Tag Archives: Men

Polemics

Dennis Prager: Why a good person can vote against same-sex marriage

1 Comment

Dennis Prager mentioned this article on his show today, and I thought I would link to it, since it is somewhat complementary to my own secular case against gay marriage.

Excerpt:

So, the question is whether redefining marriage in the most radical way ever conceived — indeed completely changing its intended meaning — is good for society.

It isn’t.

The major reason is this: Gender increasingly no longer matters. There is a fierce battle taking place to render meaningless the man-woman distinction, the most important distinction regarding human beings’ personal identity. Nothing would accomplish this as much as same-sex marriage.

The whole premise of same-sex marriage is that gender is insignificant: It doesn’t matter whether you marry a man or a woman. Love, not gender, matters.

Some examples of this war on gender:

  • This year Harvard University appointed its first permanent director of bisexual, gay, lesbian, transgender, and queer student life. The individual, Vanidy Bailey, has asked that he/she never be referred to as he or she, male or female. Harvard has agreed.
  • In 2010 eHarmony, for years the country’s largest online dating service, was sued for only matching men and women. Its lack of same-sex matchmaking meant that it violated anti-discrimination laws in some states. As a result, eHarmony was forced to begin a same-sex online service.
  • Each year more and more American high schools elect girls as homecoming kings and boys as homecoming queens. Students have been taught to regard restricting kings to males or queens to females as (gender-based) discrimination.
  • When you sign up for the new social-networking site, Google Plus, you are asked to identify your gender. Three choices are offered: Male, Female, Other.
  • Catholic Charities, which operates the oldest ongoing adoption services in America, has had to end its adoption work in Illinois, Massachusetts, and Washington, D.C., because the governments there regard placing children with married man-woman couples before same-sex couples as discriminatory.

Increasingly, even the mother-father ideal is being shattered in this battle to render the male-female distinction insignificant.

  • The socialist French government has just announced that in the future no government-issued document will be allowed to use the words “mother” or “father.” Only the gender-neutral term “parent” will be acceptable in France.
  • And in Rhode Island this year, one school district cancelled its father-daughter dance after the ACLU threatened to sue the district for gender discrimination. Only parent-child events, not father-daughter dances or mother-son ballgames, will be allowed.

And all this is happening before same-sex marriage is allowed. Imagine what will happen should same-sex marriage become the law of the land.

It will hasten the end of the male-female distinction and of any significance to mothers or fathers as distinctive entities.

It will mean that those who, for religious or other reasons, wish to retain the man-woman definition of marriage will be legally and morally as isolated as racists are today.

And it will mean that teachers and other adults who ask little boys and girls who they would like to marry, will, in order to be in sync with the morality of our times, have to make it clear that it might be someone of the same sex. “Will you marry a boy or a girl?” will be the only non-bigoted way to ask young people about their marital plans.

Dennis Prager is a Jewish scholar – he’s not coming from a Christian perspective. And in this article, he doesn’t mention God or the Bible at all.

When it comes to any issue, my approach is to look at what the Bible says to get my basic position, to clarify it with good history and good theology, and then to find evidence from outside the Bible to confirm it and to make it practical and effective. The evidence from outside the Bible is also useful to speak about what the Bible says with people who don’t accept the Bible – and even the existence of God. If you want to influence the culture, you have to ready to speak to anyone – even people outside of church!

News

Why do about 70% of single / divorced / unmarried women vote Democrat?

7 Comments
Sandra Fluke, Democrat party spokeswoman
Sandra Fluke, Democrat party spokeswoman

Note: This is one of those snarky anti-feminist posts that you should avoid if you like feminism. Lydia and Mary, I mean you. No peeking!

According to to the Women’s Voices Women’s Vote Action Fund:

Romney, for example, has the narrow backing of men, 48% to 44%, while Obama has a somewhat larger lead among women, 51% to 43%. That gender gap exists largely because Obama has overwhelming support, 71% to 19%, among single women.

Democratic strategists have said for many years that abortion, contraception and related issues have particular importance for how single women vote.

Unmarried women voted for Obama by a margin of 70-29 in the 2008 election. Now keep in mind that the Democrat party is for abortion, same-sex marriage, taxing and regulating job creators, massive deficits and spiraling debt. And the Democrats also support anti-family policies like pushing premarital sex onto young people at early ages, mandatory funding of failing public schools, no-fault divorce, and subsidizing welfare programs which make it easier for women to have fatherless children.

In fact, since women were given the right to vote, they have voted for the government to tax more, spend more and intrude more into the family. That’s not my opinion, it is based on research papers like this one. Now my question is this – why are so many single women voting for higher taxes, more government and less freedom?

Why single women vote the way they do

Single women vote the way they do, I contend, because they have been influenced by feminism on a very specific question. Before, women aspired to marriage and children and having a home of their own. But today, they seem to be more interested in making government take over the things that men used to take care of, so that men become optional. This frees up the woman to choose a man based on her feelings, rather than choosing one who is a good provider, protector and moral/spiritual leader. In fact, it is this resentment of male leadership – especially their moral judgments and exclusive truth claims – which women are rebelling against.

This explains why single women overwhelmingly vote for bigger government. The government is currently distributing tens of thousands of dollars from working men to single women to achieve this goal of releasing women from responsibility to men and the leadership of men. Single women are then left free to prefer less-demanding, less moral, less religious men based on superficial, emotional, selfish criteria. Entertainment, appearance, postmodernism, relativism, and universalism are the new male abilities in demand. Providing, protecting, chastity, fidelity and leading on moral and spiritual issues were the old male abilities, and are no longer in demand.

Here is my message to single women who vote Democrat: you can either marry the government and collect welfare or you can marry a real man. Marriage costs money for a man – and he earns that money by working. He can either work for the government and those who are dependent on the government, or he can work for you and the family and the private schools and the church and so on. You can’t have both. A dollar can either be spent by a man or spent by the government. Choose one. Bigger government means smaller men, and smaller government means bigger men.

More on this topic in my previous post, which listed 5 ways that traditional marriage has been debased by feminism.

Related posts

News

New study: grieving husbands are 30% more likely to have an early death

9 Comments

I saw that Dina tweeted this UK Daily Mail article which I think is important because it shows how sensitive married men really are about their wives.

Excerpt:

Male widows are more likely to die shortly after losing their wife than vice versa, new research suggests

Researchers from the Rochester Institute of Technology in America found that grieving husbands were 30 per cent more likely to die after being recently widowed, compared with their normal risk of mortality.

Women, however, did not have any increased risk of dying – perhaps due to them being more  independent and prepared, the researchers suggested.

Professor Javier Espinosa, who led the study said: ‘When a wife dies, men are often unprepared.

‘They have often lost their caregiver, someone who cares for them physically and emotionally, and the loss directly impacts the husband’s health.

[…]Prof Espinosa’s study, co-written by William Evans from the University of Notre Dame, was published in the Economics and Human Biology journal.

I think that it’s important not to be deceived into thinking that all men are brutes and have no feelings. Men do have feelings, and they bond to their spouses quite tightly. Women provide men with many things that they need in marriage. Not just sex and submission to leadership, but care, nurturing, attention and approval.