Tag Archives: Study

Commentary

Some supporters of gay marriage favor normalizing pedophilia and incest

4 Comments

Three data points. The first two from John Hawkins of Right Wing News.

Excerpt:

The first was an article talking up pedophilia in Gawker.

Van Gjiseghem says what he and his colleagues mean by sexual orientation is a person’s inborn and unalterable sexual preference, irrespective of whether that preference is harmful to others or not.

…Imagine a world in which admitting your attraction to busty women or tall men led to alienation, jail time, or your murder.

…The old adage is that the true mark of a society is how it treats the weakest in its ranks. Blacks, women, Latinos, gays and lesbians, and others are still in no way on wholly equal footing in America. But they’re also not nearly as lowly and cursed as men attracted to children. One imagines that if Jesus ever came to Earth, he’d embrace the poor, the blind, the lepers, and, yes, the pedophile.

Then, there are these comments in favor of incest from the director of The Notebook.

“I have no experience with incest…You know what? This whole movie is about judgment, and lack of it, and doing what you want,” he said.

“Who gives a sh-t if people judge you? I’m not saying this is an absolute but in a way, if you’re not having kids – who gives a damn? Love who you want. Isn’t that what we say? Gay marriage – love who you want? If it’s your brother or sister it’s super-weird, but if you look at it, you’re not hurting anybody except every single person who freaks out because you’re in love with one another.”

And the third from Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse at the Public Discourse.

Excerpt:

Can a child have three parents? If California State Senator Mark Leno has his way, children in California will be able to have three legal parents. Before we dismiss SB 1476 as another example of California Weird, we had best look into it more closely. After all, the bill has passed both houses of the California Assembly and is awaiting Governor Brown’s signature or veto.

I believe this development was inevitable, more inevitable in fact than the much-vaunted inevitability of gay marriage. Once we started trying to normalize parenting by same-sex couples and redefine marriage to remove the dual-gender requirement, we had to end up with triple-parenting.

[…]It all sounds very nice and agreeable to allow people to make any parenting agreements they want on the front end of their relationships. But when a relationship breaks down, the long arm of the law will end up involved in the life of the family, on the back end, to resolve disputes. We are replacing the natural pre-political concept of biological parenthood with an artificial, government-created concept of parenthood that is entirely socially constructed. Instead of the government simply recognizing and recording the pre-political reality of biological parenthood, we are giving agents of the state the authority to construct parenthood, all in the best interests of the child, of course.

Gay marriage advocates can’t object to any of these practices. Their view is that people should be able to “marry” whoever they “love”. And that means pedophilia, incest and polygamy. It’s not broadening the definition of marriage – it’s destroying marriage. Marriage used to be the union of a man and a woman in order to have a stable environment to contain sexual attraction and to raise children to whom both parents are biologically related. Marriage put moral boundaries on the sexual act for the benefit of children, and consequently, for the benefit of society.

Related posts

Polemics

New study: relationship quality diminished by early sexual activity, especially for women

2 Comments

Regarding the studies on the consequences of sexual activity that Mathetes wrote about before on this blog, I had something to add.

I thought these comments from Stuart Schneiderman about those studies were interesting. He writes about the response of feminists to the paper’s finding that women are more affected by early sexual activity, (the paper calls it “relationship tempo”), than men.

Excerpt:

As you might have guessed, feminists are torqued by this study. Witness the bilge offered by Amanda Hessat the DoubleX blog.

To her confused mind, a woman who has a happy marriage might, in her heart of hearts be unhappy. Because it does not satisfy her personhood!

In her words:

What the Daily Mail doesn’t say is that half-year stretches of celibacy may make a woman more satisfied in a long-term relationship, but they don’t necessarily make her a more satisfied person.

In the feminist life plan women are supposed to find happiness on their jobs, not in their relationships. This is convenient for feminists since an ideological commitment to their cause tends to be a relationship killer.

Hess points out, correctly, that not all women want long term relationships. Some don’t even want to get married.

If she is suggesting that women who sleep around are perfectly contented with their love lives, she is, as I see it, deluded.

Besides, if women are being pressured into having sex before they want to—which is a main reason why women have sex too early—then one reason is that a sufficient number of their sisters have been giving it away for free, thus skewing the marketplace.

Why don’t writers like Amanda Hess recommend that the women who are giving it away for free change their ways? Why do they always assume that women who want to get married need to act in a way that is not going to help them achieve their goals?

Feminism is the denial of gender differences. What follows from women thinking that they are no different from men when it comes to sex? Pain. Just so everyone knows, I was appalled that everyone was having sex so early according to that study. I’m in my mid-thirties and have not so much as kissed a girl on the lips. The research just doesn’t support rushed physical intimacy as a legitimate pathway to marital stability and a high quality relationship. That’s my goal, so I don’t rush physical intimacy. We should all make an effort to make relationships more about communication and co-operation. If we care about the next generation, then we will do what it takes to provide them with a stable environment in which to grow up.

Related posts

News

New studies shed light on the expected outcomes of sexual behavior

4 Comments

This is a guest post by Mathetes entitled “Reasonable expectations of risky sexual behavior”.

One of the enlightening, and sobering, aspects of being an informed Christian is knowing how the world works, and then seeing a world that behaves oppositely. It is like watching an accident as it occurs, knowing how it happened, what objects collided, who was at fault, and yet being unable to stop the carnage.

In our country the social carnage is most often carnal. We see the lives of others being disordered because of stupid sexual choices. And the consequences of these choices can be known by those who are willing to step back and examine the evidence.

Case in point. Risky sexual behavior is present in most places where feminism and the sexual revolution has taken a firm footing. A study in New Zealand highlighted the sexual behavior of students.

The study found that students aged 17 to 24 displayed “low condom use, multiple sexual partners and unintended pregnancies.”

Our intrepid researcher is Rebecca Psutka, and she informs us that: “Sexual health is an integral, but often neglected component of overall wellbeing, but if there is very little information it is difficult to set priorities for improvement and to monitor progress.”

Oh Rebecca, if only you knew. She operates out of a mindset where more information will supposedly change behavior. But this behavior that she decries is not a result of too little information. If there’s one thing the students know, it’s how to know one another.

Of the 2922 students who responded, 69 per cent said they were sexually active. The average age they lost their virginity was 17.

One in five said they had three or more sexual partners in the past year and almost one-third said they had been drinking the last time they had sex.

And what message does the student welfare vice-president, Rory McCourt, have to say to this eminently useless waste of a college education. Not much, besides the normal platitudes that one would expect from a college administrator. Rory’s solution is one that would make every educator proud. He and his ilk have tried their best to make sure that “messages on safe sex and drinking responsibly were circulated around campus.”

So yeah, the adults are particularly clueless about the whole sexual education business. Rory tells us that “There’s literally thousands of stories out there about it. It’s something that we have to tackle.”

So, they have to tackle the problem of unsafe sex by making sure the thousands of stories that are already out there will somehow become more noticeable. What’s that definition of insanity again? Oh, yeah, doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome.

I know what you’re thinking. The solution is easy. Say it with me: more condoms!

Ms Edmond said there had not been a major public campaign on condoms or contraception for many years. ‘We obviously have some sexual education happening in schools, though that’s a bit haphazard and inconsistent. As a country, New Zealand doesn’t have an up-to-date sexual and reproductive health strategy, and that’s something we’d like to see.’

Yeah, that’s the reason. Students don’t know enough about sex and how to stop pregnancies. Sure. Unfortunately there’s that annoying fact that the students do indeed know how to stop unplanned pregnancies:

The study found one in 20 students had, or had contributed to, at least one unintended pregnancy.

Of those pregnancies, 74 per cent of women and 72 per cent of men reported that it was aborted, while a further 19 per cent of men did not know the outcome.

What about that mysterious 19 per cent? Well, unless the girl moved away, or she was placed in an underground dungeon, and the guy never saw her again, we can guess the outcome … adoption, right?

So actually, the students know all about birth control, and how to get rid of a pregnancy.

Now, given that this might be classified as bad behavior, perhaps the students realize what’s happening and will try to end these coital escapades. Not likely.

“No-one has sex unless they’re drunk,” said Stella Blake-Kelly, 21.

“The university can ply them with as many brochures about sexual health as they want – drinking the way that young people do, a lot of your common sense just goes out the window,” Ms Blake-Kelly said.

Harry Evans, 20, agreed. “I know very few people who haven’t had a dumb, alcohol-fuelled sexual experience.”

Molly McCarthy, 21, said students were more likely to have unprotected sex when they were “wasted”.

“When else do you think it’s appropriate to go home with someone you’ve just met?”

First-year students living in halls of residence were particularly likely to take risks, she said.

“You’re in such close confines. You’ve gone out drinking together, you come home together – all the ingredients are there.”

And there we are. The students know what’s going. We see what’s going. Our educators are dim-witted enablers. And the behavior goes on.

Seeing that these casual encounters are taking place, what effect are they likely to have on adult relationships? Or put another way, what’s going to happen to all these students as they search and try to maintain adult relationships?

A US study “found those who waited to have sex were happier in the long-run.”

“Women particularly benefited from not leaping into bed at the first opportunity. Marriage also seemed to make them happier than co-habiting.”

The researchers note that:

“Courtship is a time for exploration and decision-making about the relationship, when partners assess compatibility, make commitments and build on emotional and physical intimacy.”

“The rapid entry into sexual relationships may, however, cut short this process, setting the stage for “sliding” rather than “deciding” to enter co-habiting unions.”

“Around a third of the men and women said they’d had sex within the first month of dating, while about 28 per cent waited at least six months, the Journal of Marriage and Family reported.”

“Analysis of the data clearly showed the women who had waited to have sex to be happier. And those who waited at least six months scored more highly in every category measured than those who got intimate within the first month. Even their sex lives were better.”

“The link was weaker for men. However, those who waited to get physically involved had fewer rows.

The researchers said couples may benefit from taking things slowly.

‘A strong sexual desire may thwart the development of other key ingredients of a healthy relationship such as commitment, mutual understanding or shared values,’ the report said. ‘Good sex is sometimes confused with love; some couples overlook problematic aspects of their relationship that ultimately matter more in the long run.’”

So we see the end result of the risky student behavior. The students are setting themselves up for long term relationship pain and failure. And this goes along with what we know about biological bonding – the more sexual partners you have, the more difficult it is for you (especially the woman) to bond with your mate. In practical terms, studies have shown that the more sexual partners you have the more likely you are to divorce.

So our bright students are doing the exact things that will set themselves up for future relationship failures.

I work with my church’s youth group quite often, and I’ve always dreamed of giving a Sunday school lesson titled: “Your worst life now and forever: how to fail at life”. Joel Osteen might not preach it, since it wouldn’t sell well, but it would make for a good talk.

First step: sleep with random people, when you’re young, while you are drunk, so that your conscience and biology will be dulled and you’ll be more likely to have casual encounters as you get older.

Further steps would include: don’t use birth control, abort your pregnancies (to ensure an increased risk of breast cancer and moral guilt and anguish), have children out of wedlock, and divorce your mate.

It’s a perfect plan – for disaster. And it’s one that students have already mastered.