... Human beings do need friendships, but we do not register friendships with the State. Human beings do need a mother and a father; but the movement for homosexual pseudogamy, like the sexual revolution generally, cruelly denies that need. The person at the water fountain needs a drink. But no one needs sodomy, in part because no one, as an individual, needs any sexual activity at all. If you keep your clothes on, you are not going to shrivel up and die. You may want the activity. You may want it very much. But it is not a necessity.
Click here for the entire article
Rumor has it that thousands of these look-alike pass-along cards will be handed out at General Conference this next weekend.
We shall see.
Is “love” a synonym for “sex”? Do people have to be married in order to love one another? What principled argument, based simply on the imperative to “love” and used to support a redefinition of marriage in favor of same-sex couples wouldn’t also support same-sex trios or heterosexual triads? And, in that case, why stop at threesomes?
By Jennifer Roback Morse
Why should we stand for the family, or for marriage, or for life or for any of the culturally-conservative issues?
Living in California during the Proposition 8 debates, I had a front row seat watching the "elites" mangle the meaning of marriage. The judicial elites have handed down a disastrous series of federal court decisions, solidifying governmental commitment to the ideology of the sexual revolution. The entertainment elites seem to celebrate every family form except the natural family of a loving father and mother married faithfully to one another and raising their own children together. The media elites continue their shameless manipulation of public opinion. The economic elites pour money into political and propaganda campaigns designed to prop up the structure of the sexual revolution. Academic elites continue behind-the-scenes scribbling, advocating for recreating marriage, the family, and even the human body, in their own image.
In the face of all these cultural, legal and social headwinds, why should we stand for the family?
We should stand for the family precisely because the situation seems dire: we must build a record for posterity.
Our responsibility at this time and in this place is to show future generations that the ordinary people of America do not want the dismantling of marriage. These policies were thrust upon us by the elites.
We hear demands for "marriage equality." But we never hear about equality for children. Why do some children have a legally recognized right to the care and support of both of their parents, and other children do not?
We hear about adults and their desires to have children. Why don’t we ever hear about children and their desires to have their own biological parents?
We hear that children will be fine with any combination of adults, so long as they love each other and love the child.
But isn’t this just an updated version of the old lies we were told about divorce? "Children will be fine as long as their parents are happy. After all, kids are resilient."
By separating sex from procreation and separating both from marriage, by claiming that men and women are completely interchangeable, the ideology of the sexual revolution has brought misery to millions of people.
"Gay marriage" really means removing the gender requirement from marriage. This will not be a single, stand-alone policy change. In other states, including California, the next moves have included:
• Replacing the words "husband and wife" with the gender-neutral "partner" or "spouse" in the law.
• Replacing "mother" and "father" with generic "parent" in the law.
• Changing birth certificates to reflect the wishes and intentions of adults rather than the actual genetic heritage of the child.
• Children being assigned three legal parents.
We do not want the systematic redefinition of parenthood.
I am not optimistic about immediate success in any particular court or legislature. But I am optimistic about the long-run future of marriage.
There is no future without marriage.
We intend to stand for the family.
Will you stand with us?
Jennifer Roback Morse, Ph.D., is founder and president of the Ruth Institute. She was a speaker at the Stand for the Family conference Friday in Provo.
These statistics were presented at the Stand For the Family Conference in Provo, Utah on September 19, 2014 Click Here to go to the original site and get downloads
Religious attendance: Religious attendance was inversely related to cheating on one's spouse or cohabiting partner. Those who worshiped weekly were least likely to have ever been unfaithful (12 percent), followed by those who worshiped less than weekly but at least monthly (12.4 percent), those who worshiped less than monthly (16.5 percent), and those who never worshiped (19 percent).
Marital status: Those in always-intact marriages were least likely to have ever cheated on their spouse or cohabiting partner (12.8 percent). A history of infidelity is more prevalent among those in non-intact family structures and among singles: 25.5 percent of those who were divorced and remarried were likely to have ever cheated on their spouse or cohabiting partner, and 30.5 percent of those who were divorced or separated had ever been unfaithful.
Religious attendance and marital status combined: Those in intact marriages who worshiped weekly were the least likely to have ever cheated on a spouse or cohabiting partner (10.6 percent), followed by those in non-intact family structures or who are single who worshiped weekly (12.3 percent). Those in intact marriages who never worshiped (17 percent) and those in non-intact family structures or who are single who never worshiped (19.8 percent) were more likely to have cheated on their spouse or cohabiting partner.
Related Insight from Other Studies
Data from the 1991- 2004 General Social Survey found that both attending church and holding to Biblical beliefs were associated with lower odds of marital infidelity, and another study found that individuals who said they were in "very happy" marriages exhibited strong religious behavior.
A different analysis of nationally representative survey data found higher likelihood of sexual infidelity among married or cohabiting couples with "stronger sexual interests, more permissive sexual values, lower subjective satisfaction with their union, weaker network ties to partner, and greater sexual opportunities."
Patrick F. Fagan, Ph.D. and Althea Nagai
Pat Fagan is senior fellow and director of the Marriage and Religion Research Institute (MARRI) at Family Research Council.
Althea Nagai is a visiting fellow with the Family Research Council.
 Amy Burdette, Christopher Ellison, Darren Sherkat and Kurt Gore, "Are There Religious Variations in Marital Infidelity?" Journal of Family Issues 28, no. 12 (December 2007): 1553-1581.
 David Atkins, Donald Baucom, and Neil Jacobson, "Understanding Infidelity: Correlates in a National Sample," Journal of Family Psychology 15, no. 4 (December 2001): 742.
 Judith Treas and Deirdre Giesen, "Sexual Infidelity Among Married and Cohabiting Americans," Journal of Marriage and Family 62, no.1 (February 2000): 48-60.