by Gender Spectrum, a website which "provides education, training and support to help create a gender sensitive and inclusive environment for children of all ages" does not explain what to do if all of the children like juice or skateboards. But it does suggest teachers “create classroom names and then ask all of the ‘purple penguins’ to meet at the rug.”

Equitably serve all kids? The school district seems to believe that in order to ensure “equality” for children who might have a real problem of gender confusion, it is a better idea to confuse ALL children.

As NOM President Brian Brown notes in our national newsletter this week:

178062396Now we see the tragic absurdity of a situation wherein, in response to gender dysphoria and confused sexual identities that may be conditions suffered by a certain number of kids, we confuse all kids by chiding them for calling themselves 'boys and girls' and name them instead after an imaginary creature, 'purple penguins.' (I suppose 'purple penguins,' unlike the black and white ones that live in Antarctica, don’t have biological sexes.)

This is why this indoctrination in the public schools is such a travesty and will be hard on our children: because, as you know, boys and girls actually really do exist, and purple penguins do not; and being a girl is a very good thing, as is being a boy.

Girls and boys shouldn’t be called “purple penguins” in order to appease a political agenda: they should be encouraged to be the people they have been since birth. Childhood is precious, and it should not be compromised because a small portion of adults want to modify the way boys and girls are addressed.

No law can change simple truth, no matter what terms are used. So let's fight back in our own school districts across America. Enough of the indoctrination: let girls enjoy being girls, and let boys enjoy being boys.

For a Strong Future, Children Deserve Committed, Married Mothers and Fathers

The importance of marriage to society is an irrevocable truth: for a society to even survive, there must be children. For children to be born, there must be fathers and mothers. For fatherhood and motherhood to exist, there must be commitment and sacrifice that will designate the male and female as a new union that will give society the needed foundation to flourish. That bond is marriage.

Dr. Scott Stanley examines a recent study showing that children with married parents are better off than children with unmarried parents.

Mother-Father-ChildTheir findings show that the association between marriage and positive child outcomes may be substantially accounted for by greater income and more engaged parenting among marrieds. Based on this, they argue that intervention efforts should focus on parenting and not on marriage, per se.

But Scott Hanley points out that marriage is more than a “mere commitment device” or a superfluous relationship status:

Signals of commitment are important across a wide swath of societal life because people will often make better decisions with clearer information about the level of motivation in others,iii and signals about commitment are, arguably, of great importance in the development and maintenance of romantic and family relationships. Reeves seems to be arguing that the signal value of marriage is not as consequential as behaviors such as parenting, but what that view fails to account for is how marriage has most typically been a potent signal of commitment with a distinct placement regarding the sequence and timing of childbearing. At the root of it, what is signaled by marriage is a commitment comprised of “us with a future.”v Sure, reality has very often been messier than the tidy ordering of love, marriage, and a baby carriage; and many marriages do not go the distance. But marriage is likely, in some large respect, explanatory regarding child outcomes because marriage most often is a strong and credible signal of commitment prior to childbirth.

[. . .]

While not always, and perhaps less so now than before, marriage serves as a strong signal that two people are tacitly committed to raising a family together. Further, and for more complex reasons than I want to develop here, signals are the most informative when they are fully under the control of those sending them—by which I mean, when the behavior has Family at Coffee Shopfewer prior constraints so that it reflects something true about the individual. That means that signals about commitment are more informative before a child arrives than after because having a child increases life constraints. When marriage precedes two people having a child, the question of intention about a shared long-term time horizon was settled before things got messy with baby drool and poop. For couples with this foundation already in place, even unplanned and mistimed children are still landing in a relatively rich context regarding bi-parental commitment. One can (and should) believe that various socio-economic disadvantages govern a lot in this big lottery of life, but we should not lose sight of how sequence plays a consequential and causal role in child outcomes.

Families are the foundation of society, and the devaluing of marriage has consequences that reach every male, female, and child, as well as future generations. Without marriage, “family” becomes a simple collection of cohabitants, and couples are no longer the building blocks that create and sustain those families, but simply a joint agreement.

Marriage is, indeed, fading in front of our eyes, and with it goes a lot of signal clarity about commitment in the context of sequence. Maybe those elements can be constructed behaviorally on a broad scale, but we should recognize the difficulty we face in trying to make up for the loss of something with real explanatory power.

For a strong future, children should be provided with the best environment possible: a family, with committed, married mother and father.

Read more at family-studies.org.