Tag Archives: Traditional Marriage

Commentary

A father explains what it is like to grow up fatherless

1 Comment

Post here on the Goranson family blog. (H/T Caffeinated Thoughts)

Excerpt:

I grew up fatherless.  I saw my dad a few times growing up.  I knew his name and whereabouts.  I spent about two weeks with him in 1991 and he was always very kind to me when we saw each other.  I got cards most birthdays and christmases.  But he wasn’t a part of my life, was never married to my mother, and we lived many states away from each other most of my childhood.  It wasn’t until I was 17 that I began to get to know my dad and to develop the friendship with him that I am grateful we still have.  We are a testimony to genetics and I’m proud to be his son.  My mother was young and I was a surprise.  I never wondered if she loved me but I also knew she struggled in many ways raising a son by herself.

The path of fatherlessness was a long and painful road shrouded in insecurity for me.  It is a path so far off the one God meant for families that I didn’t know I was even on it until I had my own kids.  I knew it was better to have a mom AND a dad but I didn’t understand what I was missing.  As I’ve been reflecting on my role in my own kids’ lives, it’s proven to be extremely painful for me as I look back on my childhood.  So I figured I’d write a bit about it…

What potential in me was lost not having a father and being exposed to men who were perfect losers?  What struggles would have been overcome earlier in life or avoided altogether?  What could my father and I have learned from each other?  How much less equipped am I to be a father and husband having [grown up?] without many positive male role models in my early childhood?  How much relational heartache could I have avoided?  How many unhealthy situations as a kid would have been avoided?  How did the fear and insecurity that plagued my childhood affect me today?

This is a shot in the arm you all you Dads out there who wonder whether anyone understands and appreciates the sacrifices you’re making to be a good husband and father. This post made me feel really sad. I’m always pretty emotional when it comes to things like this, but this one really hit me hard. (Especially the “But can you ever truly recover…” paragraph)

I think that people think that I am super-focused on apologetics, but that is only because I don’t know many people who are dealing with health struggles, family struggles and money struggles. I think that when I take time to read things like this, it helps me to be more alert about taking the opportunity to weep with those who weep. If you have trouble understanding what it is like to be without a father, then read the post and let your heart be informed and softened.

Maybe those of us with intact families should be more interested in opening up our homes to troubled kids to come over and experience life in a healthy family? It seems that being able to observe love in action would really have a big impact.

Podcasts

Jennifer Roback Morse answers the best argument for same-sex marriage

Leave a comment
Cloning her would solve the marriage problem
She'll show you how to defend marriage

Jennifer Roback Morse likes to debate, and she’s very good at it. So good, that you can learn how to debate about marriage too, just by listening to her debates.

The audio of her recent debate in Manhattan just came out.

The MP3 file is here. (46 minutes lecture, 27 minutes of Q&A)

The main case that she makes is similar to the case she made in the debate she had at Columbia University, which I blogged about before. But the Q&A is new, and very interesting. It starts at 46:00 and goes until the end. But one of the difficult questions she was asked really stood out.

The argument

Opposition to same-sex marriage is the same as opposition to inter-racial marriage.

The answer

There are two ways to respond:

1) Race has nothing to do with the central purpose of marriage as being the natural way of binding children to parents, and parents to each other. Race doesn’t affect those goals. But gender is relevant to the the purpose of marriage, because if a baby is formed from opposite sex parents then both parents have a biological link to the child, which is a stronger bond than a non-biological link. This improves the chances that the child will be raised in a stable environment.

2) A better historical analogy to opposing same-sex marriage is opposition to no-fault divorce (unilateral divorce). No-fault marriage started in California. They also argued that only a few people would be affected, that the children would not be harmed, studies show that it will be OK, etc. But in hindsight, we now know that it was a disaster for the family, and especially for children.

You can visit Dr. J’s blog here.

Those of you who are into Christian apologetics need to understand that atheism is embraced for a whole host of non-rational causes. One of them is growing up in a fatherless household. It has a profound impact on a child’s worldview when the child’s father is defective or absent. That means that every Christian apologist who knows the standard arguments also needs to know how to defend marriage. Insofar as socialism attacks marriage, the Christian apologist needs to be able to defend marriage on fiscal grounds, as well.

I’ve written before about no-fault divorce, pre/extra-marital sex, single-mother parenting and same-sex marriage. Here is my post that cites research in order to explain why people oppose same-sex marriage.

Commentary

How would the legalization of same-sex marriage affect your liberty?

9 Comments

Let me just quickly review how traditional marriage supporters are being treated in the prop 8 trial by Judge Walker. ECM sent me this article from National Review.

Excerpt:

Take, for example, Walker’s resort to procedural shenanigans and outright illegality in support of his fervent desire to broadcast the trial, in utter disregard of (if not affirmatively welcoming) the harassment and abuse that pro-Prop 8 witnesses would reasonably anticipate.

[…]Take the incredibly intrusive discovery, grossly underprotective of First Amendment associational rights, that Walker authorized into the internal communications of the Prop 8 sponsors…

[…]Take Walker’s insane and unworkable inquiry into the subjective motivations of the more than seven million Californians who voted in support of Prop 8.

But the thing I want to focus on is the way that same-sex marriage would reduce the liberties of people who believe in traditional marriage, because this is something that is never discussed.

Consider this article from Jewish scholar Dennis Prager about the effects on your liberties that would occur if same-sex marriage became the law of the land.

Excerpt:

Outside of the privacy of their homes, young girls will be discouraged from imagining one day marrying their prince charming — to do so would be declared “heterosexist,” morally equivalent to racist. Rather, they will be told to imagine a prince or a princess. Schoolbooks will not be allowed to describe marriage in male-female ways alone. Little girls will be asked by other girls and by teachers if they want one day to marry a man or a woman.

The sexual confusion that same-sex marriage will create among young people is not fully measurable. Suffice it to say that, contrary to the sexual know-nothings who believe that sexual orientation is fixed from birth and permanent, the fact is that sexual orientation is more of a continuum that ranges from exclusive heterosexuality to exclusive homosexuality. Much of humanity — especially females — can enjoy homosexual sex. It is up to society to channel polymorphous human sexuality into an exclusively heterosexual direction — until now, accomplished through marriage. But that of course is “heterosexism,” a bigoted preference for man-woman erotic love, and therefore to be extirpated from society.

Any advocacy of man-woman marriage alone will be regarded morally as hate speech, and shortly thereafter it will be deemed so in law.

Companies that advertise engagement rings will have to show a man putting a ring on a man’s finger — if they show only women fingers, they will be boycotted just as a company having racist ads would be now.

Films that only show man-woman married couples will be regarded as antisocial and as morally irresponsible as films that show people smoking have become.

Traditional Jews and Christians — i.e. those who believe in a divine scripture — will be marginalized. Already Catholic groups in Massachusetts have abandoned adoption work since they will only allow a child to be adopted by a married couple as the Bible defines it — a man and a woman.

Anyone who advocates marriage between a man and a woman will be morally regarded the same as racist. And soon it will be a hate crime.

You can already see it happening in many places. Just this week Dr. J blogged about how Princeton University promotes or sponsors LGBT speakers who advocate for open marriage, but they won”t promote or support a student group that favors abstinence.

Comments will be strictly moderated in keeping with Obama’s hate crimes law.

Related posts

Canadian persecution of Christians