Monday, January 13, 2014

Associated Press: "We Are Redefining Family"

Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF
The AP published an article this weekend titled, "Redefining Family."

The Spokane Spokesman Review chose to publish the AP story, the Seattle Times chose not to do so. The Seattle Times did, however, publish Danny Westneat's opinion piece titled, "Students Winning as Eastside Catholic Twists Gay Marriage Logic."

The kids, in fact, are not "winning" at Eastside Catholic High. They are loosing. More on that later.

While AP is not advocating for redefinition of the family as some do, they are reporting in a way that leads the reader to assume living together and bearing children out of wedlock---setting aside traditional morality and marriage, is normal, healthy, morally accepted and the next step in the evolutionary trip to social Nirvana.

No question in most minds---traditional marriage and family, humanity's oldest social pillars, are under attack.

AP says, "No longer taboo, living together has become a more common arrangement for America’s couples who become pregnant while dating."

“The emergence of cohabitation as an acceptable context for childbearing has changed the family-formation landscape,” said Christina Gibson-Davis, a sociology professor at Duke University. “Individuals still value the idea of a two-parent family but no longer consider it necessary for the parents to be married.”

AP says, "With marriage on the decline, the shift is helping redefine the traditional notion of family."

While they refer to traditional family values as a "notion" they fail to address, or even mention, the catastrophic consequences to society as a result of the breakdown of the "notion" we know as traditional marriage and family.

Here's why there are no winners in the war on marriage and family.


Associated Press says having children out of wedlock and co-habitating without marriage is "the latest demographic tipping point as cohabitations turn mainstream---a far cry from the days when the father of a pregnant daughter might use coercion, such as a shotgun, to make sure the boyfriend followed through on a wedding."

AP tells the story of one daughter who told her father she was pregnant and moving in with her boyfriend, but not getting married.

Amanda Leigh Pulte said, "For a while, my father was kind of shocked about the whole thing, but ultimately he was just excited to be a grandfather."

Demographers say cohabitating it is a growing trend. One reason, they say, is because "Social stigma regarding out of wedlock births is loosening." They say economic factors also play a role.

Casey Copen, a demographer at the government's National Center for Health Statistics, says this trend will not likely change any time soon because marriages are becoming polarized by economic status.

This is based on findings, they say, from a new study that will be published later this month by the government called "National Survey of Family Growth."

Another reason given for skipping marriage is, according to the study, the cost and stress of planning a wedding.

The study will report that about 18.1% of all single women who became pregnant between 2006 and 2010 opted to move in with their boyfriends before the child was born. That is compared to 5.3% who chose a post-conception marriage.

As recently as the 1990s, 25% of such couples got married.

AP says, "Cohabitating mothers are spurring increases in out-of-wedlock births, now at a high of 41%. In all, about 60% of all births during the 2000s were to married mothers. This was the first time that cohabitating births exceeded births from single mothers who weren't living with the father's child."

They say the study will reveal, "Since the early 1990s, the share of out-of-wedlock, cohabitating births has grown from 11% to 24%.

Researchers at Harvard and Cornell universities have found that only about half of mothers who were cohabitating when their child was born were still in relationships with the biological father 5 years later.

The summary of the report is, "The latest results seem to indicate that marriage, as a context for childbearing and childrearing, is increasingly reserved for America's middle-and upper-class populations."

A sad commentary and a pathetic evaluation. And a neglect to how this "trend" of skipping marriage between a man and a woman is eroding the social foundations of our culture--morally and fiscally.

In the name of "progress," social experimentation is at a euphoric high, and it isn't driven by legalized marijuana.

At the heart of the assault on marriage and family, I believe, is rebellion. Rebellion against the Creator and His eternal principles.

Danny Westneat with the Seattle Times joined the march of "inevitability" this weekend declaring the Catholic Church to be "confused and befuddled" on the issue of marriage, announcing "Students Winning as Eastside Catholic Twists Gay Marriage Logic."

He wrote, "The ongoing morality play about gay marriage at an area Catholic high school keeps getting foggier. Except for one part that is becoming clear: The student protesters are winning."

"Consider the jumble of values, rules and official gobbledygook the students of Eastside Catholic High School in Sammamish have exposed with their agitating in the past month," he writes.

Westneat says, "It’s apparently OK to be gay and teach there. Unless you get married — then you are fired. With the caveat that if you agree to get divorced — then you can keep your job."

Not to mind that Westneat is twisting some of the facts. The school denies saying that to the fired gay "married" teacher and vice-principal.

In their narcissistic rush to redefine marriage and family, and satisfy their passions, these folks are not even looking at the next intersection, much less the road ahead.

We have lost the understanding that actions have consequences, and redefining the family by redefining the oldest human institution of marriage between a man and a woman will also have consequences.

Catastrophic consequences.

There are reasons why traditional marriage and family have been the human norm for more than 5000 years and affirmed by every major religion in the world.

Ryan T. Anderson has written a comprehensive column for the Heritage Foundation titled, "Marriage: What It Is, Why It Matters, and the Consequences of Redefining It."

While it is directed specifically at redefining marriage, it also speaks directly to redefining the family as well.

Some of the issues he addresses are:
  • Marriage has public purposes that transcend private purposes.
  • Marriage has been weakened by revisionists in recent decades.
  • Revising Marriage and Family is more about individual passions and desires than about principle and the interests of children.
  • Why Marriage matters regarding policy.
  • The Consequences of redefining marriage and family.

He concludes, "Some might appeal to historical inevitability as a reason to avoid answering the question of what marriage is—as if it were an already moot question. However, changes in public opinion are driven by human choice, not by blind historical forces. The question is not what will happen, but what we should do."

I strongly recommend you take a moment and read this today.

I'll be talking about how marriage helps fight poverty today on the radio. Please join me live at 9 AM PST from anywhere in the world.

Here's how.

Be Informed. Be Vigilant. Be Discerning. Be Prayerful. Be Bold. Be Blessed.


2 comments:

  1. There are two models for sexuality. The constrained sexuality model says that you can only have sex with me if you enter into a lifetime committed relationship and agree to economically and emotionally support any progeny of our union. The unconstrained model says that you can have sex with whoever and whatever you want to and to [expletive deleted] with the next generation.

    You be the choice of which is better for society.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I think marriage is better for everyone rather than having lots of fornicating going around. And maybe we would hear less of a man being the father of many children by different women and skipping out of child support.

    If things keep going down a godless road, I suppose the mainstream will be irresponsibility. Is that something we all can live better with, or without?

    Isn't responsibility a good thing? How about commitment? Good or bad?

    Suppose everything ahead is about no responsibility, no commitment, acting one way but being another, and putting all the consequences on somebody else.

    I wonder what the statistics would tell us. Has child support gone up as marriage has gone down? Has wellfare gone up as marriage has gone down?

    I wonder if things will get so bad that the mainstream gets so polluted and corrupt, that media would have to start a controversy against it, so they could get enough interest to have their jobs? That could have the appearance of going from darkness to light.

    People talk about how the media has a powerful effect on people.

    ReplyDelete

Faith & Freedom welcomes your comment posts. Remember, keep it short, keep it on message and relevant, and identify your town.