Protecting marriage to protect children

Marriage as a human institution is constantly evolving. But in all societies, marriage shapes the rights and obligations of parenthood.

By David Blankenhorn

September 19, 2008

I'm a liberal Democrat. And I do not favor same-sex marriage. Do those positions sound contradictory? To me, they fit together.

Many seem to believe that marriage is simply a private love relationship between two people. They accept this view, in part, because Americans have increasingly emphasized and come to value the intimate, emotional side of marriage, and in part because almost all opinion leaders today, from journalists to judges, strongly embrace this position. That's certainly the idea that underpinned the California Supreme Court's legalization of same-sex marriage.

But I spent a year studying the history and anthropology of marriage, and I've come to a different conclusion.

Marriage as a human institution is constantly evolving, and many of its features vary across groups and cultures. But there is one constant. In all societies, marriage shapes the rights and obligations of parenthood. Among us humans, the scholars report, marriage is not primarily a license to have sex. Nor is it primarily a license to receive benefits or social recognition. It is primarily a license to have children.

In this sense, marriage is a gift that society bestows on its next generation. Marriage (and only marriage) unites the three core dimensions of parenthood -- biological, social and legal -- into one pro-child form: the married couple. Marriage says to a child: The man and the woman whose sexual union made you will also be there to love and raise you. Marriage says to society as a whole: For every child born, there is a recognized mother and a father, accountable to the child and to each other.

These days, because of the gay marriage debate, one can be sent to bed without supper for saying such things. But until very recently, almost no one denied this core fact about marriage. Summing up the cross-cultural evidence, the anthropologist Helen Fisher in 1992 put it simply: "People wed primarily to reproduce." The philosopher and Nobel laureate Bertrand Russell, certainly no friend of conventional sexual morality, was only repeating the obvious a few decades earlier when he concluded that "it is through children alone that sexual relations become important to society, and worthy to be taken cognizance of by a legal institution."

Marriage is society's most pro-child institution. In 2002 -- just moments before it became highly unfashionable to say so -- a team of researchers from Child Trends, a nonpartisan research center, reported that "family structure clearly matters for children, and the family structure that helps children the most is a family headed by two biological parents in a low-conflict marriage."

All our scholarly instruments seem to agree: For healthy development, what a child needs more than anything else is the mother and father who together made the child, who love the child and love each other.

For these reasons, children have the right, insofar as society can make it possible, to know and to be cared for by the two parents who brought them into this world. The foundational human rights document in the world today regarding children, the 1989 U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, specifically guarantees children this right. The last time I checked, liberals like me were supposed to be in favor of internationally recognized human rights, particularly concerning children, who are typically society's most voiceless and vulnerable group. Or have I now said something I shouldn't?

Every child being raised by gay or lesbian couples will be denied his birthright to both parents who made him. Every single one. Moreover, losing that right will not be a consequence of something that at least most of us view as tragic, such as a marriage that didn't last, or an unexpected pregnancy where the father-to-be has no intention of sticking around. On the contrary, in the case of same-sex marriage and the children of those unions, it will be explained to everyone, including the children, that something wonderful has happened!

For me, what we are encouraged or permitted to say, or not say, to one another about what our society owes its children is crucially important in the debate over initiatives like California's Proposition 8, which would reinstate marriage's customary man-woman form. Do you think that every child deserves his mother and father, with adoption available for those children whose natural parents cannot care for them? Do you suspect that fathers and mothers are different from one another? Do you imagine that biological ties matter to children? How many parents per child is best? Do you think that "two" is a better answer than one, three, four or whatever? If you do, be careful. In making the case for same-sex marriage, more than a few grown-ups will be quite willing to question your integrity and goodwill. Children, of course, are rarely consulted.

The liberal philosopher Isaiah Berlin famously argued that, in many cases, the real conflict we face is not good versus bad but good versus good. Reducing homophobia is good. Protecting the birthright of the child is good. How should we reason together as a society when these two good things conflict?

Here is my reasoning. I reject homophobia and believe in the equal dignity of gay and lesbian love. Because I also believe with all my heart in the right of the child to the mother and father who made her, I believe that we as a society should seek to maintain and to strengthen the only human institution -- marriage -- that is specifically intended to safeguard that right and make it real for our children.

Legalized same-sex marriage almost certainly benefits those same-sex couples who choose to marry, as well as the children being raised in those homes. But changing the meaning of marriage to accommodate homosexual orientation further and perhaps definitively undermines for all of us the very thing -- the gift, the birthright -- that is marriage's most distinctive contribution to human society. That's a change that, in the final analysis, I cannot support.

David Blankenhorn is president of the New York-based Institute for American Values and the author of "The Future of Marriage."

Online Source: http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-blankenhorn19-2008sep19,0,6057126.story

Copyright © 2009, The Los Angeles Times

Marijuana Legalization headed for 2010 ballot

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/12/marijuana-legalization-initiative-headed-for-2010-ballot-organizers-say.html


Because we need more substance abuse.

LGBTQ lessons in school disguised as anti-bullying

http://us1.campaign-archive.com/?u=fc263a98bdef40ddd99f5fd34&id=6be59aab7f

Court to decide whether gay rights trumps or will respect religious freedom (a Constitutional Right)

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/12/08/MNET1B0CGJ.DTL

Barbara Boxer: Abortion-rights foes showing 'lack of respect' for women

http://www.sacbee.com/static/weblogs/capitolalertlatest/2009/12/boxer-abortion-.html

So if you're pro-life or against government funded abortion you disrespect women?

Parents Can't Opt Out of LGBTQ in Alameda

http://www.bilerico.com/2009/12/alameda_diversity_curriculum_is_not_health_ed_pare.php

How Cohabitation Is a Sin Against Social Justice

How Cohabitation Is a Sin Against Social Justice

Posted using ShareThis

More Sexual Indoctrination in Schools

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=117978

L.A. Episcopal Diocese Elects Openly Gay Bishop

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-bishop6-2009dec06,0,6900925,full.story

Yes, let's elect a "Bishop" who ignores the Bible. Perfect.

The lesbian parenting story that wasn't

Jennifer Roback Morse, Ph.D.

A headline squawking “Lesbian parents better at raising children” flew around the English-speaking world last week, having been released by The Times of London. No doubt this thrilled the gay lobby, while alarming traditionalists of all parties. But the real story here is not about lesbians. The real story is the media’s severe case of Gay Infatuation Syndrome: anything that makes gays look good is newsworthy. This seriously misleading headline should caution readers to make a habit of looking behind the headlines. There may be, as in this case, nothing there.

The first indication of a mismatch between the headline and the story is that it cites no new study or research showing that lesbian parents are “better”. Here is the part of the report on which the headline is based:

"Speaking at the launch at the think tank Demos of a report on the influence of character on life, Scott said: 'Lesbians make better parents than a man and a woman.'

"His arguments are supported by experts who have found, over years of research, that children brought up by female couples are more aspirational and more confident in championing social justice. They show no more tendencies towards homosexuality than the offspring of heterosexual parents."

Whoa! Hold on here. Since when is being "aspirational" and "confident in championing social justice" the high-water mark of good parenting? [and who's definition of "social justice" are we using? true social justice would be ensuring children what they deserve-- a mom AND a dad.] But I digress. The story cites neither specific "experts" nor any of the research supposedly produced over many years. There is no new research, just a recycling of the same old stuff. There is, quite literally, nothing there.

The expert quoted is Dr. Stephen Scott, director of research at the National Academy for Parenting Practitioners. I didn’t know what a “parenting practitioner” was or why anyone should need an academy for it, so I looked it up. It turns out that the NAPP was established by an agency of the British government:

"The National Academy for Parenting Practitioners was set up in 2007 by the Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF) to provide the parenting workforce with objective evidence-based support in order to improve the services offered to parents in England."

The parenting workforce? Have we really lost the ability to see the point of personal relationships and kinship? Do we have to redefine the care that parents naturally give their children as a special sector of the labor market, bolstering it with “objective evidence”?

SOURCE: Ruth institute (Vol 4 Issue 48)
Read the rest of this article from Mercatornet.com

Adam Lambert-- Over the Top

Watch CBS News Videos Online

We were big Adam Lambert fans until he acted out oral sex with a man, fondled a woman's crotch, and french kissed a man on stage at the American Music Awards. He justifies it because Brittany and Madonna kissed on stage, but guess what-- a lot of us didn't like that either! Some of us simply want to see talent, not all the sexual hoopla. When he was on American Idol, I didn't care that he was gay-- I really enjoyed his musical talents. Maybe I had difference expectations of him because I graduated from high school with his cousin who is a sweetheart. But now that he's decided to be somewhat of a political activist, shoving homosexuality down our throats, I'm very turned off. He blew an opportunity most never get. His arrogance in this video is a turn off, too. I guess he doesn't care about appealing to the mainstream audience because if he did, he would have taken notes from Ellen Degeneres or Elton John. Everyone knows they're gay but they don't throw it in our faces all the time and people generally love them! Bummer, Adam.

Apparently Adam said that Dick Clark Productions censoring his performance was discrimination. Well I guess we should all just do whatever we want in public, right? We should all be able to walk around naked! In fact, let's show beastiality and pedaphelia on stage and whoever says it's wrong is just a closed minded bigot, right?

"Anything goes" is a dangerous path, Adam. A path I will not be joining you on.

Post Partum Depression-- A Gospel Perspective

I AM SO EXCITED ABOUT THIS ARTICLE IN THE AUGUST ENSIGN (LDS MAGAZINE). IT SEEMS POSTPARTUM DEPRESSION HAS BEEN VIEWED BY SOME AS TABOO, EVEN IN THE CHURCH. SOME THINK THE ANSWER IS TO "KEEP YOUR CHIN UP" AND "JUST HAVE A LITTLE MORE FAITH." WHILE OPTIMISM AND FAITH SHOULD NEVER BE UNDERESTIMATED, WE SHOULD STILL RECOGNIZE THAT DEPRESSION IS A REAL CHEMICAL IMBALANCE. IT'S NOT JUST THAT YOU'RE HAVING A HARD TIME. IT'S A REAL PHYSICAL AILMENT, JUST LIKE A BROKEN BONE, THAT NEEDS TREATMENT. WHILE THE SAVIOR CAN PERFORM MIRACLES AND HEAL ANY AILMENT, I THINK WE SHOULD REMEMBER HE HAS ALSO GIVEN US THE MIRACLE OF MEDICINE. I EXPERIENCED POSTPARTUM DEPRESSION AFTER BROOKE WAS BORN AND IT WAS AWFUL. I'M NOT EMBARRASSED TO SAY THAT I TOOK ANTI-DEPRESSANTS AND STILL DO. PLEASE DON'T FEEL BAD IF YOU DO! YOU ARE NOT ALONE!

Lynn Clark Callister, “Managing Postpartum Depression: A Gospel Perspective,” Ensign, Aug 2009, 62–67

When a woman is struggling with postpartum depression, it’s important that she have support from her husband, family members, and others.

After four years of trying to have another baby, Anna (names have been changed) and her husband were grateful for the birth of a daughter. But Anna found that adapting to the needs of a newborn, in addition to caring for her sons, was overwhelming. She found herself sinking into depression in spite of her best attempts to manage everything and maintain a sense of normalcy. Anna was struggling with postpartum depression.

All mothers, including Anna, know that having a baby is “supposed” to be a happy time and new mothers are “supposed” to be grateful for this incredible blessing in their lives. Yet for some women, postpartum mood disorders detract significantly from these happy feelings. Postpartum depression is manifested in many ways and can have physical, emotional, and even spiritual implications for the women who suffer from it. For instance, these women might have unrealistic expectations for themselves at a time of great transition, feeling that they should be able to do everything immediately for themselves and their newborn because they should be “super-mom” and “super-wife.”

It is important that these women—and their families—understand what postpartum depression is (and what it is not), recognize symptoms, find effective ways to manage it, and, most of all, know that there is hope for normal functioning while dealing with feelings of depression.

A woman’s experiencing postpartum depression does not mean that she is weak, that she has done something wrong, or that she is to blame for her overwhelming feelings. In most cases the state is temporary. Suffering from postpartum depression, like facing other trials, can bring us closer to the Savior as we find ways to obtain spiritual strength. As former Young Women general president Ardeth G. Kapp explained: “We know about our Savior, but it is often in our adversities that we truly find Him and know Him and love Him. … I can testify from my own experience in life that some of our heaviest burdens, disappointments, and heartaches can in time be replaced with ‘the peace of God, which passeth all understanding’ (Philippians 4:7) while we ‘wait upon the Lord’ (Isaiah 40:31).”1

More Than Just the “Baby Blues”

For some women, giving birth creates temporary feelings of sadness that are often referred to as the “baby blues.” Symptoms—which usually appear within the first week after giving birth and can last up to 10 days—may include tearfulness, irritability, fatigue, anxiety, and emotional sensitivity with highs and lows. Baby blues are most often attributed to physical changes the mother is experiencing, but these symptoms can be aggravated by sleep deprivation, inadequate nutrition, a challenging infant, and lack of support. The baby blues are observed in all cultures across the world and affect up to 80 percent of women who give birth.

In contrast, postpartum depression is an illness with a biochemical basis. Although no one is sure what the exact cause is, researchers believe that the hormone-level shifts that occur during pregnancy and after childbirth may contribute to chemical changes in the brain. That, combined with the stresses and fatigue that accompany having a new baby, can lead to depression. About 10 percent of women who have a baby will experience postpartum depression, which typically occurs within four weeks after giving birth but can occur anytime during the following year. Many women who experience postpartum depression have had a previous encounter with depression; new mothers in this category should closely monitor their feelings so they can get help if symptoms appear and escalate.

Some women experiencing postpartum depression start to feel better within a few weeks, while others don’t feel “like themselves” for several months. But help is not out of reach: identifying symptoms is the first step to starting to feel good again.

Symptoms

Often, a new mother assumes that feeling depressed demonstrates weakness. She may even worry that others will think less of her if they know how she is feeling. For these and other reasons, she might not discuss her symptoms, leaving the postpartum depression to go undiagnosed and untreated.

John, speaking of his family’s experience with postpartum depression, said, “My wife, Carolyn, hid her symptoms from everyone, even me. It was hard for me to know how much she was truly suffering. I think she thought that as the bishop’s wife she couldn’t let anyone—not me, not her friends, not her mother—know what was going on.”

Dr. Cheryl Tatano Beck, a noted nurse-researcher, calls postpartum depression “a thief that steals motherhood.”2 But family members and close friends can help mitigate this “theft” by watching for its symptoms. They may notice behavioral changes in the new mother, including the following:

• • A depressed mood lasting most of every day.

• • The absence of laughter or play with the infant.

• • A downcast or blank facial expression.

• • Persistent sadness.

• • Comments about flaws she perceives in herself or the infant.

• • Indications of feelings of guilt or inadequacy.

• • Indecisiveness about ordinary matters.

• • Noticeable irritation, especially related to the infant’s fussing or crying. (See “Symptoms of Postpartum Depression” sidebar on page 30 for more internal signs that only mothers themselves may notice.)

If family members and close friends think they detect some of these symptoms but aren’t sure, they can sensitively ask the mother such questions as “Are you feeling down [or depressed or hopeless]? How long have you been feeling that way?” or “Do you feel a lack of joy in your life?” Once the mother and those closest to her recognize the symptoms, they can begin to get a handle on the depression.

Managing Postpartum Depression

Managing postpartum depression is important not only for the woman’s welfare but also for that of the infant and the rest of the family. Because the mother is often the center of her child’s social environment, her mood affects the child. And the mother’s and the baby’s well-being affect the family’s well-being.

Because this condition affects the entire family, the management of the postpartum depression is a family concern. It is important for the woman to have support from her husband, family members, and others.

Support from Family and Friends. According to “The Family: A Proclamation to the World,” “husband and wife have a solemn responsibility to love and care for each other and for their children.”3 The primary strategies for meeting the challenge of postpartum depression are to strengthen the couple’s relationship and increase the husband’s sensitivity. It is essential that the new mother have help and support from her husband in activities like these:

• • Taking over household tasks and the care of other children.

• • Limiting the number of visitors to foster a peaceful environment. (For some women, however, having visitors may help alleviate symptoms of depression.)

• • Helping the mother get enough rest, appropriate nutrition, and exercise.

• • Assisting with infant care.

• • Becoming educated about postpartum depression.

• • Giving priesthood blessings as appropriate.

• • Offering the gift of presence—listening, caring, and just being with her. Accompanied by a hug, a healing conversation may be just one sentence long: “This must be very hard for you.”

• • Encouraging the new mother to get professional assistance as appropriate.

Rachel, who experienced postpartum depression after the birth of her third child, said, “The smallest task seemed insurmountable because I lacked emotional and physical energy. I was so grateful that my husband was understanding and compassionate and assisted me in getting the help I so sorely needed.”

Postpartum depression may be difficult for a husband to understand, and sometimes he may react with confusion, frustration, anger, guilt, anxiety, or embarrassment. It may be helpful for him to engage in counseling or reading to increase his understanding of postpartum depression and to learn how he can be most helpful. His doing so can benefit both him and his wife.

Johanna, who suffered postpartum depression after having preterm twins, said, “Although the experience was challenging for Sam and me, our marriage became stronger. We became closer in our relationship than we had ever been before. We worked together to resolve issues. I relied on him for priesthood blessings. We truly communicated with each other and the Lord.”

Extended family and the Church community can augment the support of the father. Kathleen H. Hughes, former counselor in the Relief Society general presidency, spoke about her experience with postpartum depression and the help she received from others:

“After the birth of our son … , I sank into a horrible depression. Many of the women in my family suffer from postpartum depression and, as you may know, in those days medical professionals did very little to help women with this condition. I was left to fight my way out of the darkness.

“But those hard times for me were often tempered and lightened by wonderful sisters in the ward who cared for my children and who cared for me physically, emotionally, and spiritually—helping me through that emotional battle.”4

Women might find additional support through organizations for new mothers. Christine, who lived far from extended family and felt alone after she had her first baby, reported, “As I talked to other young mothers in my housing complex, I found a lot of commonalities in our struggles. It really helped—and I even found myself laughing instead of crying.”

Professional Treatment. New mothers might consider seeking professional assistance, including counseling from LDS Family Services (see www.ldsfamilyservices.org) or from an appropriate source recommended by a health care provider. For some, medication may be necessary, as prescribed by a psychiatrist or other clinician.

Taking Care of Yourself. It is vital that new mothers care for themselves by resting as much as possible, eating a nutritious diet, and taking “time out” with mothers’ groups or children’s play groups.

In addition, because motherhood is physically and emotionally demanding, mothers should set realistic goals that allow for flexibility, remembering that “to every thing there is a season” (Ecclesiastes 3:1). Elizabeth, who gave birth to four daughters in a period of just a few years, said, “It isn’t feasible to quit doing housework and cooking when there are other children needing clean clothes and lunch. I found it helpful to do just a little bit each day—one load of laundry, cleaning the bathroom sink (instead of the whole bathroom), planning the meals, and having my husband do the shopping. Feeling productive, even if it’s just a little each day, is very encouraging.”

Other Helpful Outlets. Other activities might also be helpful in managing and overcoming postpartum depression:

• • Listening to uplifting music.

• • Reading the scriptures and other inspiring books. Anna reported that she especially enjoyed reading 2 Nephi 4, which documents Nephi’s feelings of discouragement and doubt, then his growing recognition of the love of the Lord for him: “My God hath been my support; he hath led me through mine afflictions” (2 Nephi 4:20).

• • Keeping a journal. Rachel said, “As I wrote in my journal, I was able to articulate my feelings of deep despair. It helped me to become more aware of what seemed to trigger feelings of depression. It also helped me begin to count my blessings.”

• • Praying for help and comfort. Anna said, “Being depressed made it harder for me to feel the comfort of the Holy Spirit I so desperately needed. I tried to challenge the negative voices that left me feeling weaker and doubting my capacity to overcome my negative emotions.” Johanna asked herself and the Lord this question as she engaged in personal prayer and contemplation, “Heavenly Father, what am I supposed to learn from this?”

The Place of Trials in Our Lives

Recognizing that we can learn from our trials can strengthen our faith, even as we are in the midst of them. God does not leave us alone in our struggle to find hope. Elder Jeffrey R. Holland of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles counseled: “To any who may be struggling to see that light and find that hope, I say: Hold on. Keep trying. God loves you.”5 And He does. Sister Patricia Holland, Elder Holland’s wife, once invited us to return to “the wholeness of our soul, that unity in our very being that balances the demanding and inevitable diversity of life.”6

Anna explained the process she went through: “As I struggled to overcome postpartum depression, I sought to get beyond the darkness and into the light, the light of the Son of God. I wept as I read Isaiah 53:3–4, understanding fully for the first time that the Savior was ‘a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief. … Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows.’ I held on to the promise that the Savior was my personal Savior, that He had been sent to ‘give unto [us] beauty for ashes, the oil of joy for mourning, the garment of praise for the spirit of heaviness’ (Isaiah 61:3). As I looked toward the Savior, I realized more fully that He knew my pain, that He could sensitively succor me as I reached out to Him.”

Symptoms of Postpartum Depression

Mothers experiencing postpartum depression may have one or more of the following symptoms:

• • Struggling for perfection.

• • Feeling overwhelmed or feeling a sense of failure.

• • Experiencing shattered expectations.

• • Plunging into despair.

• • Having difficulty focusing and concentrating.

• • Feeling lonely.

• • Panicking.

• • Having difficulty sleeping.

• • Lacking appetite.

• • Feeling as though she is losing her mind.

• • Struggling to survive.

Family members and close friends can help mitigate postpartum depression by watching for its symptoms and offering help and support.

Recognizing that we can learn from our trials can strengthen our faith, even as we are in the midst of adversity.

Mercy Me-- "Finally Home"

Mormon Church Provides $1.01 Billion to Needy

Humanitarian Efforts

As disciples of Jesus Christ, members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints strive to follow the Savior’s admonition to feed the hungry, give drink to the thirsty, take in the stranger, clothe the naked, and visit the sick and those in prison (see Matthew 25:35–36).

The Church sponsors humanitarian relief and development projects around the world that benefit those of other faiths. These projects include emergency relief assistance in times of disaster and programs that strengthen the self-reliance of individuals, families, and communities.

Hundreds of full-time Church volunteers with skills and experience in education, agriculture, social work, business, and medicine serve throughout the world as part of these humanitarian projects.

The Church conducts humanitarian activities worldwide. From 1985 to 2007 Humanitarian Services provided more than $1.01 billion in total assistance to needy individuals in 165 countries.

Source: http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:dURsgaBwU5MJ:www.ldschurchnews.com/humanitarian/14/Humanitarian-Efforts.html+lds+church+donates+billion&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

Are These Perilous Times?

“Are these perilous times? They are. But there is no need to fear. We can have peace in our hearts and peace in our homes. We can be an influence for good in this world, every one of us. “May the God of heaven, the Almighty, bless us, help us, as we walk our various ways in the uncertain days that lie ahead. May we look to Him with unfailing faith.” —President Gordon B. Hinckley, “The Times in Which We Live,” Ensign, Nov. 2001, 74.

Speechless

Is this for real? If so, Planned Parenthood has stooped pretty much as low as it gets, advertising abortion as something cool and even necessary to "go green."

Apparently, a woman in Brazil started this trend. She writes, "I thought it was a wonderful way to break the taboo. . . I did a t-shirt saying, Eu fiz um aborto. Eu fiz um aborto (I had an abortion. I had an abortion). . . I got to confess I was a little frightened about it. To get eggs throw at me or to be slapped or something. . . But then I thought of all the women I was standing up for and that gave me some courage." (Source: http://www.womenonwaves.org/set-177-en.html)

I have an idea: How about instead we advertise all the women who make the selfless decision to raise the child or give him or her up for adoption? How about we celebrate the people who DON'T try to make killing babies look totally awesome?

My heart goes out to the women who have had abortions and the pain of regret they feel, but let's find a different way to show that support. Such as sharing the love of the Savior and His atonement, as that is the only conduit to true healing-- not a public declaration on a shirt.

Harvey Milk Day, are you serious?

Why did Arnold sign a bill that encourages CA public schools to make May 22 a special day of honor for Harvey Milk if there is even a remote possibility that what is written in his biography is true?

In the reputable biography,"The Mayor of Castro Street: The Life and Times of Harvey Milk," Harvey Milk repeatedly engages in adult-child sex, and he advocates for polygamous homosexual relationships.

Why are schools now encouraged to honor him? No matter your spiritual beliefs or political party, I think we can all agree that teaching children as young as 5 years old to celebrate a pedophile is plain wrong. Hollywood and Sean Penn made him look so good, but the truth has come out.

CALL and EMAIL your school district to let them know you will NOT send your children to school that day. They will lose $30 per child per day-- money always sends a clear message.

Click HERE to find your school's contact info.

October 28, 2009

Mr. President, here's how 'hate crime' laws trample religious freedom

California using 'LGBT hate crime' definitions to squash people's cherished moral values

Sacramento -- SaveCalifornia.com, a leading West Coast pro-family, pro-child organization, is warning Americans that the homosexual-bisexual-transsexual "hate crimes" law signed today by President Obama will, unrestrained, lead to "LGBT rights" trampling religious freedom and everyone else’s rights.

California's experience with "hate crime" laws clearly demonstrates how moral conscience is trampled by placing definitions of anything-goes "sexual orientation" and "gender" into the law.

"In 1998, California first placed homosexuality into the state's hate-crime law," said Randy Thomasson, a legislative analyst and president of SaveCalifornia.com. "Ten years later, largely hidden from the general public, these hate-crime definitions are being used to sexually indoctrinate schoolchildren, trample parental rights, and infringe upon the religious rights and moral standards of business owners and property owners."

“By awarding special preference to alternative lifestyles in hate-crimes laws, today in California, the homosexual-bisexual-transsexual agenda has more legal power than religious citizens, parents, business owners and property owners,” said Thomasson. “Children, parents, contractors, business owners, and physicians have all been hurt by the ‘LGBT hate crimes’ law. Given California’s experience, it is reasonable to expect that, unless restrained by voters, Congress will expand the federal ‘LGBT hate crimes’ definitions throughout the U.S. Code, trampling religious freedom, parental rights, moral standards, and ownership rights in the process.”

"Connect the dots," said Thomasson, "and you'll see how 'LGBT hate crimes' definitions are the beginning of the intolerant homosexual-bisexual-transsexual agenda trampling other people's basic rights throughout the law. It's imperative to understand that lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender activists are demanding their own way at the expense of Americans' basic rights to exercise their religious and moral beliefs."

DOCUMENTATION: From the Penal Code to the Education, Civil and Government Codes

California in 1998 enacted a law that makes the offense of vandalism a “hate crime” because of a person's race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, gender, or sexual orientation.

California's "hate crimes" law set forth in the Penal Code, Section 422:55 and 56, became the foundation for the homosexual-bisexual-transsexual "rights" agenda in the rest of state law.

Penal Code Section 422:55
For purposes of this title, and for purposes of all other state law unless an explicit provision of law or the context clearly requires a different meaning, the following shall apply:
(a) "Hate crime" means a criminal act committed, in whole or in part, because of one or more of the following actual or perceived characteristics of the victim:
(1) Disability.
(2) Gender.
(3) Nationality.
(4) Race or ethnicity.
(5) Religion.
(6) Sexual orientation.
(7) Association with a person or group with one or more of these
actual or perceived characteristics.
(b) "Hate crime" includes, but is not limited to, a violation of Section 422.6.

California Penal Code, Section 422:56
(h) "Sexual orientation" means heterosexuality, homosexuality, or bisexuality.
(c) "Gender" means sex, and includes a person's gender identity and gender related appearance and behavior whether or not stereotypically associated with the person's assigned sex at birth.

California laws advancing the homosexual-bisexual-transsexual agenda, empowering “LGBT rights” to trump everyone else’s rights, is based on Penal Code 422.55 and 56:

Based on Penal Code, Section 422.56, the California Government Code allows fines up to $150,000 against business owners and property owners who are morally opposed to homosexuality, bisexuality and transsexuality.

• Government Code, Section 12926
(p) "Sex" includes, but is not limited to, pregnancy, childbirth, or medical conditions related to pregnancy or childbirth. "Sex" also includes, but is not limited to, a person's gender, as defined in Section 422.56 of the Penal Code.
(q) "Sexual orientation" means heterosexuality, homosexuality, and bisexuality.

Based on the Government Code, which is based on Penal Code, Section 422.56, the California Civil Code requires businesses open to the public to elevate homosexuality, bisexuality and transsexuality above their own religious values or moral standards.

• Civil Code, Section 51
(4) "Sex" has the same meaning as defined in subdivision (p) of Section 12926 of the Government Code.
(6) "Sexual orientation" has the same meaning as defined in subdivision (q) of Section 12926 of the Government Code.

Based on Penal Code, Section 422.56, the California Education Code allows teachers and other school employees to cross-dress and be openly homosexual and bisexual in front of children, and indirectly requires positive portrayal of homosexuality, bisexuality and transsexuality to schoolchildren in school "instruction" and campus "activities." (See http://rescueyourchild.org/SB_777.html and http://leginfo.ca.gov/pub/99-00/bill/asm/ab_0501-0550/ab_537_bill_19991010_chaptered.html)

• Education Code, Section 200
It is the policy of the State of California to afford all persons in public schools, regardless of their disability, gender, nationality, race or ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or any other characteristic that is contained in the definition of hate crimes set forth in Section 422.55 of the Penal Code, equal rights and opportunities in the educational institutions of the state. The purpose of this chapter is to prohibit acts that are contrary to that policy and to provide remedies therefor.

• Education Code, Section 220
No person shall be subjected to discrimination on the basis of disability, gender, nationality, race or ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or any other characteristic that is contained in the definition of hate crimes set forth in Section 422.55 of the Penal Code in any program or activity conducted by an educational institution that receives, or benefits from, state financial assistance or enrolls pupils who receive state student financial aid.

• Education Code, Section 51500
No teacher shall give instruction nor shall a school district sponsor any activity that promotes a discriminatory bias because of a characteristic listed in Section 220.

• Education Code, Section 66251
It is the policy of the State of California to afford all persons, regardless of their sex, ethnic group identification, race, national origin, religion, mental or physical disability, or regardless of any basis that is contained in the prohibition of hate crimes set forth in subdivision (a) of Section 422.6 of the Penal Code, equal rights and opportunities in the postsecondary institutions of the state. The purpose of this chapter is to prohibit acts that are contrary to that policy and to provide remedies therefor.

• Education Code, Section 66270
No person shall be subjected to discrimination on the basis of sex, ethnic group identification, race, national origin, religion, color, or mental or physical disability, or any basis that is contained in the prohibition of hate crimes set forth in subdivision (a) of Section 422.6 of the Penal Code in any program or activity conducted by any postsecondary educational institution that receives, or benefits from, state financial assistance or enrolls students who receive state student financial aid.

Source: http://us1.campaign-archive.com/?u=fc263a98bdef40ddd99f5fd34&id=ff35d074d4

Same-Sex Marriage: Not in the Best Interest of Children-- DUH!

October 15th, 2009

By Trayce Hansen, Ph.D.

As mental health professionals, it’s our ethical and moral obligation to support policies that are in the best interest of those we serve, particularly those who are most vulnerable—namely, children. Same-sex marriage may be in the best interest of adult homosexuals who yearn for social and legal recognition of their unions, but it’s not in the best interest of children.

Proponents of same-sex marriage believe love is all children really need. Based on that supposition, they conclude it’s just as good for children to be raised by loving parents of the same sex, as by loving parents of the opposite sex. But that basic assumption—and all that flows from it—is naively simplistic and denies the complex nature and core needs of human beings.

According to decades of research, the ideal family structure for children is a two-parent, mother-father family.^(1,2,3) That research consistently shows that children raised in such families are more likely to thrive—psychologically, mentally, and physically—than children reared in any other kind of family configuration.

Extensive research also reveals that not only mothers, but also fathers, are critical to the healthy development of children. Swedish researchers reviewed the best longitudinal studies from around the world that assessed the effects of fathers on children’s development. Their review spanned 20 years of studies and included over 22,000 children, and found that fathers reduce behavioral problems in boys and psychological problems in girls, enhance cognitive development, and decrease delinquency.⁽⁴⁾

It’s clear that children benefit from having both a male and female parent. Recent medical research confirms genetically determined differences between men and women and those fundamental differences help explain why mothers and fathers bring unique characteristics to parenting that can’t be replicated by the other sex. Mothers and fathers simply aren’t interchangeable. Two women can both be good mothers, but neither can be a good father. One-sex parenting, whether by a single parent or a homosexual couple, deprives children of the full range of parenting offered by dual-sex couples.

Only mother-father families afford children the opportunity to develop relationships with a parent of the same, as well as the opposite sex. Relationships with both sexes early in life make it easier and more comfortable for a child to relate to both sexes later in life. Overall, having a relationship with both a male and female parent increases the likelihood that a child will have successful social and romantic relationships during his or her life.⁽⁵⁾

Moreover, existing research on children reared by homosexuals is not only scientifically flawed and extremely limited ^(6,7,8) but some of it actually indicates that those children are at increased risk for a variety of negative outcomes.⁽⁶⁾ Other studies find that homosexually parented children are more likely to experiment sexually, experience sexual confusion, and engage in homosexual and bisexual behavior themselves.^(5,6,9) And for those children who later engage in non-heterosexual behavior, extensive research reveals they are more likely to suffer from psychiatric disorders, abuse alcohol and drugs, ⁽¹⁰⁾ attempt suicide, ⁽¹¹⁾ experience domestic violence and sexual assault, ⁽¹²⁾ and are at increased risk for chronic diseases, AIDS, and shortened life spans.^(13,14,15)

It shouldn’t be surprising that studies find children reared by homosexuals are more likely to engage in homosexual behavior themselves ^(16,9,17) since extensive worldwide research reveals homosexuality is primarily environmentally induced. Specifically, social and/or family factors, as well as permissive environments which affirm homosexuality, play major environmental roles in the development of homosexual behavior.^{(18,19,20,21)} There’s no question that human sexuality is fluid and pliant.⁽²²⁾ Consider ancient Greece and Rome—among many early civilizations—where male homosexuality and bisexuality were nearly ubiquitous. That was not so because most of those men were born with a “gay gene,” rather because sexuality is malleable and socially influenced.

Same-sex marriage no doubt will increase sexual confusion and sexual experimentation by young people. The implicit and explicit message of same-sex marriage is that all choices are equally acceptable and desirable. So even children from traditional homes—influenced by the all-sexual-options-are-equal message—will grow up thinking it doesn’t matter whom one relates to sexually or marries. Holding such a belief will lead some—if not many—young people to consider sexual and marital arrangements they never would have contemplated previously.

It also must be expected that if society permits same-sex marriage, it also will have to allow other types of non-traditional marriage. The legal logic is simple: If prohibiting same-sex marriage is discriminatory, then disallowing polygamous marriage, polyamorous marriage, or any other marital grouping also will be deemed discriminatory. In fact, such legal maneuverings have already begun. The emotional and psychological ramifications of these assorted arrangements on the developing psyches and sexuality of children would be disastrous.

To date, very little research exists that assesses long-term outcomes for homosexually parented children. According to Charlotte Patterson, a self-proclaimed, pro-same-sex-marriage researcher, there are only two longitudinal studies of children raised by lesbians.⁽²³⁾ And no long-term studies of children raised by homosexual men. A professional organization dedicated to the welfare of its patients cannot and should not support drastic change in social policy based on just two, small and non-representative longitudinal studies.

Certainly homosexual couples can be just as loving toward children as heterosexual couples, but children need more than love. They require the distinctive qualities and complementary natures of a male and female parent. The accumulated wisdom of over 5,000 years concludes that the ideal marital and parental configuration is composed of one man and one woman. This time-tested wisdom is now supported by the most advanced, scientifically sound research available.

Importantly, and to their credit, many self-proclaimed pro-same-sex-marriage researchers acknowledge that there is as of yet no definitive evidence as to the impact of homosexual parenting on children. Regardless, some of those advocates support same-sex marriage because they believe it offers a natural laboratory in which to assess the long-term impact on children.⁽²⁴⁾ That position is unconscionable and indefensible.

Same-sex marriage isn’t in the best interest of children. While we may empathize with those homosexuals who long to be married and parent children, we mustn’t allow our compassion for them to trump our compassion for children. In a contest between the desires of some homosexuals and the needs of all children, we cannot allow the children to lose.

CAMFT, like all mental health organizations, must base policy decisions on scientific evidence and research findings, not personal belief and political opinion. Most importantly, they must never allow children to be used as guinea pigs in unwise and potentially harmful social experiments.

Subsequent to publication of the May/June 2009 special issue (Volume 21, Issue 3), homosexual activists within and without the organization pressured CAMFT to not only apologize, but also expunge from their organizational archives those articles that voiced opposition to same-sex marriage. CAMFT capitulated to those demands. The Director of CAMFT apologized for publishing articles critical of same-sex marriage and all the “offending” articles were censored from the CAMFT website archives. So much for intellectual debate and freedom of opinion.

Pornography is a Trap

Thomas S. Monson, “True to the Faith,” Ensign, May 2006, 18–21

"Many years ago, on an assignment to the beautiful islands of Tonga, I was privileged to visit our Church school, the Liahona High School, where our youth are taught by teachers with a common bond of faith—providing training for the mind and preparation for life. On that occasion, entering one classroom, I noticed the rapt attention the children gave their native instructor. His textbook and theirs lay closed upon the desks. In his hand he held a strange-appearing fishing lure fashioned from a round stone and large seashells. This, I learned, was a maka-feke, an octopus lure. In Tonga, octopus meat is a delicacy.

The teacher explained that Tongan fishermen glide over a reef, paddling their outrigger canoes with one hand and dangling the maka-feke over the side with the other. An octopus dashes out from its rocky lair and seizes the lure, mistaking it for a much-desired meal. So tenacious is the grasp of the octopus and so firm is its instinct not to relinquish the precious prize that fishermen can flip it right into the canoe.

It was an easy transition for the teacher to point out to the eager and wide-eyed youth that the evil one—even Satan—has fashioned so-called maka-fekes with which to ensnare unsuspecting persons and take possession of their destinies.

Today we are surrounded by the maka-fekes which the evil one dangles before us and with which he attempts to entice us and then to ensnare us. Once grasped, such maka-fekes are ever so difficult—and sometimes nearly impossible—to relinquish. To be safe, we must recognize them for what they are and then be unwavering in our determination to avoid them.

Constantly before us is the maka-feke of immorality. Almost everywhere we turn, there are those who would have us believe that what was once considered immoral is now acceptable. I think of the scripture, “Wo unto them that call evil good, and good evil, that put darkness for light, and light for darkness.” Such is the maka-feke of immorality. We are reminded in the Book of Mormon that chastity and virtue are precious above all things.

When temptation comes, remember the wise counsel of the Apostle Paul, who declared, “There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it.”

Next, the evil one also dangles before us the maka-feke of pornography. He would have us believe that the viewing of pornography really hurts no one. How applicable is Alexander Pope’s classic, An Essay on Man:

Vice is a monster of so frightful mien,
As to be hated needs but to be seen;
Yet seen too oft, familiar with her face,
We first endure, then pity, then embrace.

One of the most accessible sources of pornography today is the Internet, where one can turn on a computer and instantly have at his fingertips countless sites featuring pornography. President Gordon B. Hinckley has said: “I fear this may be going on in some of your homes. It is vicious. It is lewd and filthy. It is enticing and habit-forming. It will take [you] down to destruction as surely as anything in this world. It is foul sleaze that makes its exploiters wealthy, its victims impoverished.”

Avoid any semblance of pornography. It will desensitize the spirit and erode the conscience. We are told in the Doctrine and Covenants, “That which doth not edify is not of God, and is darkness.” Such is pornography."

THERE IS SO MUCH BEAUTY IN THE WORLD! LET US FILL OUR LIVES WITH THAT!

Dallin H. Oaks-- Religious Freedom at Risk

SALT LAKE CITY 13 October 2009

An apostle for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints said religious freedom is being threatened by societal forces intimidating those with religious points of view from having a voice in the public square.

Elder Dallin H. Oaks made the comments today in a major address to Brigham Young University-Idaho students on the importance of preserving the religious freedoms guaranteed by the United States Constitution.

Elder Oaks has had a front-row seat in observing what he calls the “significant deterioration in the respect accorded to religion” in public life. Prior to his appointment to the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, Elder Oaks had an illustrious law career. He served as a justice on the Utah Supreme Court, was a professor at the University of Chicago Law School and Brigham Young University’s J. Reuben Clark Law School and clerked for Chief Justice Earl Warren of the United States Supreme Court.

Although his address on religious freedom was not written in response to the Proposition 8 battle over same- sex marriage in California, Elder Oaks likened the incidents of outrage against those who prevailed in establishing marriage between a man and a woman to the “widely condemned voter-intimidation of blacks in the South.”

He said members of the Church should not be deterred or coerced into silence by threats. “We must insist on our constitutional right and duty to exercise our religion, to vote our consciences on public issues, and to participate in elections and debates in the public square and the halls of justice.”

Elder Oaks also said religious freedom is being jeopardized by claims of newly alleged human rights. As an example, he referred to a set of principles published by an international human rights group which calls for governments to assure that all persons have the right to practice their religious beliefs regardless of sexual orientation or identity. Elder Oaks said, “This apparently proposes that governments require church practices to ignore gender differences. Any such effort to have governments invade religion to override religious doctrines should be resisted by all believers.”

Noting that the students he was addressing were among the generation that would face continuing challenges to religious freedom, Elder Oaks offered five points of counsel:

• Speak with love and show patience, understanding and compassion to those with differing viewpoints.
• Do not be deterred or coerced into silence by intimidation from opponents, insisting that churches and their members be able to speak out on issues without retaliation.
• Insist on the freedom to preach the doctrines of their faith.
• Be wise in political participation, remaining respectful of those who do not share their religious beliefs and contributing to reasonable discussion.
• Be careful to never support or act on the idea that a person must subscribe to a specific set of religious beliefs in order to qualify for public office.

“Religious values and political realities are so interlinked in the origin and perpetuation of this nation that we cannot lose the influence of Christianity in the public square without seriously jeopardizing our freedoms,” Elder Oaks concluded. “I maintain that this is a political fact, well qualified for argument in the public square by religious people whose freedom to believe and act must always be protected by what is properly called our ‘First Freedom,’ the free exercise of religion.”

Jeffrey R. Holland -- Book of Mormon Is True

Jeffrey R. Holland, “Safety for the Soul,” Ensign, Nov 2009, 88–90

"For 179 years this book has been examined and attacked, denied and deconstructed, targeted and torn apart like perhaps no other book in modern religious history—perhaps like no other book in any religious history. And still it stands. Failed theories about its origins have been born and parroted and have died—from Ethan Smith to Solomon Spaulding to deranged paranoid to cunning genius. None of these frankly pathetic answers for this book has ever withstood examination because there is no other answer than the one Joseph gave as its young unlearned translator. In this I stand with my own great-grandfather, who said simply enough, “No wicked man could write such a book as this; and no good man would write it, unless it were true and he were commanded of God to do so.”

I testify that one cannot come to full faith in this latter-day work—and thereby find the fullest measure of peace and comfort in these, our times—until he or she embraces the divinity of the Book of Mormon and the Lord Jesus Christ, of whom it testifies. If anyone is foolish enough or misled enough to reject 531 pages of a heretofore unknown text teeming with literary and Semitic complexity without honestly attempting to account for the origin of those pages—especially without accounting for their powerful witness of Jesus Christ and the profound spiritual impact that witness has had on what is now tens of millions of readers—if that is the case, then such a person, elect or otherwise, has been deceived; and if he or she leaves this Church, it must be done by crawling over or under or around the Book of Mormon to make that exit."

SAY THANKS TO OUR TROOPS

Ben Stein --Gems of Wisdom

The following was written by Ben Stein and recited by him on CBS Sunday Morning Commentary.

My confession:

I am a Jew, and every single one of my ancestors was Jewish. And it does not bother me even a little bit when people call those beautiful lit up, bejeweled trees, Christmas trees. I don't feel threatened. I don't feel discriminated against. That's what they are, Christmas trees.

It doesn't bother me a bit when people say, 'Merry Christmas' to me. I don't think they are slighting me or getting ready to put me in a ghetto. In fact, I kind of like it. It shows that we are all brothers and sisters celebrating this happy time of year. It doesn't bother me at all that there is a manger scene on display at a key intersection near my beach house in Malibu . If people want a creche, it's just as fine with me as is the Menorah a few hundred yards away.

I don't like getting pushed around for being a Jew, and I don't think Christians like getting pushed around for being Christians. I think people who believe in God are sick and tired of getting pushed around, period. I have no idea where the concept came from, that America is an explicitly atheist country. I can't find it in the Constitution and I don't like it being shoved down my throat.

Or maybe I can put it another way: where did the idea come from that we should worship celebrities and we aren't allowed to worship God as we understand Him? I guess that's a sign that I'm getting old, too. But there are a lot of us who are wondering where these celebrities came from and where the America we knew went to.

In light of the many jokes we send to one another for a laugh, this is a little different: This is not intended to be a joke; it's not funny, it's intended to get you thinking.

Billy Graham's daughter was interviewed on the Early Show and Jane Clayson asked her 'How could God let something like this happen?' (regarding Hurricane Katrina). Anne Graham gave an extremely profound and insightful response. She said, 'I believe God is deeply saddened by this, just as we are, but for years we've been telling God to get out of our schools, to get out of our government and to get out of our lives. And being the gentleman He is, I believe He has calmly backed out How can we expect God to give us His blessing and His protection if we demand He leave us alone?'

In light of recent events... terrorists attack, school shootings, etc. I think it started when Madeleine Murray O'Hare (she was murdered, her body found a few years ago) complained she didn't want prayer in our schools, and we said OK. Then someone said you better not read the Bible in school. The Bible says thou shalt not kill; thou shalt not steal, and love your neighbor as yourself. And we said OK.

Then Dr. Benjamin Spock said we shouldn't spank our children when they misbehave, because their little personalities would be warped and we might damage their self-esteem (Dr. Spock's son committed suicide). We said an expert should know what he's talking about. And we said okay.

Now we're asking ourselves why our children have no conscience, why they don't know right from wrong, and why it doesn't bother them to kill strangers, their classmates, and themselves.

Probably, if we think about it long and hard enough, we can figure it out. I think it has a great deal to do with 'WE REAP WHAT WE SOW.'

Funny how simple it is for people to trash God and then wonder why the world's going to hell. Funny how we believe what the newspapers say, but question what the Bible says. Funny how you can send 'jokes' through e-mail and they spread like wildfire, but when you start sending messages regarding the Lord, people think twice about sharing. Funny how lewd, crude, vulgar and obscene articles pass freely through cyberspace, but public discussion of God is suppressed in the school and workplace.

Are you laughing yet?

Funny how when you forward this message, you will not send it to many on your address list because you're not sure what they believe, or what they will think of you for sending it.

Funny how we can be more worried about what other people think of us than what God thinks of us.

Pass it on if you think it has merit.

If not, then just discard it... no one will know you did. But, if you discard this thought process, don't sit back and complain about what bad shape the world is in.



My Best Regards, Honestly and respectfully,

Ben Stein

PLEA FOR FATHERS

Trayce L. Hansen Ph.D. | Tuesday, 2 June 2009

Love isn’t enough

Mothers and fathers are not interchangeable. Children need the love of both.

Proponents of same-sex marriage believe the only thing children really need is love. Based on that supposition, they conclude it’s just as good for children to be raised by loving parents of the same sex, as it is to be raised by loving parents of the opposite sex. Unfortunately, that basic assumption—and all that flows from it—is false. Because love isn’t enough!

All else being equal, children do best when raised by a married mother and father. It’s within this environment that children are most likely to be exposed to the emotional and psychological experiences they need in order to thrive.

Men and women bring diversity to parenting; each makes unique contributions to the rearing of children that can’t be replicated by the other. Mothers and fathers simply are not interchangeable. Two women can both be good mothers, but neither can be a good father.

So here are five reasons why it’s in the best interest of children to be raised by both a mother and a father:

First, mother-love and father-love—though equally important—are qualitatively different and produce distinct parent-child attachments. Specifically, it’s the combination of the unconditional-leaning love of a mother and the conditional-leaning love of a father that’s essential to a child’s development. Either of these forms of love without the other can be problematic. Because what a child needs is the complementary balance the two types of parental love and attachment provide.

Only heterosexual parents offer children the opportunity to develop relationships with a parent of the same, as well as the opposite sex. Relationships with both sexes early in life make it easier for a child to relate to both sexes later in life. For a girl, that means she’ll better understand and appropriately interact with the world of men and be more comfortable in the world of women. And for a boy, the converse will hold true. Having a relationship with “the other”—an opposite sexed parent—also increases the likelihood that a child will be more empathetic and less narcissistic.

Secondly, children progress through predictable and necessary developmental stages. Some stages require more from a mother, while others require more from a father. For example, during infancy, babies of both sexes tend to do better in the care of their mother. Mothers are more attuned to the subtle needs of their infants and thus are more appropriately responsive. However, at some point, if a young boy is to become a competent man, he must detach from his mother and instead identify with his father. A fatherless boy doesn’t have a man with whom to identify and is more likely to have trouble forming a healthy masculine identity.

A father teaches a boy how to properly channel his aggressive and sexual drives. A mother can’t show a son how to control his impulses because she’s not a man and doesn’t have the same urges as one. A father also commands a form of respect from a boy that a mother doesn’t––a respect more likely to keep the boy in line. And those are the two primary reasons why boys without fathers are more likely to become delinquent and end up incarcerated.

Father-need is also built into the psyche of girls. There are times in a girl’s life when only a father will do. For instance, a father offers a daughter a safe, non-sexual place to experience her first male-female relationship and have her femininity affirmed. When a girl doesn’t have a father to fill that role she’s more likely to become promiscuous in a misguided attempt to satisfy her inborn hunger for male attention and validation.

Overall, fathers play a restraining role in the lives of their children. They restrain sons from acting out antisocially, and daughters from acting out sexually. When there’s no father to perform this function, dire consequences often result both for the fatherless children and for the society in which these children act out their losses.

Third, boys and girls need an opposite-sexed parent to help them moderate their own gender-linked inclinations. As example, boys generally embrace reason over emotion, rules over relationships, risk-taking over caution, and standards over compassion, while girls generally embrace the reverse. An opposite-sexed parent helps a child keep his or her own natural proclivities in check by teaching—verbally and nonverbally—the worth of the opposing tendencies. That teaching not only facilitates moderation, but it also expands the child’s world—helping the child see beyond his or her own limited vantage point.

Fourth, same-sex marriage will increase sexual confusion and sexual experimentation by young people. The implicit and explicit message of same-sex marriage is that all choices are equally acceptable and desirable. So, even children from traditional homes—influenced by the all-sexual-options-are-equal message—will grow up thinking it doesn’t matter whom one relates to sexually or marries. Holding such a belief will lead some—if not many—impressionable young people to consider sexual and marital arrangements they never would have contemplated previously. And children from homosexual families, who are already more likely to experiment sexually, would do so to an even greater extent, because not only was non-traditional sexuality role-modeled by their parents, it was also approved by their society.

There is no question that human sexuality is pliant. Think of ancient Greece or Rome—among many other early civilizations—where male homosexuality and bisexuality were nearly ubiquitous. This was not so because most of those men were born with a “gay gene,” rather it was because homosexuality was condoned by those societies. That which a society sanctions, it gets more of.

And fifth, if society permits same-sex marriage, it also will have to allow other types of marriage. The legal logic is simple: If prohibiting same-sex marriage is discriminatory, then disallowing polygamous marriage, polyamorous marriage, or any other marital grouping will also be deemed discriminatory. The emotional and psychological ramifications of these assorted arrangements on the developing psyches and sexuality of children would be disastrous. And what happens to the children of these alternative marriages if the union dissolves and each parent then “remarries”? Those children could end up with four fathers, or two fathers and four mothers, or, you fill in the blank.

Certainly homosexual couples can be just as loving as heterosexual couples, but children require more than love. They need the distinctive qualities and the complementary natures of a male and female parent.

The accumulated wisdom of over 5,000 years has concluded that the ideal marital and parental configuration is composed of one man and one woman. Arrogantly disregarding such time-tested wisdom, and using children as guinea pigs in a radical experiment, is risky at best, and cataclysmic at worst.

Same-sex marriage definitely isn’t in the best interest of children. And although we empathize with those homosexuals who long to be married and parent children, we mustn’t allow our compassion for them to trump our compassion for children. In a contest between the desires of some homosexuals and the needs of all children, we can’t allow the children to lose.

Dr Trayce L. Hansen Ph.D. is a licensed psychologist with a clinical and forensic practice in California.

Source: http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/love_isnt_enough/

President Monson -- Inspiring Words

Thomas S. Monson, “Be of Good Cheer,” Ensign, May 2009, 89–92

"The moral footings of society continue to slip, while those who attempt to safeguard those footings are often ridiculed and, at times, picketed and persecuted. . . It would be easy to become discouraged and cynical about the future—or even fearful of what might come—if we allowed ourselves to dwell only on that which is wrong in the world and in our lives. I’d like us to turn our thoughts and our attitudes away from the troubles around us and to focus instead on our blessings as members of the Church. The Apostle Paul declared, “God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind.”

Elder Uchtdorf-- CREATE

Chuck Norris on Prop 8

"If Democracy Doesn't Work, Try Anarchy" by Chuck Norris

Protestors of Proposition 8 in California (the marriage amendment) shoved aside a 69-year-old woman who was bearing a cross. They reportedly spit on her and stomped on her cross. They then aligned themselves in a human barricade, blocking the media from getting to or interviewing the woman.

Prop. 8 supporter Jose Nunez, 37, was assaulted brutally while distributing yard signs to other supporters after church services at the St. Stanislaus Parish in Modesto.

Calvary Chapel Chino Hills was spray painted by vandals after they learned that the church served as an official collection point for Prop. 8 petitions.

Letters containing white powder (obviously mimicking anthrax) were sent to the Salt Lake City headquarters of the Mormon church and to a temple in Los Angeles. (Thankfully, the FBI said the substance was nontoxic.)

The 25-year artistic director of the California Musical Theatre, who also happens to be a Mormon, was muscled to resign because of his $1,000 donation to the campaign to ban gay marriage in California.

A pro-homosexual, pro-anarchy organization named Bash Back marched into the middle of a church service and flung fliers and condoms to the congregants. They also hung a banner from the balcony that featured two lesbians in provocative positions at the pulpit.

And lastly, the tolerance-preaching activists also have taken their anger to the blogosphere, where posts have planted ideas ranging from burning churches to storming the citadels of government until our society is forced to overturn Prop. 8. You even can find donor blacklists online. The lists include everyone who financially backed Prop. 8 -- even those who gave as little as $46 -- with the obvious objective that these individuals will be bantered and boycotted for doing so.

What's wrong with this picture? Lots.

First, there's the obvious inability of the minority to accept the will of the majority. Californians have spoken twice, through the elections in 2000 and 2008. Nearly every county across the state (including Los Angeles County) voted to amend the state constitution in favor of traditional marriage.

Nevertheless, bitter activists simply cannot accept the outcome as being truly reflective of the general public. So they have placed the brainwashing blame upon the crusading and misleading zealotry of those religious villains: the Catholics, evangelical Protestants, and especially Mormons, who allegedly are robbing the rights of American citizens by merely executing their right to vote and standing upon their moral convictions and traditional views.

What's surprising (or maybe not so) is that even though 70 percent of African-Americans voted in favor of Proposition 8, protests against black churches are virtually nonexistent. And everyone knows exactly why: Such actions would be viewed as racist. Yet these opponents of Prop. 8 can protest vehemently and shout obscenities in front of Mormon temples without ever being accused of religious bigotry. There's a clear double standard in our society. Where are the hate-crime cops when religious conservatives need them?

There were many of us who passionately opposed Obama, but you don't see us protesting in the streets or crying "unfair." Rather, we are submitting to a democratic process and now asking how we can support "our" president. Just because we don't like the election outcome doesn't give us the right to bully those who oppose us. In other words, if democracy doesn't tip our direction, we don't swing to anarchy. That would be like the Wild West, the resurrection of which seems to be happening in these postelection protests.

I agree with Prison Fellowship's founder, Chuck Colson, who wrote: "This is an outrage. What hypocrisy from those who spend all of their time preaching tolerance to the rest of us! How dare they threaten and attack political opponents? We live in a democratic country, not a banana republic ruled by thugs."

Regardless of one's opinion of Proposition 8, it is flat-out wrong and un-American to intimidate and harass individuals, churches and businesses that are guilty of nothing more than participating in the democratic process. Political protests are one thing, but when old-fashioned bullying techniques are used that restrict voting liberties and even prompt fear of safety, activists have crossed a line. There is a difference between respectfully advocating one's civil rights and demanding public endorsement of what many still consider to be unnatural sexual behavior through cruel coercion and repression tactics. One thing is for sure: The days of peaceful marches, such as those headed up by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., seem to be long gone.

The truth is that the great majority of Prop. 8 advocates are not bigots or hatemongers. They are American citizens who are following 5,000 years of human history and the belief of every major people and religion: Marriage is a sacred union between a man and a woman. Their pro-Prop. 8 votes weren't intended to deprive any group of its rights; they were safeguarding their honest convictions regarding the boundaries of marriage.

On Nov. 4, the pro-gay community obviously was flabbergasted that a state that generally leans left actually voted right when it came to holy matrimony. But that's exactly what happened; the majority of Californians -- red, yellow, black and white -- voted to define the margins of marriage as being between one man and one woman. California is the 30th state in our union to amend its constitution in doing so, joining Florida and Arizona in this election. Like it or not, it's the law now. The people have spoken.

Source: http://townhall.com/columnists/ChuckNorris/2008/11/18/if_democracy_doesnt_work,_try_anarchy?page=2