Charitable Pornography?

By Sarah Robinson, Intern 

I was flabbergasted last week after reading an article titled “Pornography for a Better Tomorrow.”  This article introduced a non-profit pornography organization that allows its users to upload videos and link them to the charitable organization of their choice.  Every time an individual watches one of these pornographic videos, money is donated to that specific charity.  

According to the article, this concept was developed in order to “rethink, critically, the relationship between the internet and sexuality” and “foster a healthy culture that ‘reflects the natural plurality of human sexuality.’”  There are so many fallacies in this article that it is honestly difficult to pinpoint just one.  This idea crosses the threshold of moral relativity into dangerous territory that debases the value of human beings and sexuality.  How do you place a price tag on sexuality?  No charitable organization should receive money made by degrading human beings who were created in the image of God. 

The degrading nature of pornography makes it imperative that we address the harmful effects ofpornography on individuals and marriages.  Men who view pornography can become addicted, and can even become desensitized to the type of pornography they use and seek more dramatic and perverse forms. Men who view pornography regularly have a higher tolerance for abnormal sexuality, including rape, sexual aggression, and sexual promiscuity. Using pornography encourages men to view women as commodities or “sex objects,” and engenders greater sexual permissiveness, which leads to an increase in out-of-wedlock births and STDs. Child sex offenders are more likely to view pornography regularly or to be involved in its distribution. 

Regarding marriage, married men who are involved with pornography feel less satisfied with their sexual relations with their wife and also feel less emotionally attached to their wives. Pornography increases the chance of infidelity and divorce. A spouse is addicted to pornography is likely to experience a loss of interest in sexual intercourse and even a loss of interest in good family relations. 

There are very few laws regarding pornography in our country, with the exception of child pornography. Knowing the harmful effects of pornography on individuals and marriages, how can we justify any furtherance of this activity?  Specifically, how can we condone a pornography organization that attempts to hide the obvious evils of pornography under the cover of charitable donations?  

Politics Posing as Medical Science

By Pat Fagan, Ph.D., Director of MARRI

NBC News and many others have lauded the results of the Peipert program evaluation of the effects of LARCs (long term reversible contraceptives), namely IUDs and implant contraceptives, which they claim have (unsurprising) effects in lowering abortions.  However, there is much to dispute about the study.   Its method is almost non-existent though a lot of words are used to describe it.  This means their results may be a massive underestimation of the effects or even a massive overestimation of the effects.  We just don’t know;  the “method” is totally unreliable.  It is analogous to going into a library to find out the level of reading in the local population, or to giving a book to those you find at a library to figure out the effect of reading on such people!  In this case they go to a group of women desirous of reversible control methods.  To make matters worse: they have no comparison control group. They do not line up treatment and control (absolutely fundamental to this type of study), but they insinuate comparisons. The project team went through all sorts of contortions to estimate the effects, but they avoided the obvious simple, fundamental step of having a control group.  This is political correctness trumping good scholarship (a dangerous trend in the social sciences that will eventually come back to haunt academia).

Though I am opposed to their way of thinking and acting (more anon), I would have expected LARCs to have had much better results than they did.  There is still way too high a rate of abortion from a method one would expect to virtually totally eliminate it. This much-lauded method does not come close.     
 

Other big concerns I have about this approach to avoiding abortions is the effect of this form of behavior on the long-term marital, family, parenting, and sexual habits of the women involved.  My prediction is that young women who use these methods (who would not feel sexually “liberated” with totally effective birth control methods) will have many more sexual partners, behavior that itself increases the likelihood of procuring an abortion.  The program will also have high STD effects, likely have very significant effects on future marital stability, and in turn have significantly weakening effects on these women’s future children’s life outcomes.  That STD rate effects would be tracked and measured is something one would expect to be second nature for OBGYNs to report upon.  Maybe there is a second study coming (but that would be useless too, given no control group.)

So: failing grades on method and on narrowness of their view of effectiveness.  And failing grades also are given to the Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology for rushing shoddy work to press in order to influence the Presidential campaigns.  That is really sad.  It definitely is not good science, nor good politics either, though we would expect medical science to stay above the political fray.  All in all, it is a sad day for medicine and science. 

For an in-depth analysis of the study, see Dr. Michael New’s piece.

Adoption: What If?

By Lindsay Smith, Intern

Have you noticed it’s not always an actual problem which bogs down our minds, bodies and spirits (at least mine anyway), but rather the unknown?  When I’m face-to-face with a problem, my determination kicks in high gear.  I want to find a way over it, around it, or through it, and thanks to God’s grace, I can.  Tangible problems do not burden me as much as those two, little, whispering words: “What if.” 

Perhaps you have felt this way at some point – maybe specifically about adoption.  Having experienced an adoption in my family, I know there can be a lot of “what ifs” throughout the process.  Sometimes those two little words can seem larger than life and greater than any current problem.  However, MARRI’s research brings reality back to these “what ifs,” and the reality is “Adoption Works Well.”

What if we adopt:

You might make fewer trips to the doctor because your child is more likely to “enjoy excellent health” while overcoming any physical delays and even in-utero drug effects as a result of his or her placement.  Adopted children excel academically, even beyond children from biological families, and “eventually, there are no differences between the IQ scores of adopted siblings and those of biological siblings reared together.”  Within a home, family dynamics are also strengthened through adoption: “A study of 450 adolescents found that adoptees communicate more positively and have more positive relationships with their parents than do even biological children.” 

Undoubtedly, parents of adopted children will experience struggles, as do parents of biological children.  Not all family structures are the same, and MARRI explains here the benefits for all children of living in an intact married family.  Based on this research, it shouldn’t come as a surprise that “married adoptive parents adjust more successfully than unmarried parents.”  Research also shows the earlier you adopt a child, the easier the transition and adjustment.  However, “all children will benefit, regardless of their age at placement.”  If children have such a positive response to adoption, perhaps the better question is, “What if we don’t adopt?”

What if we don’t adopt:

All over the world children are aging out of orphanages or foster care systems without a forever family.  Annually in Russia, 10,000 youth like these teens find themselves on their own.  Without a place to call home or a mom and dad to lean on, many tragically resort to crime, prostitution, or simply decide their lives aren’t worth living.  This is the answer from only one country, and sadly many other countries cry out with similar responses.  There are 153 million orphans in the world.  2007 was a record year for adoptions: 133,737 domestic adoptions and 19,569 international agency adoptions* took place.  Since each of these numbers represents a precious boy or girl who joined a family, we should celebrate them.   However, the sobering truth is these adoptions affected only 0.1% of the world’s orphans.  Many, many more children still need a home, and I would hope Christians are the first to help. 

Adoption in its truest form is a response to the love and gospel of Jesus Christ.  We were adopted into His kingdom, so we in turn adopt children into our homes.  Not just so they will have an earthly room, bed or siblings, but so they may have a chance to know about a Heavenly Father who is recklessly and passionately pursuing their adoption to Himself. 

On Sunday, November 4^th, churches all over the United States and the world will be celebrating “Orphan Sunday.”  Started by the Christian Alliance for Orphans, this Sunday raises awareness for the plight of the orphan through local church services. 

“I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you.” – Jesus

And that’s not a “What if.”

* Child Welfare Information Gateway. (2011). How many children were adopted in 2007 and 2008? Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Children's Bureau. 14.

We Live in a Polyamorous Society

By Maria Reig Teetor, Intern 

It’s common to hear complaints of how horrible it is that in certain cultures and religions, polygamy is respected and normal. We hear an outcry that it attacks woman’s dignity and reduces them to objects. But have those who are raising this outcry ever stopped to question whether their own sexual behavior may be reducing their human dignity?

Where is the difference, when men and women in Western society embrace sexual activity with whomever they please, whenever they please, leading to multiple sexual partners by the time they are thirty? The difference between the culture of the traditional family, based on a lifelong sexual relationship with one person, and our present culture is in the way sexual conduct is viewed, practiced, and taught. My question today is this: Have we ever considered that we might be living in a polygamous society?

  

As Pat Fagan points out, in the Western culture of polyamorous sexuality, family life is just one option among many other lifestyles. This culture treasures sexual freedom, meaning whatever is desired by the partners (two or more partners, as the case may be). It wants to eliminate religion and suppresses its public manifestations, attacking religious freedom. One’s moral code is individual and consequently relative; anyone should do as he or she pleases, not only sexually but in any arena of life (so if I need to kill an unborn child, I should have that right). In short, the idea of freedom is to have no constraints imposed on you, to have a carefree life.

The consequences of this misguided view of “freedom” range from HIV and unwanted pregnancies to child depression and adolescent suicide. Yet they are never seen for what they are: the results of sexual license.

On the other hand, a monogamous way of life defends marriage to one person of the opposite sex for life. In this culture, family life benefits not only the spouses but the children and community. Couples who are married report being happier; children who grow up in intact families are more likely to grow up mentally stable, to finish college, and to delay sexual activity, as MARRI research explains in 162 reasons to marry.

The monogamous culture also treasures the worship of God, which strengthens relationships, education, and psychological wellbeing. In addition, the culture of monogamy defends universal moral norms, the freedom to pursue the good, and the defense of human life.

So what kind of society do you want to live in? What kind of culture do you want your children to grow up in? I would like to live in an environment where my moral code is protected and defended, where education in virtue is present in our schools, and where the defense of life and marriage is unquestioned. I encourage you to take active part in this lifestyle and become an example to others who have never acknowledged the importance of marriage and commitment. The monogamous culture does far more than our Western polyamorous society to uphold human dignity.

Division of Chores: Indication of Deeper Commitment?

By Alex Schrider, Intern

A Norwegian team of analysts recently got some attention for publishing findings which indicate that couples who have a non-traditional division of labor (e.g., the man and woman share the housework equally) are more likely to face dissolution and divorce. This finding has some interesting implications for modern society, especially regarding marital structure.

The study (published here, in Norwegian…scroll to the end for an English summary) states that “the risk of divorce is higher when he does as much or more housework than her” and that, after controlling for relevant factors, these findings are statistically significant. (In other words, the statistical relationship between divorce and division of housework is evident even when other factors that lead to divorce are equal.)

The analysts explain this statistical relationship by focusing on the differences in attitude which presumably accompany each marriage model. They theorize that, in relationships where the woman does more housework, there is a more traditional view of marriage as an unbreakable commitment, and divorce becomes less likely. “Untraditional couples” who share housework, however, have a “modern” view of marriage as a contract, and marital difficulties lead more easily to divorce.

Now, it is important to point out that this is a correlation, not a causal relationship. Divorce does not occur because the husband or wife will or won’t do the dishes; it has roots in deeper problems such as lack of trust and lack of commitment. But the Norwegian study does tell us something. Couples that view marriage as a contract rather than a covenant (and tend to divide chores as if they are in a business relationship) are more likely to leave their marriages.

This is in complete contrast to the traditional view of marriage: that marriage is a covenant, a sacred bond between a man and a woman instituted by and publicly entered into before God, where there is a mutual and unreserved giving of self to the other.

Without this view, marriage becomes simply a contract, something that can be broken without consequence by consenting parties. With the legalization of no-fault divorce, it is even less protected, as one individual can divorce another at will without the other’s consent, and often without penalty.

As MARRI research indicates, economic prosperity and social cohesion both suffer when people take a cavalier approach to marriage. Men who are unmarried are less likely to participate in the workforce, and are also less productive. The well-being of children, both economically and socially, is likewise disrupted by divorce. In addition to economic disadvantage, children who live through divorce are much more likely to be incarcerated, to be abused, and to engage in drug and alcohol consumption.

If society is to prosper, marriage must regain its traditional importance. We must cease to see marriage as simply a contract between two consenting adults (which can be dismissed at leisure) and reaffirm it as the cornerstone of society, unbreakable and essential.

Wedding Rentals

By Lindsay Smith, Intern

I was sitting in class as our professor began to go around the room asking the females a question: Would you consider a prenuptial agreement?  The make-believe premise was your parents are pressuring you to protect the family fortune.  Slowly, every girl in the room responded with “Yes,” some a little more hesitant than others.  Soon it was my turn.  My answer was no.  By my professor’s reaction, you would have thought I’d added, “And I also believe the sky is orange.”  When asked to explain, I replied, “My God does not believe in divorce, and neither do I.”  Besides, if I start my marriage thinking it will not last, why get married? His response to me was something to this effect: Sweetheart, you're an idealist who will have to change that opinion if you ever want to make it in the real world.

My professor’s presumption was that anyone who doesn’t prepare for a marriage’s dissolution is a dreamer, ignoring reality.  A recent New York Times article, “Till Death, or 20 Years, Do Us Part,” highlights the underlying issue: concern that marriage longevity is impossible.  Simply and frankly, the author asks “whether society should consider something like a 20-year marriage contract.” Should marriage now have a starting and an ending date?  Would this be better for society?  The author admits he is “surprised and even unnerved by the extent to which some experts [he] spoke with say there is a need to rethink an institution that so often fails.” 

MARRI research reveals time and again that “good marriages are the bedrock of strong societies.”  Marriage helps increase men’s productivity and employment, decrease crime, promote healthy lifestyles, and protect children both mentally and physically.  Clearly, marriage benefits society; so maybe it’s not the institution that needs reexamining, but the involved parties. 

In the Times article, Pepper Schwartz, a sociology professor, remarks, “We’re remarkably not innovative about marriage even though almost all environmental conditions, writ large, have changed.”  Two large problems with “innovation” immediately jump out.  First, if a school district had a high dropout rate, would we address the problem by inviting students to only attend school until sixth grade?  The state of Nevada has a 56% dropout rate, but I have yet to hear anyone propose short-term attendance contracts for these students.  Since this institution appears to be failing, maybe we should give all 12-year-olds the option to leave science class if it does not make them happy after the first semester.  Hopefully no parent would see this as a desirable option.  Most parents would work to help their children succeed, because they know education will benefit their children over the long run.  

Second, our society has already attempted to reinvent marriage through cohabitation.  The article doesn’t hesitate to say that “cohabitation isn’t making us happier. Bowling Green found in a 2010 study that of cohabitating couples 36% say both partners are ‘very satisfied,’ compared to 57% for married couples.” MARRI research confirms this finding.  According to “162 Reasons to Marry,” married couples enjoy better romantic relationships, greater fidelity, more economic prosperity, stronger parenting bonds, fewer instances of abuse and “higher levels of emotional and psychological well-being” than those single or cohabitating.  Our human alterations have only made things worse, so why should we expect different results from another man-derived change? 

One professor in the article wants to “eliminate the fantasy of marriage.”  A fantasy exists in our country, but it is NOT the desire for a “till death do us part” marriage.  The real far-fetched dream is that marriage is man-made convention for our convenience rather than a God-ordained covenant worthy of our commitment.

Whatever your views on religion, I think we can all agree that people are not perfect.  We make mistakes; we have selfish desires; we mess up.  This is why marriage will never work when its focus is two imperfect people.  Marriage would have to constantly change, change again, and then would still fail to satisfy everyone’s desires.  Paul articulates the outcome of a human focus in Romans 1:22-23:

“Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man…” 

When you place a divine institution on the shoulders of a created being rather than in the hands of the creator, you will end up disappointed.  (I owe this insight to a wonderful poem on marriage, which you can watch here.)  Maybe, just maybe, marriage exists more for God’s glorification than our personal gratification!  Marriage works when its focus is an unchanging, all-knowing, eternally perfect God. 

We are not idealists for believing marriage and commitment as the Author of Life designed it works today.  On the contrary, it is fantasy to think any perversion of His plan will prosper. Marriage “is the foundational relationship for all society,” and that’s neither make-believe nor scheduled to end in 20 years.   

Divorce: Breaking Down the Building Block

By  Maria Reig Teetor, Intern

Watch any Hollywood romance, and you might think the best reason to get married is passionate romantic love because the purpose of marriage is the satisfaction of the couple. But marriage is about more than the couple and their feelings. According to an FRC Issues Analysis brief titled “Why Marriage Should Be Privileged in Public Policy,” marriage is “the basic social building block” and “produces a stronger nation that benefits many future generations.” MARRI research shows over 150 reasons why marriage should be protected by society.

Unfortunately, the marriage institution has been weakened by decades of widespread divorce. Let’s analyze this social phenomenon.

In the past, marriage was not only the social institution that protected and provided for children, but also an economic “investment” and a safe haven. While the couple experienced romantic love, the relationship did not exist for their mutual emotions. Until the 18th century, couples were often married according to the wishes of their parents.

The rise of Romanticism encouraged a new view of marriage with the idea of “true love.” The sexual revolution took this further when it redefined relationships as a means to personal fulfillment: “Whatever works for the couple, to enhance their emotions and bring passion to the relationship, is what marriage should be all about.” Soon these emotions and sentiments became independent of childbearing, assisted by the appearance of the Pill, which helped separate sexuality both from mutual self-giving and from childbearing.

With the legalization of no-fault divorce, it became clear that marriage was only about being “in love.” This relationship was now independent of common good, community, generosity, hard work, self-giving, children….it was only about feeling an emotional bond.

Today, since marriage is considered a private transaction, any couple is free to manipulate and even reinvent marriage. As modern “love” is individualistic, so is modern marriage. The soul of marriage has become “myself.”

This new vision of romantic love convinced people they would be happier. Unfortunately, it was an illusion. The divorce rate, often due to infidelity, has only increased. The 2011 MARRI Annual Report on Family Trends documents that in the U.S the divorce rate from 1958 to 1978 went from 2.1 to 5.3! When passionate love is the reason for marriage, it can also be the reason for its dissolution when the romance disappears.

What’s the problem? Emotions and sentiments change, mature, and grow with the couple. Does this mean that married people fall “out of love”? Of course not. But it means there must be more to marriage than feelings. There must be a mutual understanding of what you want out of life, a union in your priorities, and a solid friendship. Love must be nourished in everyday life, not just passionate encounters.

So what is the answer to our growing divorce rate? We must learn to build a marriage commitment that is based on more than passing emotions. We should plan for unions that are strong enough to do what marriage was designed to do – benefit future generations.

Conservatives and the "War on Women"

By Sarah Robinson, Intern 

I would like to address the rhetoric that we hear reported through our news media regarding the “war on women” which conservatives are supposedly instigating.  Conservatives are generally labeled with this accusation because of the pro-life stance with which the Republican Party aligns.  But the pro-life position actually protects women’s health against the negative effects of abortion.  

A pamphlet titled The Top Ten Myths About Abortion, compiled by FRC’s William L. Saunders, Cathy Cleaver Ruse, and Lucia Papayova, contains research findings about the effects of abortion on women.  This research has debunked the myth that abortion is a “good” medical procedure for women.  According to the pamphlet, physical complications from an abortion “include cervical lacerations and injury, uterine perforations, bleeding, hemorrhage, serious infection, pain, and incomplete abortion.  Risks of complications increase with gestational age.”  Physical complications can also arise with the abortifacient RU-486.  Risks include hemorrhage, infection, and missed ectopic pregnancy. 

This pamphlet also notes some of the key psychological effects associated with abortion.  A New Zealand research team compiled data from a 25-year period and “found conclusively that abortion in young women is associated with increased risks of major depression, anxiety disorder, suicidal behaviors, and substance dependence.”  This is the most exhaustive research ever conducted regarding abortion.  Other studies suggest a substantial evidence of connection between induced abortion and both substance abuse and suicide.  Women may also experience anxiety, anger, flashbacks, guilt, grief, denial, and relationship problems.  These symptoms are generally identified as Post-Abortion Syndrome, a subset of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder.  Adolescents who have had abortions, compared to those who have given birth, report more sleeping problems, frequent marijuana use, and increased need for psychological counseling. 

It is clear that abortion is a dangerous choice for women. A woman’s likelihood of having an abortion increases when she or her child’s father grew up in a non-intact family and is not religious. It decreases, however, when the woman or her child’s father grew up in an intact married home and makes religious attendance a regular part of life (see MARRI research here, here, and here). Conservatives, who tend to be pro-marriage and pro-religion as well as pro-life, are not waging a war on women. On the contrary, they may be women’s best allies in this fight.