Tag Archives: Polyamory

News

In Boston you can see the next phase of the sexual revolution

8 Comments

Story here in the Boston Globe. (H/T Far Above Rubies)

Excerpt:

Adherents call it responsible non-monogamy or polyamory, and the nontraditional practice is creeping out of the closet, making gay marriage feel somewhat last decade here in Massachusetts. What literally translates to “loving many,” polyamory (or poly, for short), a term coined around 1990, refers to consensual, romantic love with more than one person.

If you click through to Alisha’s post, she has a video of some polyamorous people explaining how polyamory meets their needs, and doesn’t hurt children. This is the next phase of “love makes a family”. No one seems to want to make a commitment to another person to raise children in a stable, monogamous environment. It’s all about adult selfishness now.

Commentary

MUST-READ: Which family configuration is best for raising children?

2 Comments

Looks like Dr. J’s stylish new blog is featuring guests posts by scholars.

160x199photo

Here’s a new post by Dr. Trayce Hansen. She wrote an article on which family configuration is best for children. The title is “Same-Sex Marriage: Not in the Best Interest of Children”.

Here’s her thesis:

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.

And here’s a sample:

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)

The rest of the article, with references, is here. I like all of the footnotes because they provide a jumping off point for more research, and that’s how these things need to be evaluated. First, we find out what’s true. Then we adjust our lives based on what is really true. We need to act in a way such that others are not harmed by out decisions. We especially need to govern our actions to avoid behaviors that may harm born and unborn children.

It looks like the the article was suppressed due to pressure from gay activists.

The California Association of Marriage and Family Therapists (CAMFT) published a special issue of their bi-monthly journal “The Therapist” dedicated to the subject of same-sex marriage. Guest authors were asked to contribute articles, half of the writers in support and half opposed to same-sex marriage. A stated goal of the issue was to determine whether the organization should adopt a formal position on the matter.

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.

Apparently, making arguments and citing research papers was considered too “mean”.

Extra stuff

Look! I found some radio show clips that you can listen to on her web site:

And last of all, here is my post explaining why people oppose same-sex marriage. I also cite research!

Commentary

Family Research Council’s Paul Fagan explains why chastity matters

1 Comment

This article from C-Fam, the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute, describes an important point made by Family Research Council scholar Patrick Fagan at a recent conference. (H/T Andrew)

Excerpt:

Fagan warned that while monogamous culture is fertile and expanding and polyamorous culture is in below replacement fertility, that polyamorous culture is still expanding through their control of three areas of public policy: “education of children, sex education, and adolescent health.” Fagan said that through such control polyamorous culture “snatches children away from their parents and away from monogamous culture in ways analogous to the Ottoman Turks of the 14th century who raided boys from Christian nations to train them as their own elite warriors, the Janissaries.”

Fagan said “this snatching is almost complete when these three program areas result in adolescents accepting and engaging in sexual intercourse” and that “every time the polyamorous programs and media succeed in drawing teenagers into sexual activity they have captured another Janissary.”

Fagan described efforts monogamous culture has used to fight back, especially the rise and success of abstinence education, but also explained the way polyamorous culture rose up and crushed it. He also pointed out that the campaigns against home schooling are an effort by the dominant polyamorous culture to stop parents from protecting their children.

In the end, Fagan called upon “monogamy men” to fight back. He said the only answer is for them to fight for control “over what is his and his family’s just due, what his taxes fund, and what he can use in raising his children, control over the three big programs of childhood education, sex education and adolescent health programs.”

Encouraging teenagers into early sexual behavior is one of the primary ways that the secular-left wrests children away from their parents. One of the major reasons I’ve made it this far with the views I have is because of my commitment to chastity. Chastity rocks, and we need to do a better job of explaining to kids what they lose if they give it up.

Sex outside of marriage breaks the will of young people to aspire to higher ideals and morals. It makes them fear moral demands and moral boundaries, instead of embracing them. I believe that it also affects their relationship with God. Since sex outside of marriage generally results in someone getting hurt, there is a tremendous desire by the sinner to escape the guilt by just deciding that God isn’t real and so there is no such things as moral standards at all. Their sin settles the question of God’s existence quite apart from the arguments and evidence. Later, when they learn about evolution, etc., the decision becomes irreversible.

His point about Christians getting serious about NOT increasing the size of government is also worth noting. I know a few fundamentalist Christians who nevertheless vote for massive government programs like single-payer health care and energy taxes to stop “global warming”. They have no idea what they are really doing when they vote to assign individual and family responsibilities to government.