Archive for the ‘Family’ Category

The CWA is Wrong about XXX

Wednesday, December 14th, 2005

Rare is the occasion when I agree with John C. Dvorak, columnist for PC Magazine and contributor to TWIT podcasts. Usually I disagree with him because he bashes Mac products.

However, the rare occasion has arisen - and a surprising one at that. As a conservative evangelical Christian, I am familiar with the Concerned Women for America. They would be the conservative counter women’s organization to NOW.

Using his partisan biting wit, Dvorak argues that the CWA is wrong for opposing the creation of an .xxx top-level domain to the Internet. He argues that

“The idea behind the .xxx domain is to make it brain-dead easy to keep porn out of the American family home. That’s the reason it was proposed. So why do these people oppose it? The argument against the .xxx proposal seems to indicate either an incredible naïveté regarding the workings of networks and computers or an extreme distrust of computer users themselves. Perhaps it’s a combination of both. Concerned Women for America claims that the .xxx domain will increase porn by giving the pornographers a “new platform.”

On the other hand, the CWA argues

“Creating a .xxx domain exclusively for pornographers would just be giving them a new platform to spread their smut,” said Jan LaRue, CWA’s Chief Counsel, who met with top officials at the Department of Commerce to block the domain. “Not only would smut-peddlers retain their current pornographic Web sites on all other domains, they would have been granted their own exclusive one.

“Porn site operators are the only ones who stand to gain from having a .xxx domain. Families across America realize that this outrageous scheme would only provide children with more opportunities to view hard-core porn images, and help legitimize an illegitimate industry,” LaRue concluded. “

I have to say, I agree with Dvorak on this one. What better way to oversee and manage Internet content than to force pornographers to register their domain in the .xxx level? I liken this to having pay-per-view pornographic television channels versus letting random pornographic shows populate traditional terrestrial television airwaves.

The CWA are leaning a bit too far right on this one.

Tags: [, , , , , , , , , , , ]

Posted in Culture, Family, Morals & Values, Technology | 4 Comments »

What Would You Do?

Thursday, June 16th, 2005

Jason Torres with son, Peter, 2.From USA Today:

“A 26-year-old pregnant woman with cancer whose brain function ceased last month is being kept alive with a respirator in hopes she can have a very premature baby who has a chance to survive.”

The article brings up a practical dilemma…

“Unspoken, but hovering like a cloud: Picking the first option would be hugely costly. He’d be ground down by unimaginable debt. The couple has health insurance but expects it will cover only a fraction of the cost, currently running at least $7,500 a day…”

What would you do?

Update: June 24, 2005

Thanks to Michelle Malkin for this update, including information on the Susan M. Torres Fund to help with the family’s expenses.

Tags: [, , , , ]

Posted in Culture, Family, Morals & Values | 1 Comment »

For Love or Money?

Wednesday, May 4th, 2005

The folks over at Family Scholars yesterday cited the Daily Collegian’s May 1st opinion piece, “The debauchery of marriage.”

What I find interesting is that the author of the article says:

“It was an extremely selfish act on her [Jennifer Wilbanks] part and, more over, very insulting to the rest of us for having to read this dribble on the front page of the New York Times.”

I believe the author gets it wrong. She blames Jennifer for being selfish? Wouldn’t it be better that she makes up her mind about her commitment now than after she gets married? I do not fault runaway brides’ decisions, only their timing (and in this case, Jennifer’s 4 hour lie that wasted investigative resources).

The author continues:

“With 50 percent of marriages ending in divorce in this country, it is obvious to say that marriage no longer symbolizes what it used to. In a way, if the goal is to make a marriage last forever, it would be better to marry for political reasons or wealth than for love. At least then there is a tangible reason for the union.”

Marriage for “love” is not universally embraced as a reason to marry. Nonetheless, the author seems to imply that marrying for money or political reasons would result in a greater success rate. I reject that inference, and here’s why…

A person’s motives for marriage are far less important variables to determine a marriage’s likelihood for success than a person’s level of commitment.

I blame America’s divorce rates on our culture’s severe level of entitlement, egocentrism and “me-first” thinking. It is precisely this culture that encourages couples to quit because “what’s best for my own immediate happiness” is considered the most important goal, even within a marriage.

That’s a recipe for disaster. Marriage in itself is the antithesis of what society screams at us. Focusing on your spouse’s needs moreso than your own needs might be seen as preposterous, yet I believe that’s a key ingredient to a successful marriage. It’s more about “How can I ensure my spouse’s happiness?” rather than, “How can I make sure I am always happy in this marriage?” That’s not an easy task because I think its easier (and more fun) to be selfish rather than selfless.

A feeling of happiness is transitory; not to say that marriages are only full of unhappy people who never have their own person needs met. On the contrary, if we first concern ourselves with our spouse’s happiness, then our own happiness is likely to be met as a natural consequence.

I would recommend that every couple read The Five Love Languages: How to Express Heartfelt Commitment to Your Mate (Gary Chapman).

Tags: [, , , , , , ]

Posted in Culture, Family, Marriage | No Comments »