The Problem with Moral Philosophy as Applied Science

In my article for the Alfred the Great Society titled,  'Defending Christendom With Good Manners', I had occasion to mention the joint article written by Biologist Edward Wilson and philosopher of biology, Michael Ruse. Their article was titled ‘Moral Philosophy as Applied Science’ and contends that all our knowledge, beliefs, appreciation of beauty, sense of personal identity and our perception of right and wrong, are mere illusions caused by our genes and brain neurons. But this is not a bad thing, they say, for human beings function better if they are deceived by their genes into thinking that there is a disinterested objective morality binding upon them, which all should obey.

But hold on. Proving that our brains have tricked us into thinking that we ought to be moral is a long stretch from establishing that we actually ought to be moral. Moreover, it completely undercuts the project of finding an objective basis for ethics since it relegates all morality to a neurological deception. What would we say to a rapist or pedophile who, confronted over his heinous crimes, replied, “I did those things because my brain didn’t deceive me into thinking I ought to be moral.”

A further problem arises from the fact that the evolutionary explanations for the positive spectrum of human behavior can also be used to explain the negative spectrum of human behavior. If being kind  is a survival mechanism for some, why can’t it also be true that being brutish is a survival mechanism for others? If evolution works itself out in some societies being moral, civilized and ethically conscious, might it not be equally true that evolution works itself out in some societies being cruel, barbaric and asserting the will to power?

While the evolutionary account may be brought forward to explain both sets of behavior, it leaves us with no standard for adjudicating which set is right and which is wrong. Indeed, it does not even provide an adequate base for asserting that there is such thing as right or wrong in the first place. It may explain what I in fact do, but it does not answer the question, “what ought I to do?”

Read more about this in my article, 'Defending Christendom With Good Manners.'

New Legal Frameworks seek to Accomodate Transhumanism

As scientists race to create transhumanist beings, a host of legal questions arise that are being considered by some of the best legal minds and institutions of our day. To read more about this, visit my Alfred the Great  post at the following link:

New Legal Frameworks seek to Accomodate Transhumanism

------------------

Read my columns at the Charles Colson Center

Read my writings at Alfred the Great Society

To join my mailing list, send a blank email to robin (at sign) atgsociety.com with “Blog Me” in the subject heading. 

Click Here to friend-request me on Facebook and get news feeds every time new articles are added to this blog. 
 
Click Here to follow me on Twitter.

Changing Times, Chicken, and the Blessings of Constancy

by Terrell Clemmons, guest blogger

The Dwarf Grill

In 1946, S. Truett Cathy, took out a small loan and opened a restaurant in Hapeville, GA. The humble establishment had four tables and ten counter seats. Cathy named it, aptly, the Dwarf Grill. Full of optimism and ambition, if not experience, Cathy experimented with different ways to make flavorful chicken in short order, and his business steadily grew by serving up quality food in a friendly atmosphere - it wasn’t uncommon to find one of his three children mingling with the customers - 24 hours a day, six days a week.

Cathy refined his culinary skills, and by 1963, he’d developed the recipe for what would later become known as the Chick-fil-A sandwich. Chick-fil-A, Inc., was launched the following year and soon began to pioneer the in-mall fast food market where the Chick-fil-A sandwich became a favorite of hungry shoppers.

The restaurant chain thrived. By the late 1970s, annual sales topped $100 million. Chik-fil-A was a textbook American success story.  

Crisis
Then came a crisis. The deep recession of the early 1980s brought a sharp drop in revenue, and that, combined with soaring chicken prices and heavy debt (with interest rates hovering around 21 percent), landed Chick-fil-A in economic dire straits.

Mitt Romney's Religion

Americans have become so used to separating religion from politics that they often fail to sufficiently probe a political candidates’ religious beliefs to see how those beliefs may affect his suitability for public office.

It is true that in our age of purely privatized faith, a candidate’s religious convictions often make no discernible difference to his policy decisions. Yet as I pointed out in the first of four articles on Mitt Romney’s religion, we should not be too quick to bracket off a candidate’s religion from having any relevance. This is especially true in the case of Mitt Romney.

Chesterton on Saint Francis

"He saw everything as dramatic, distinct from its setting, not all of a piece like a picture but in action like a play. A bird went by him like an arrow; something with a story and a purpose, though it was a purpose of life and not a purpose of death. A bush could stop him like a brigand; and indeed he was as ready to welcome the brigand as the bush.

"In a word, we talk about a man who cannot see the wood for the trees. St. Francis was a man who did not want to see the wood for the trees. He wanted to see each tree as a separate and almost a sacred thing, being a child of God and therefore a brother or sister of man. But he did not want to stand against a piece of stage scenery used merely as a background, and inscribed in a general fashion: 'Scene; a wood.' In this sense we might say that he was too dramatic for drama. The scenery would have come to life in his comedies; the walls would really have spoken like Snout the Tinker and the trees would really have come walking to Dunsinane. Everything would have been in the foreground; and in that sense in the footlights. Everything would be in every sense a character. This is the quality in which, as a poet, he is the very opposite of a pantheist. He did not call nature his mother; he called a particular donkey his brother or a particular sparrow his sister. If he had called a pelican his aunt or an elephant his uncle, as he might possible have done, he would still have meant that they were particular creatures assigned by their Creator to particular places; not mere expressions of the evolutionary energy of things. That is where his mysticism is so close to the common sense of the child. A child has no difficulty about understanding that God made the dog and the cat; through he is well aware that the making of dogs and cats out of nothing is a mysterious process beyond his own imagination. But no child would understand what you meant if you mixed up the dog and the cat and everything else into one monster with myriad legs and called it nature. The child would resolutely refuse to make head or tail of any such animal." G.K. Chesterton

To join my mailing list, send a blank email to robin (at sign) atgsociety.com with “Blog Me” in the subject heading.

Click Here to friend-request me on Facebook and get news feeds every time new articles are added to this blog. 

Click Here to follow me on Twitter.

Visit my other website: Alfred the Great Society

The Ring Makes All the Difference

by Terrell Clemmons, guest blogger

My dearest Katherine,

Soon you will start high school. Already your classmates are pairing up into short-lived boyfriend-girlfriend couplets, even as their parents split and re-couple with others, marriage vows be damned. You are perceptive enough to see that your friends’ relational pursuits don’t serve them well, but often collapse into black holes consuming waves of emotional energy better spent elsewhere. You have also seen how their parents’ breakups have inflicted immeasurable damage on them and their families. The relationship landscape is bewildering territory indeed for a teenager trying to figure out love and relationships.

But figure them out you must, and the sooner the better, because your desire for male-female relationship won’t go away. It has to do with the way you are made. Of course they don’t talk about God or creation in schools anymore. They talk a lot about your future job. But that’s not nearly as important as your marriage. And although marriage, being far in the future, barely registers on your radar, I suggest you deliberately put it on there now. If you will remember that (1) God made people male and female, and that (2) he instituted marriage as the ultimate male-female relationship, you will have the right map for navigating the turbulent waters of adolescence relationships and continuing on to satisfying adult life.

The Celts and the Gospel

Their aspect is terrifying. . . They are very tall in stature, with rippling muscles under clear, white skin.” Thus wrote the Greek historian, Diodorus Siculus in the first century B.C., describing the Celtic peoples. 

Diodorus continued: “The Celtic way of fighting was alarming. They wore . . . bronze helmets with figures picked out on them, even horns, which make them look even taller than they already are . . . while others cover themselves with breast-armor made of chains. But most content themselves with the weapons nature gave them: they go naked into battle.”

Emerging from central Europe around 1000 B.C., these fierce warlike people were among the most successful conquerors the world had ever seen. Archaeologists have discovered Celtic artifacts as far North as Denmark and as far east as India. By the time of the Roman Empire, however, Celtic dominance had waned, being limited primarily to Gaul (modern France) and the British Isles, where Celtic languages are still spoken today.

The Romans discovered the ferocity of the Celts in 390 B.C. when a Celtic tribe from Gaul sacked Rome. The tables were turned two centuries later when Julius Caesar tried to annex Gaul, and later Britain, for Rome. It would take nearly a hundred years more before Rome finally succeeded in bringing the British Celts into her empire. Even then, Rome had to send about an eighth of her entire fighting force to the island just to keep the Celts from revolting. Moreover, a heavily fortified 76-mile-long barrier, known as Hadrian’s Wall (named after the Emperor who commissioned it), was required in order to keep at bay the wild confederation of Celtic tribes living in the North.

Fierce as they may have been, the Celts were sensitive to poetry, music, and the arts. They were great craftsmen, fine story-tellers, and legendary for their hospitality.

I am interested in the Celts because of having recently written a chapter about the Celtic Saint Columbanus for my new book Saints and Scoundrels. It seems that the Celts represented one of the oldest traditions of Christianity. No one knows for sure how the Celts living in the British Isles first heard about the gospel. According to one set of legends, Christianity was introduced to Britain shortly after the resurrection by Joseph of Arimathea, a tin merchant who is thought to be Jesus’ great uncle. Whether there is any truth to such stories or not, it is clear from the writings of people like Tertullian (c. 160–c. 220) and Origen of Alexandria (c. 185–c. 254) that Christianity was well established in Britain by the second century, possibly earlier.

When these warrior poets embraced Christianity, they lost none of their fierceness nor their poetry but put these qualities to the service of God’s Kingdom. Like King David, the prayers and hymns of the Celts showed a vision of the Lord that was raw, rugged and untamed. It was a hardy faith that would later give birth to stalwart reformers such as John Knox.

If Christianity helped to mitigate the barbarism of the Celts, it diminished none of their natural temerity. Celtic monks were known to be just as courageous, and sometimes just as foolhardy, as their pagan forefathers.

The Celts had always been keen explorers, eager to seek adventure through travel. After their conversion to Christianity, it is not surprising that this dynamic energy found expression in some incredible missionary voyages. Never half-hearted about anything, Celtic missionaries sailed to wild Nordic lands, or to rural areas in Gaul where the Christianizing influences of the late Roman empire had not yet penetrated. Old Irish writings with Christian symbols have even been found as far afield as West Virginia, presenting a mystery for archaeologists and scholars to the present day.

While we may never know the extent of their missionary labors, it is clear that the Celts were some of the boldest evangelists the world has ever known. “A spirit of restless energy possessed them,” wrote Katharine Scherman in The Flowering of Ireland. “It was given many names, but its cause must surely be sought in the peculiarly Irish development of Christianity in the early centuries: a seeking curiosity, the desire to expand mental boundaries along with physical, to find new ideas in new settings.”

As already mentioned, my book Saints and Scoundrels tells the story of one Celtic Christian saint name Columbanus. Columbanus lived from 540–615 and has remained an inspiration to evangelists throughout history. While others were content for the gospel to be confined to the urban centers of the late Roman Empire, Columbanus forged new ground in taking the message of Christ into rough rural regions dominated by centuries of paganism. As he confronted rural paganism head on, Columbanus had much to fear, yet he remained steadfast because he believed that the devil was a defeated foe. His famous boat song captures something of the manly spirituality that was characteristic of the Celts:

The Boat Song of Saint Columbanus

Cut in the forests, swept down the two-horned Rhine,
Our keel, tight-caulked, now floats upon the sea.
Heia, men! Let the echoes resound with our heia!

The wild gusts swell, the slashing torrents fall,
But manly strength has force to tame the storm.
Heia, men! Let the echoes resound with our heia!

To earnest effort, clouds and tempest yield;
Zeal and unceasing labor conquer all.
Heia, men! Let the echoes resound with our heia!

Endure and save yourselves for better things;
Oh you who have suffered worse, this too shall end.
Heia, men! Let the echoes resound with our heia!

So when the loathsome foe assaults our hearts,
Tempting and shaking the depths of our hearts with passion,
Let your souls, men, remembering Christ, cry heia!

In resolution fixed, scorn Satan’s wiles.
By virtues armed, defend yourselves with valor.
Let your souls, men, remembering Christ, cry heia!

Firm faith and holy ardor conquer all.
The ancient fiend, defeated, breaks his arrows.
Let your souls, men, remembering Christ, cry heia!

The Source of Good and Being, the Highest Power,
Offers the warrior and gives the victor prizes.
Let your souls, men, remembering Christ, cry heia!

To read more about Celtic Christianity and Saint Columbanus, order my book Saints and Scoundrels from Amazon. For more information about the book, click here.

Woman and the Draft

In 1973 the United States discontinued the draft, moving to an all-volunteer military force. However, things could change if there is a showdown with Iran and the American military runs out of man-power. If there is another military draft, it is likely that it would be different than all drafts in the past, in so far as the United States Military would not merely be seeking man-power, but also woman-power.

This is a concern raised by Ron Paul in the last Republican debate. He expressed concern that, given the character of America’s wars, the government could conceivably find itself in a situation where they would have to call a draft and, given the push for equality, it is likely that a future draft would apply to women as well as men.

Already numerous politicians are arguing that women should be conscripted to military service in any future draft. For example, Senator Chris Dodd has commented, “I think if you're going to have registration it ought to be across lines here. You don't just ask one gender to bear the responsibility. So in my view that [drafting women into the military] would be the fair thing today.”

Former Senator Mike Gravel has argued similarly, stating, “Of course women should go into the draft if we have a draft. They should register also. What's the difference?”

Because our society has been pushing the agenda of equality and androgyny for so long, it has become politically correct to deny that there is any difference between men and women. Hence, Senator Gravel’s comment, “What's the difference?” However, there is a huge difference between drafting men for mandatory service and drafting women.

In our current voluntary system, the women who choose to become soldiers tend to already be those who possess the characteristics of strength and toughness. However, it would be wrong to expect all American women to put themselves in that situation, not least because this would violate the conscience of many Christian women who hold views about role differentiation. It would also not be safe, given that the God-given male instinct to protect women could easily lead to compromised battlefield scenarios. One reason for this is that women who are captured in battle can be raped and sexually abused in ways that do not even bare thinking about. Now this does not deter some women from entering the military anyway, but that doesn't mean that all eligible women in America should be forced to during a future draft. This is one of these topsy turvy issues in which those who want to protect women from the horrors of battle (and therefore to confine any future draft to males) are being accused of being anti-woman.

DHS Report: Loving Liberty and Hating Abortion Makes you a Potential Terrorist

In discussing the notorious Frankfurt School in my Salvo feature ‘The Illusionist’, I pointed out that the genius of this movement was its ability to convert the newfound confidence that post-war Americans had in their country into a force for sabotaging society. The strategy involved a clever redefining of fascism as an extreme right-wing heresy. According to this narrative, Nazism had been the outgrowth of a society entrenched in capitalism. ("Whoever is not prepared to talk about capitalism should also remain silent about fascism," commented sociologist Max Horkheimer.) Cultures that attached strong importance to family, religion, patriotism, and private ownership were declared virtual seedbeds of fascism.

Theodor Adorno

What I didn’t have time to point out in the article is that the apex of the pseudo-scientific sociology of the Frankfurt School was Theodor Adorno’s book The Authoritarian Personality, written in 1950, after his move from Columbia to Berkeley. The book reported and evaluated a study of American society in which various individuals were polled using a questionnaire. Their answers indicated how well they scored on “the F-Scale.” F, of course, stood for fascism.

The purpose of the study was to identify and analyze the profile of the “Potential fascist character.” However, as Daniel Flynn pointed out in his discussion of the study in Intellectual Morons, “what the authors took to be signs of fascism were merely indications of conservatism.” Sometimes the participants were simply asked whether they agreed or disagreed with certain statements. One statement was, “Now that a new world organization is set up, America must be sure that she loses none of her independence and complete power as a separate nation.” Those who answered that they agreed with this scored a point on the F-scale.

The West is Financing Arab Tyranny

Western weapons have been killing people all over the Middle East, a Qatar newspaper reported.

Gregg Carlstrom and Evan Hill pointed out that in the five years leading up to the Arab Spring, more than $2 billion worth of tanks, guns, tear gas, and other weaponry were sold to Arab nations by Western countries. The recipients of these weapons include Egypt, Libya, Syria, Bahrain, and Yemen.

 

Weapons sold by Western arms manufacturers allowed dictatorial regimes to murder their own citizens.

 

The article, published at Aljazeera.com, points out that in the past five years the United States alone sold or gave more than $1 billion worth to weapons to Egypt alone. Italy, France, and the U.K. in turn gave weapons to Libya and Syria.

 

One would have thought that the genocides in Libya and Syria would have taught the West a lesson. Not so. Last autumn the United States was considering selling Bahrain more than $50 million worth of Humvees and missiles, despite the violence occurring in the country.

 

Although America’s arms sale to Bahrain was opposed by Congress, the Obama administration took advantage of a legal loophole last month which allowed them to bypass congressional approval and push forward a separate deal. This happened even as the Bahrain government was conducting a nearly year-long crackdown against protesters, in addition to taking steps to block American NGOs from operating in the island kingdom.

 
Keep reading...

Essential Oils

As many of my readers know, I occasionally enjoy writing articles about health (for example, see my article about health food myths and my articles about health freedom.)

Recently I have begun researching the benefits of essential oils after being told about them by our friend Stacy McDonald and seeing a Fox News report about a hospital that transformed itself through utilizing essential oils.

Since then our family has been enjoying many of the invigorating and healing benefits inherent in these oils. From Peppermint Oil, which acts as an amazing Caffeine substitute and headache cure, to Thieves, which is a proprietary essential oil blend known for supporting the immune system, these oils are truly a God-send.

Esther and I havetogether a blog giving information about essential oils. Do visit our blog and tell other people about it. To get a good quick overview I suggest you watch the Good Overview of Essential Oils Video that we posted. Also see Esther's article 'Fighting Colds, Flu & Other Infections With Essential Oils' and her article, 'First Aid with Essential Oils.'

 

Robin and Esther Phillips

Esther and I are distributors for Young Living, the primary provider of therapeutic grade essential oils. This means that we can buy the oils at wholesale prices, but it also means that if we refer someone else to become a distributor, Young Living pays us a commission. So, in addition to getting the oils we love at a discount, we’re able to make a side income.
 

Becoming a wholesale member is quick and easy and gives you instant wholesale discounts. Once you receive your member number, use it to get wholesale prices on all future orders! Just like any wholesale buying club, there is a fee to join (think Costco, Sam’s Club etc.). The difference here is that you don’t just pay a fee and start shopping – you get all sorts of products with your fee! And, unlike Costco or Sam’s, there is NO yearly fee; as long as you spend at least $50.00 during the year in essential oils, you’ll maintain your wholesale status.

The wonderful thing about it is that anyone who is a distributor not only benefits from the wholesale prices, but can earn commissions and bonuses simply by referring others. (To learn more about the referral program, see ‘Making Essential Oils an Enjoyable Business Opportunity.’)

Here’s the simplest way to sign up as a wholesale customer:

1.    Click HERE
2.    Select the “Independent Distributor” membership type.
3.    Enter my member number: 1297759
4.    Choose the “Start Living” kit of your choice (I recommend the Everyday Oil Kit).
5.    Click “I Agree” on the distributor application.
6.    Once you’ve completed this process you will be given your own member number, which will allow you to start shopping with wholesale prices immediately.
 

Again, once you have joined, in addition to benefiting from the phenomenal discounts, you can also become benefit from commissions when you refer friends and family.
 

To learn more about this, visit our Grasping the Essence blog.

Incompetence in High Places, Heroism in the Common Place: America at her Worst and Best

by Terrell Clemmons, guest blogger

On December 10^th, 2008, Bernard Lawrence (“Bernie”) Madoff turned himself in to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). Having chosen the time and date of his surrender, Madoff told two senior SEC officials that he was “finished,” that he had “absolutely nothing,” that “it's all just one big lie,” and that it was “basically, a giant Ponzi scheme.”

The following day, the SEC issued a statement:

“The senior employees understood him to be saying that he had for years been paying returns to certain investors out of the principal received from other, different investors. Madoff admitted in this conversation that the firm was insolvent and had been for years, and that he estimated the losses from this fraud were at least $50 billion.”

Yes, thank you SEC public relations. It was a Ponzi scheme.

In the same press release, Linda Chatman Thomsen, Director of the SEC's Division of Enforcement, was quoted saying, “We are alleging a massive fraud — both in terms of scope and duration. We are moving quickly and decisively to stop the fraud and protect remaining assets for investors, and we are working closely with the criminal authorities to hold Mr. Madoff accountable.” The lofty-sounding statement warrants comment:

Industrialization and Marriage

In an article I recently published with the Colson Center, I discussed the impact that the industrial revolution had on the family in general and marriage in particular.

In pre-industrial eras, the economic life of the family was tightly bound to the home. In fact, prior to 1800, the vast majority of people around the globe lived and worked in the same place. Whatever else a couple’s relationship may have involved, they were quite literally in business together. The home, in turn, was not a place where people “lived” as a passive activity when they were not doing other things. Rather the home was a small factory, a bustling hub of productivity.

The geographical proximity of home and work had an impact on how couples thought of their relationship to each other. A man and wife did not think of their relationship as something that could be abstracted from their mundane life together in the world, any more than I was able to imagine living abstracted from the actual activities that make up human experience. Sexual activity and economic activity were closely bound together, and both were situated within an ecosystem of obligations, responsibilities, priorities and expectations that were bigger than the couple’s relationship. Because marriage was understood to be bigger than the relationship itself, this helped to anchor marriage in a narrative external to the two participates.

By contrast, at the time of the industrial revolution the locus of economic activity was outsourced away from where people lived. Central power sources like water and steam increasingly drew people to work locations away from the home. But that was just the beginning, as more and more activities that were once performed in the home were gradually outsourced. Gardens shriveled and disappeared as growing was outsourced. Eventually even schooling was industrialized, taken away from the home and from apprenticeship relationships. What began to emerge was a division between the home, on the one hand, and people’s lived experiencing in the world, on the other. My article explains the ramifications this had on marriage. To read my article, click on the following link:

Industrialization and Marriage

Women and the Draft

American women could be drafted into the military and forced to go into battle, according to what some lawmakers are saying.

In 1973 the United States discontinued the draft, moving to an all-volunteer military force. However, things could change if there is a showdown with Iran and the American military runs out of man-power. If there is another military draft, it is likely that the United States military would not merely be seeking man-power, but also woman-power.

Keep reading...

6-Part Series on Sexual Morality

In 2010, I wrote a 6-part series for this blog on sexual morality, looking at how our view of both the universe and gender plays out in how we think about ourselves in general and sexuality in particular. While this is hardly a new topic, I approached the problem from an original angle. Rather than simply lamenting how bad things have become in our society, I tried to show that the results of the sexual revolution have actually been antithetic to its own goals.

Starting at the time of the ‘Enlightenment’ and working my way through to the present day, I observed that a consequence of rejecting the Biblical worldview has been to rob men and women of the ability to properly enjoy themselves as God intended. The reductionism of gender and sexuality wrought by the materialistic worldview has created a new network of secular taboos. The result is that gender has been neutralized and the spice has been taken out of life.

"Tears in Things"

In Book I of Virgil’s epic poem Aeneid, the character of Aeneas travels to find a new home after his family and friends have perished in the battle of Troy. In the course of his travels, Aeneas finds himself in Carthage.

 

While walking the streets of the city, Aeneas and his friend come to a Carthaginian temple in which there is a large mural. The mural is a depiction of the Trojan War which Aeneas had fought in and in which many of his countrymen had perished.

As Aeneas stands in the temple gazing upon the depiction, he begins to cry and says, “sunt lacrimae rerum et mentem mortalia tangent" (“There are tears for events and mortal things touch the soul.”) Also translated, “There are tears in things, and mortality touches the mind”, Aeneas’ reaction is a lasting reminder of the power that things have to affect us deeply.

Keep reading...

Needs of children irrelevant to gay ‘marriage’ issue, Guardian writer claims

Guardian author Jill Filipovic suggests that the needs of
children are irrelevant in the same-sex 'marriage' debate

It is sometimes difficult to keep up with the topsy-turvy world of homosexual politics, where sea-change shifts in ideology happen almost as a regular occurrence. Once the gay community finally seems to have reached a consensus on some important point, the parameters will shift and they will adopt a new ideology, sometimes the opposite of what they once affirmed.

Once the homosexual community virulently opposed any notion that there is a genetic base to homosexuality; now, anyone who denies the genetic theory is automatically labelled a homophobe.

Once the homosexual community relentlessly championed the notion that sexuality is fluid. Those were the days when anyone who denied that we can choose our sexual identity was classed as a bigot. Now the gay community insists with equal virulence that our sexual identity is something we are born with.

Once more the tables are turning, and this time the issue concerns the role of children.

Whether they argue that same-sex parenting is equivalent to man-woman parenting, or whether they argue that same-sex parenting is actually superior, no one has been willing to say that it simply doesn’t matter at all. Indeed, up to now it has been taken for granted that the needs of children should be paramount, and that is precisely why the gay community has bent over backwards to try to show that same-sex parenting (and by extension, same-sex ‘marriage’) benefits children.

At least, until this week.

Now that a study has come out which purports to show that children of same-sex parents actually fare worse, pro-homosexual writers are changing their tune and saying that the question of children is now irrelevant.

In an article that appeared in Thursday’s Guardian, journalist Jill Filipovic suggested that the needs of children should actually be bracketed off as immaterial to the debate over same-sex ‘marriage.’

Keep reading...