Thursday, March 22, 2007

What is Happening to Traditional Marriage?

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket

Maggie Gallagher on One News Now.com explains the outcome of marriage as she talks about her former boss, David Blankenhorn, and his first book "The Future of Marriage" as it relates to fatherless families when the "tossed salad" version of a family is created.
Click HERE for Ms. Gallagher's full story and click on the above book icon to read about and purchase Mr. Blankenhorn's first book.

17 Comments:

Blogger Ryan Charisma said...

What a load of crap.

Even if gays don't marry and have children - there's still thousands and thousands of unwed mothers.

Fix what's broken first before anyone starts commenting on "maybes"

so dumb. so very bigotted an dumb.

9:56 AM, March 23, 2007  
Blogger SCIA said...

Ryan,

Can you explain yourself a little better because I am having a very hard time deciphering what you REALLY mean. I can translate what I THINK you mean, but I want to read about what you REALLY mean by your statement:

"Even if gays don't marry and have children - there's still thousands and thousands of unwed mothers."

"Fix what's broken first before anyone starts commenting on "maybes"".

4:06 PM, March 23, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

“When adults embrace for themselves the right to choose any family form they want, children lose their fathers.”

We already choose any family form we want; it’s just that the differences are becoming more profound. Some children will be without a father, that’s just a fact of life. With marriage equality some kids might be lucky enough to have 2.

“"The Future of Marriage" can be read as a cry of frustration at how gay marriage has hijacked the marriage debate.”

There was a debate about marriage prior to the societal acceptance of homosexuality?

“Certainly it can no longer be the one thing it has always been: society's special acknowledgment that channeling men and women's erotic yearnings for each other -- for intimacy, closeness, sexual desire, companionship, economic support and children -- is necessary, not only for the couple but for the whole society. To get to gay marriage, this is the idea that must go.”

Really? The concept of marriage equality is so strong that men and women will no longer be attracted for “intimacy, closeness, sexual desire, companionship, economic support and children”, come on.

“people who want children ought to be married”

What if people don’t want children or are incapable of having children?

“The more you see marriage as a necessary social institution for bringing men and women together to make and raise the next generation, the less sense gay marriage makes.”

So if marriage equality comes to fruition, men and women will no longer come together and raise children; unlikely.

Ken Weaver

7:59 PM, March 23, 2007  
Blogger Tyler Dawbin said...

SCIA, I want you to find my issue over on Deval Patrick's site, here's the link:

People's right to redess an issue

4:52 AM, March 26, 2007  
Blogger SCIA said...

Ken,

You said:

"We already choose any family form we want; it’s just that the differences are becoming more profound."

Were did you get the idea that choosing any family form is a "difference" that is becoming more profound?

Despite the claim that "the differences are becoming more profound", a survey of the 2000 census data found that more than one-quarter of same-sex households were concentrated in five urban areas (listed with the percentage of residents who state they are homosexual): New York City - 8.9%, Los Angeles - 6.6%, San Francisco - 4.9%, Washington, D.C. - 3.3%, and Chicago - 3.1%. ("The Homosexual Agenda" Alan Sears & Craig Osten p. 25.

Ken, your going along with a claim that states "that 10% of the population is homosexual." This statistic is derived from the 40 year old Kinsey Report which has been discredited by just about every study ever done in this area.

Stop passing your opinion off as fact when saying that more and more of society is accepting same-sex "families" as a part of the norm. They are doing the complete opposite. 54% of the country so far has made same-sex "marriages" ILLEGAL. Does that tell you something Ken? Don't play the bigotry answer card, please.

You said:

"Some children will be without a father, that’s just a fact of life. With marriage equality some kids might be lucky enough to have 2."

The optimal environment for a child is one in which the child’s biological mother and father are married to one another. While it is true that men and woman are capable of providing love for children, it is also true that no child should deliberately be deprived of either a mother or father, which is what occurs as the result of homosexual “marriage”. The small amount of research available regarding children raised in same-sex couple households reveals that such children are comparable in terms of well being to those in single parent households. (F. Tasker and S. Golombok, “Adults Raised as Children in Lesbian Families,” American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 65:2: 203-215 (1995).

Research has shown that the presence of a father in the household affects children’s cognitive and verbal skills, academic performance, involvement in or avoidance of high-risk behaviors and crime, and emotional and psychological health. (D. Blankenhorn, Fatherless America. (New York: Basic Books, 1995) See also, K.D. Pruitt, Fatherneed, (New York, Free Press, 2000).

A plethora of evidence exists which also demonstrates the importance of the mother-child bond. (B. Hunter, The Power of Mother Love, (Colorado Springs, Waterbrook Press, 1997).

You said:

"The concept of marriage equality is so strong that men and women will no longer be attracted for “intimacy, closeness, sexual desire, companionship, economic support and children”, come on."

I agree. This statement is wee bit far fetched.

You asked:

"What if people don’t want children or are incapable of having children?"

Having children is not a requirement to getting married. Don't twist the fact that one should be married,Christian belief, when they HAVE children.

You asked:

"So if marriage equality comes to fruition, men and women will no longer come together and raise children; unlikely."

Ask Maggie Gallagher of One News Now by clicking on the icon to this article. Her e-mail address is available.

Let me know how she responds.

1:46 PM, March 29, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

“Were did you get the idea that choosing any family form is a "difference" that is becoming more profound?”

I look at the world around me. I never said that the only difference was homosexual families.

“Ken, your going along with a claim that states "that 10% of the population is homosexual."”

I didn’t think I was. From the studies I’ve read the homosexual population is 1 to 3% of the total population. Does it really matter one way or the other?

“Stop passing your opinion off as fact when saying that more and more of society is accepting same-sex "families" as a part of the norm. They are doing the complete opposite. 54% of the country so far has made same-sex "marriages" ILLEGAL. Does that tell you something Ken?”

I’m wrong? Try looking back to 1980. If there were similar bills proposed back then what do you think the percentage would be; higher or lower. I would believe instead of 54%, in 1980 it would be more like 84%. Doesn’t that in itself, suggest a decline in the number of people opposed to marriage equality?

“The optimal environment for a child is one in which the child’s biological mother and father are married to one another.”

So what’s your point? If a child is already up for adoption, the optimum environment is not available.

“Having children is not a requirement to getting married. Don't twist the fact that one should be married,Christian belief, when they HAVE children.”

As your religion suggests marriage prior to children, the reality is that most people don’t follow that suggestion, even Christians.

“Ask Maggie Gallagher of One News Now by clicking on the icon to this article. Her e-mail address is available.

Let me know how she responds.”

Okay I’ll let you know.

Ken Weaver

10:07 PM, March 29, 2007  
Blogger SCIA said...

Ken,

You said:

"I’m wrong? Try looking back to 1980. If there were similar bills proposed back then what do you think the percentage would be; higher or lower. I would believe instead of 54%, in 1980 it would be more like 84%. Doesn’t that in itself, suggest a decline in the number of people opposed to marriage equality?"

There you go again, passing your OPINION off as FACT. Come on Ken, your better than that!!

I said:

“The optimal environment for a child is one in which the child’s biological mother and father are married to one another.”

You responded:

"So what’s your point? If a child is already up for adoption, the optimum environment is not available."

I am not talking about adoption. I am responding to YOUR following statement, particularly the ending sentence that is the main ingrediant to a social experiment:

"We already choose any family form we want; it’s just that the differences are becoming more profound. Some children will be without a father, that’s just a fact of life. With marriage equality some kids might be lucky enough to have 2."

You said:

"As your religion suggests marriage prior to children, the reality is that most people don’t follow that suggestion, even Christians."

My response:

"Most people (Christians)"? Is this another one of your "observations" Ken, that is passed off as fact?

I would say that most Christians do get married first and then have children. I guess it is all in who we live next to or see on a daily basis and not in what actually is. I DO NOT have the facts to back up that "Most Christians" marry first and then have children. Where are your facts Ken to prove your point or is it who we live near to come to your "conclusion"?

8:27 PM, April 09, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Scia you need to understand something about me. I look around me and see how my community, state and country have changed since I was young. I remember the 80’s, and most people then would be appalled at how homosexuals have become a more open community; basically not hiding the fact that they are homosexuals. In 1980 that would have been nearly unthinkable. Imagine a vote in 1980 going around the states amending constitutions to define marriage as one man and one woman. Can you honestly say that my belief /opinion is incorrect when I state that as a society we have become more open to differing lifestyles? I didn’t feel the need to justify that belief as it seems common knowledge. I didn’t feel the need to cite sources as I was under the assumption that you and I could come to a similar conclusion on that issue. If you think I’m wrong tell me why. But don’t just tell me to cite sources when it seems that I came to at least a plausible conclusion.

“I am not talking about adoption.”

If you’re not writing about adoption, would you mind telling me what it is that you were referring to?

“"Most people (Christians)"? Is this another one of your "observations" Ken, that is passed off as fact?”

Yes it is. A while back I heard on a local radio show that the percentage of children born to unwed mothers has reached 50%. Prior to the 70’s that would have been unthinkable. In the 70’s and 80’s it was still considered taboo but it was happening more and more. So let’s look at how I came to my conclusion. For the sake of simplicity we’ll say that women represent 50% of the American population. Now according to you 84% of the population considers themselves to be Christian. So if 84% of women identify themselves as Christian, no less than 36% of Christian women are having children out of wedlock. And that’s with all 16% non-Christians having a child out of wedlock. Now my numbers are off because not all women are having children, and not all non-Christians are having children out of wedlock. Does this logic seem illogical?

And when I said most people I wasn’t so much referring to children out of wedlock as I was conveying that most are having premarital sex; even Christians.

Ken Weaver

7:21 PM, April 11, 2007  
Anonymous Omd said...

Two things -

1. 84% say they are Christian BUT are they real Christians or cultural Christians?

2. When a society becomes more accepting of non-mainstream lifestyles it only serves to dissolve society.

3:23 PM, May 14, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

“1. 84% say they are Christian BUT are they real Christians or cultural Christians?”

God knows. LOL

“2. When a society becomes more accepting of non-mainstream lifestyles it only serves to dissolve society.”

When a society refuses to acknowledge different lifestyles it becomes complacent, bigoted, tyrannical and oppressive; and when it has done that, it should be dissolved.

Ken Weaver

10:19 PM, May 17, 2007  
Blogger SCIA said...

Ken,

You said:

"Can you honestly say that my belief /opinion is incorrect when I state that as a society we have become more open to differing lifestyles?"

Society has become more open to differing lifestyles. On this point you are 100% correct, but that does not mean society wants to make these lifestyles legal by definition. If you can find me a direct correlation between these two ideas please fill me in. I on the other hand can find you that the opposite trend is occurring with 54% of the states in this country prohibiting same-sex marriage at the ballot box.

Letting bygones be bygones and making lifestyles legal in the eyes of the law via the judicial system is comparing apples and oranges. People can hold an opinion that others should be able to live the way they want but to suggest that this in turn indicates that they want different lifestyles to become legal is ludicrous. I want people to be able to live the way they want. Go nuts and live your life any way you feel comfortable with. It is not my responsibility to tell you otherwise. It is my responsibility, on the other hand, to make sure that society recognizes lifestyles that are healthy and not dangerous in order for our future generations to lead a healthy lifestyle. If this in turn suggests that I am intolerant of dangerous behaviors, then let it be stated. Sue me for wanting the best for my children and my neighbor’s children.

The issue is not about whether civil rights should be put to a vote, but about voting whether to elevate same-sex marriage to the level of a civil right in the first place. Under the Article 48 initiative process, deciding civil rights is the people's civil right, not the courts who apply the law and enforce civil protections granted by the people. The people never voted to make same-sex marriage a civil right, only the courts that apply the law did.

7:48 PM, June 04, 2007  
Blogger SCIA said...

Ken,

You said in response to OMD:

"When a society refuses to acknowledge different lifestyles it becomes complacent, bigoted, tyrannical and oppressive; and when it has done that, it should be dissolved."

This I will have to agree with you on Ken!!

7:49 PM, June 04, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

“I on the other hand can find you that the opposite trend is occurring with 54% of the states in this country prohibiting same-sex marriage at the ballot box.”

Yes you can, but can you honestly say that the country is slowly reversing itself to become a less tolerant place? I would have to disagree. Since the Victorian age we have become a more liberal society, open to more and more of what would have been an offense to humanity 150 years ago and before. The ball is rolling away from the religious attitudes of the past and soon (I hope) people will learn to think for themselves without relying on an ancient text to tell them what is right and what is wrong.

“It is my responsibility, on the other hand, to make sure that society recognizes lifestyles that are healthy and not dangerous in order for our future generations to lead a healthy lifestyle.”

Are you holding a flag against the consumption of alcohol? How about the use of tobacco? Do you hold a sign in front of McDonald’s to try to stop people from eating unhealthy French fries? Your responsibility is your own health; but don’t you dare try to tell me what is good for my body sir, it is mine and I’ll take care of it myself. If you’re worried about the health of the overall population you would be better served to make sure you don’t drive or take part in the pollution of the air. That will go a lot further in ensuring your kids and mine have a healthier future. However Scia I really doubt that your stance on this issue is based on the health of society. It is my belief that it is your fear of the loss of a Christian heritage and that your children will not embrace Christianity for themselves that fuels your desire.

“The people never voted to make same-sex marriage a civil right, only the courts that apply the law did.”

The people never demanded that a definition of marriage be included in the Massachusetts constitution until recently. Without that definition there was never really a law against marriage equality. Someone challenged the idea that marriage was one man and one woman. The Courts then looked for the Massachusetts definition and found there was none. At that point it was out of the courts hands. They couldn’t say that even though there is no real definition, everyone knows marriage is supposed to be one man and one woman. That would have been the court inventing law.

Finally you bring up Article 48 in the Massachusetts constitution. Do you know of all the exclusions that would prevent a vote on the basis of rights? The first one is “a) relates to religion, religious practices or religious institutions;” So if it relates to religion, your already done before you start.

http://www.ago.state.ma.us/sp.cfm?pageid=1246

Ken Weaver

3:38 AM, June 05, 2007  
Blogger SCIA said...

Ken,

You said:

"...but can you honestly say that the country is slowly reversing itself to become a less tolerant place?"

The issue at hand is not about tolerance, it is about democracy and the voice of the people which has been usurped by radical left-wing judges who are overstepping their job descriptions.

You said:

"Are you holding a flag against the consumption of alcohol? How about the use of tobacco?...."

The cultural health of society, not the plaque ladden coronary arteries of society...lay off the emotional bantering to make your point Ken.

You said:

"The Courts then looked for the Massachusetts definition and found there was none."

I need to finish up my research on this statement. I will get back to you soon.

You said:

"Finally you bring up Article 48 in the Massachusetts constitution. Do you know of all the exclusions that would prevent a vote on the basis of rights? The first one is “a) relates to religion, religious practices or religious institutions;” So if it relates to religion, your already done before you start."

Where is it SPECIFICALLY stated that our cause is related to religion?

8:53 PM, June 11, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

“The issue at hand is not about tolerance, it is about democracy and the voice of the people…”

If you can vote to outlaw marriage equality, than I should have a vote to outlaw religion.

“The cultural health of society, not the plaque ladden coronary arteries of society...lay off the emotional bantering to make your point Ken.”

The cultural health of our society?? Is this some crusade to bring us to a more god fearing time? Are you sure that would be a good thing?

Ken Weaver

12:33 PM, June 12, 2007  
Blogger SCIA said...

Ken,

You said:

"If you can vote to outlaw marriage equality, than I should have a vote to outlaw religion."

Great, collect signatures and bring it to a vote.

You said in closing:

"Is this some crusade to bring us to a more god fearing time?"

A crusade, no. To bring people to fear God and to see his true love and grace...YES!

7:06 PM, June 12, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

“Great, collect signatures and bring it to a vote.”

Well at least you’re consistent. Not only are you willing to take away other peoples rights as citizens, but your own rights as well. I however find it Un-American to treat rights and freedoms with so little respect. We are not a great nation because we can vote; we are a great nation because we are free. The rights stated in our founding documents are said to be endowed by a creator. You are not the creator, nor am I. So when a group attempts to remove an individuals right of religion, speech, privacy, MARRIAGE , etc etc They are pretending to be god. That is Un-American and unpatriotic.

I said: Finally you bring up Article 48 in the Massachusetts constitution. Do you know of all the exclusions that would prevent a vote on the basis of rights? The first one is “a) relates to religion, religious practices or religious institutions;” So if it relates to religion, your already done before you start.

You replied to another question with: “To bring people to fear God and to see his true love and grace...YES!”

I rest my case.

Ken Weaver

12:01 PM, June 13, 2007  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Powered by Blogger

Sign my Guestbook from Bravenet.com Get your Free Guestbook from Bravenet.com