Tag Archives: marriage
The lack of positive portrayal of men in the media is not coincidence. It’s part of a larger movement that has sought to change the very nature of men. The results have been catastrophic. And the people hurt most, I think, are women and children.
Studies in recent years have shown two disturbing trends: men are marrying later in life and adolescence is stretching into the early 30’s.
It doesn’t take long to see the reality of these trends. More males are putting off marriage until later in life, sometimes opting for co-habitation rather than marriage altogether. Starting a home and family is no longer a priority as perfecting X-box skills, traveling, and having the latest i-whatever is more important. (These trends have also contributed to serious financial difficulties, but that’s another issue for another day.) A recent Pew Research poll found that the number of men ages 18-34 that say having a successful marriage is a priority dropped from 35-29 percent.
You probably saw the article a couple of weeks ago decrying the fact that Chip and Joanna Gaines attend a church where they teach that marriage is the union of one man and one woman. The now infamous hit piece by BuzzFeed lamented that this very popular TV couple are conservative, Christian Americans that believe in traditional marriage.
This personal attack on the Gaines has much to teach us about the new reality we live in as part of the sexual and moral revolution.
If you’re not familiar with the story, here’s a short recap from a recent article:
It’s almost too absurd to consider. And yet, it’s a reality in our upside down social landscape. Baltimore City Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake and the City Council sought to force pro-life pregnancy centers to advocate abortion. Mayor Blake an the City Council apparently are so committed to abortion in Baltimore that they are willing to force people fundamentally opposed to it to not only support it, but to help advertise it.
A recent article reports:
If you support homosexual “marriage,” you owe it to yourself to read what Matt Walsh says about a mother and son fighting for their right to “love” one another. All of the arguments used to defend and legitimize homosexual relationships and “marriage” are being used by the mother and son to defend and legitimize their incestuous relationship. And the things is: if you support the logic and reasoning used to defend homosexual “marriage” then you have no moral or legal ground to refuse to support incestuous relationships.
To prove that point, Walsh runs through the main arguments used to defend homosexual “marriage” and then applies them to incestuous relationships. Namely, he cites:
I recently read a headline so astoundingly absurd that I almost didn’t believe it. Surely I was not seriously reading what I thought I was reading? And yet, when I looked again, there it was in all its absolute ridiculousness. The headline read:
“People Shouldn’t Say ‘Start a Family’ Because It’s Offensive.”
The author, I will keep his identity hidden to protect the silly, says that this phrase is offensive to single people and those with no children and, therefore, it should be removed from our vocabulary. He wrote:
“What this euphemism means is get pregnant—or try to get pregnant, or have a baby, or adopt…Start a family devalues any couple who doesn’t happen to have kids, for whatever reason.”
Now, if you can’t pick out the ways in which this statement is beyond ridiculous, let me help.
First, notice that he says this statement is offensive to couples that don’t have kids “for whatever reason.” He is implying that people who willingly choose not to have kids are offended by the choice of others to have kids. In other words, a couple that makes a conscience decision not to have kids – though they could – are offended, he says, by my choice to have kids and use the phrase “start a family.”
Those words come from Daniel McArthur, general manager of Ashers Baking Company, as he describes what it is like to have the government demand he and his family of Christians make a cake with a message that violates their religious beliefs.
It all started when a man asked for a cake with the words “support gay marriage” on it. McArthur and the people at Ashers refused to make it citing their religious beliefs. A legal battle ensued and the government sided with the customer saying that Ashers had violated the Equality Act and “discriminated” against the man. Ashers was fined $765 for “injury to feelings” and told to make the cake.
By the way, this all happened in Norther Ireland where gay marriage is illegal.
It’s clear from the plain understanding of these laws that anyone, not just a church, has the right to live and do business according to their sincerely held religious beliefs. The idea that the Supreme Court or any governing body can force a person to support anything that violates their conscience or religious convictions is completely foreign to the American Constitution. (This includes the taxpayer funding of abortion.) Our Founders specifically sought to create a place where people would not be forced to violate their convictions.
The proposed resolution goes on to cite cases from around the country where Christians have been prosecuted for their refusal to support same-sex “marriage.” These examples include a photographer in New Mexico, baker in Colorado, florist in Washington, and others that have seen their business and personal lives thrown into turmoil by an overzealous government and complicit media that are chomping at the bit to make examples of anyone that refuse to bow to their agenda.
The resolution goes on to propose the following law designed to protect churches and the people that work for them, as well as religious organizations and their employees and Christian-owned businesses:
What strikes me about her comment is her realization that her emotions were not trustworthy. Anna seems to recognize that true love is not about feelings but choices. In our current culture love is an emotion. It’s something people feel, and, therefore, can un-feel. So it’s no surprise that people fall into and out of love. But this show a misunderstanding of what true love is. The reality is that love is a verb. Love is the decisions we make each and every day.
Anna is right that what she is going through is a betrayal, and it’s hard. But she is also correct in that if she were to react according to her emotions she would surely make a “mess” into a “disaster.” So often people turn a mess, a fixable mess that could be overcome, into a disaster. Often that disaster is permanent and cannot be overcome. They do this by reacting emotionally rather than making choices consistent with a proper understanding of love.
Let’s use this example to illustrate what I’m talking about.