Does it have to be that way with our Media Choices?

For those of us that have an interest in Scottish culture etc the release of the TV Series OUTLANDER recently has been a boon.... Well maybe.

On the surface it is very interesting and appears authentic.  A little to authentic in some respects if you believe life was hard and full of  marauding soldiers that have their way with people back in the 1700's.

Here is a sample of some of the questionably family friendly content as described found on the IMDB.COM site..


A woman rips her dress open, full nudity

A man puts his hand up a woman's dress and she starts moaning. No nudity but the scene lasts for quite a while

A woman tries to have sex with a married man, she is wearing a very revealing dress, they start kissing but he tells her to stop

several attempts to rape, nudity involved.

A man is seen with a gunshot wound which is then taken care of by a nurse.

Several men are attacked by a boar. They have graphic wounds in their legs. One man's intestines are exposed.

A little boy has a nail hammered through his ear as a form of punishment. He screams in pain, and blood pours out of his wound.

A man tries to rape a woman in episode one, he lifts her skirts up to expose her bottom but he is interrupted

The same man tries to rape a woman in a later episode, he bends her over the table and lifts her skirts, rips open her dress to reveal her breasts but he is interrupted

A man and woman have sex in a field, a woman's dress has been ripped open to reveal her breasts. They are interrupted by some soldiers, one tries to rape the woman but nothing is seen and he is stopped.

In episode 12, one attempted rape scene goes on for a while. In the prolonged scene the man exposes his genitals while we watch him rub them but being unable to become erect to rape the woman he is with. He beats her several times before she blacks out, it is unclear what occurred afterwards.

In episode 14, two women talk while one of them squeezes the breast-milk out of each one of her nipples into a cup. This goes on for a couple of minutes.

A group of travelers comes across two bodies hanging from crosses. The men have been crucified and otherwise abused. Close-ups of the bodies are shown and the victims have been dead for about a week.

Various scenes in which severely wounded men are being treated, which display a high level of anxiety and urge combined with screaming or moaning and images of blood gushing.


This is just a sampling of the various types of content.  The area they list are Gore & Violence, Sex & Nudity,  Frightening/Intense Scenes, Alcohol/Drugs/Smoking, and Profanity.  They have listings for each one.... The Sex section is more then a screen full at regular font size.

So the question is this  - Do we really have to have all this profanity, sensual material etc in our programs?  Could they not have made the same program and not included the majority of this material?  Is there a way to make a TV series for example that is still basically historically accurate without having to throw in so much sex, violence and the like?

I once was watching a documentary on the making of the God Father Movie.  At one point Francis Coppella said there was rumors that a violence director would be brought in to make the movie more violent etc.  Kind of scary thinking of why do they need to add that stuff in..... many times it does not help the movie one bit.

That becomes the challenge.  How do those of us that still have morals or want to have morals push for more quality programming. I'd love some good Scottish culture programming, that is not necessarily documentary and potentially dull.  I'd also like to have said program(s) not be full of rape scenes.

We gave away our copy of the Rob Roy movie featuring Liam Neeson.  Over all the movie was good.  The story very authentic, well paced, written and acted.  However, one part that lasts for say 2 minutes in the movie made us give it up.... the Raping of the wife by Cunningham.  You might know what I'm talking about if you've seen the movie.  If you haven't your missing nothing.   We'll take our Disney version any day since it is clean.  Slightly different focus, style, and the like but, good no the less.




Another case in point.  We watch LADYKILLERS featuring Tom Hanks the other night.  Good overall remake and in some respects better especially if you could remove all the language.
 
So that is the challenge.... finding a way to get good entertaining material while still keeping our morals, and minds clean from the filth that is present in so much programming.

I guess one of the few ways to know if you should even be watching something is this -   If you would not watch it with your kids present should you be watching it at all. 
The US has a rating system though as most of you have found out - PG-13 does not always means your kids should be watching it...... the lines are so grey these days it is hard to tell just from the rating.  Some other countries have rating but, they too are equally vague and not really helpful.

mpaa.org

Highest grossing films by Rating - PG-13 does best - https://stephenfollows.com/which-mpaa-rating-earns-the-most-money/

A few sites have been developed over the last few years in regards to rating media content in a different way beyond the normal rating system.

One such site is OK.com   uses an age rating 6+ or say 17+ as the minimum age that should be watching this material.  Seems to be a popular way of doing things in other countries for ratings.

Kids in mind is another - 

 They don't put an overall rating on a movie or program.  They rank the areas of concern - profanity, nudity, violence etc.  That way you can find out if a movie is high for say profanity but, very low for everything else.

ASSIGNED NUMBERS
Unlike the MPAA we do not assign one inscrutable rating based on age, but 3 objective ratings for SEX/NUDITY, VIOLENCE/GORE and PROFANITY on a scale of 0 to 10, from lowest to highest, depending on quantity and context. - Kids-in-mind.com


The LadyKillers tends to be off the chart for profanity but, in the middle for the other factors.
Had I known that I'm not sure I would have even watch any of it.

The problem is some rate just movies, or just TV.  There is not a one stop shop for everything.... though I guess it never will be since you'd need one that cover all the countries of the world.




I'd like to put some well known Scottish culture films or programs and a cleaner alternative


Rob Roy  (Liam Neeson) - Rob Roy, The Highland Rogue (by Disney), Count of Monte Cristo

Brave Heart (Mel Gibson) - Can not figure out a good substitute.

Outlander (Starz Series) -  Kidnapped, Poldark(PBS)

Honorable Mention(s) - The Mission, Lord of the Ring Series, Robin Hood Prince of Thieves, The Eagle, Willow
(some of these may be borderline for Violence etc) 

Again some styles of films and topics  are very hard to tone down the action, etc.  What you have to look for are the ones that might have a bit of fighting, though exclude unnecessary language or sex.




Buaidh - NO - Bas

Historic Moment - New Apostles Part 2

On Saturday October 3rd in the Saturday Afternoon session of the 185th Semi-Annual General Conference of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints history was made.
Three new apostles (#NewApostles) were called - Donald A. Rasband, Gary E. Stevenson, and Dale G. Renlund, the 98th, 99th, and 100th Apostles in the Last Dispensation.

See my previous post on how apostles are called - Historic Moment - New Apostle(s)

In some respects things went as expected, while at the same time things did not go as expected.  What this shows is that the expected is never what you get.  Common man is not at the helm of the church.  These calls were purely by revelation, not by voting, political pressure, best guess,  political correctness, or the like.

In each case these men that have been selected to fill the vacancies in the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles have been prepared for some time.  Each has a unique though extensive period of Church service.  In all cases unique service as full missionaries, members of the 1st quorum of Seventy, and more......

Over time we will find that this prior service will be of a blessing to the worldwide church.  Just because they all grew up in Utah does not mean they do not have global experience, or experience.

For example Elder Steveson served a mission in Japan.  Latter he served again a as a mission president.  Then as a general authority the president of the Asia North area.  Has this brother been prepared for some time as of yet unfulfilled activity in Asia?

It is these type of experiences that will ultimately help as they fulfill their callings as members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.

As always someone had to ask why these guys were called and not someone from say South America or another area.  Why not some that does not fit the 80% norm of Utah Caucasians with a different skin tone.  To get that answer you'll need to ask the source.... Yes, even if you agree with the recent changes you should get your own personal confirmation that this was indeed a call from the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

 7 ¶Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:
Matthew 7:7

For if we believe this to be the true and living church we must accept the fact there is continuing revelation and that the person that can receive that revelation is Thomas S. Monson.

To see more information on why the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is the true and living church please see my blog post on the subject.

True and Living Church


Buaidh - NO - Bas

Historic Moment - New Apostle(s)

Within the last 6 months 3 members of the Quorum of the 12 Apostles of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints passed away.  All basically passed away from complications of old Age.

So that leaves 3 vacancies in the Council of the Twelve.

The last time this type of situation occurred was in 1906.  Two members resigned and one had died.

Generally, with one vacancy you have it filled at the next conference.  Three, who knows.
Here are some comments on the process and protocol of choosing a new apostle.


"Elder D. Todd Christofferson of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles says the selection and calling of new Apostles is the prerogative of the president of the Church.
“[President Monson’s] practice has been to ask each of his counselors and the members of the Quorum of the Twelve to give him names they would recommend for his consideration, not to discuss with each other but just individually, to give him whatever name or names they feel impressed he ought to look at," he says.

“What process he goes through exactly, I'm not sure. That’s, again, something private he pursues. He then brings back, when he’s reached his decision and had the inspiration he needs, the name or names to the council that we have of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles to sustain it. That goes forward to general conference” (in Tadd Walsh, "Elder Christofferson Talks about How President Monson Calls a New Apostle, Reflects on Elder Scott,” Deseret News, Sept. 24, 2015)."
Calling an Apostle of God


"President Russell M. Nelson, President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, teaches: “All leaders in the Lord’s Church are called by proper authority. No prophet or any other leader in this Church, for that matter, has ever called himself or herself. No prophet has ever been elected. The Lord made that clear when He said, ‘Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you’ (John 15:16). You and I do not ‘vote’ on Church leaders at any level. We do, though, have the privilege of sustaining them” (“Sustaining the Prophets,” Oct. 2014 general conference)."
Calling an Apostle of God

In as much as the prophet selects the new Apostles(s) after careful consideration and pray he may delay the call or other circumstance may come into play.


“There have been conferences where a vacancy has not been filled,” he explained. “President Heber J. Grant had announced to the Twelve that ‘so and so’ would be called, but it didn’t happen. Members of the Twelve asked him when the conference was over why he didn’t fill the vacancy. He replied that the man he said would be called wasn’t ready yet.”
President Nelson Reflects on Being an Apostle of the Lord

"President Nelson’s call to the Twelve filled a vacancy that had lasted for more than a year. Elder LeGrand Richards died on January 11, 1983. No new Apostle was sustained during the April or the October general conferences of that year. Russell M. Nelson, a world-renowned heart surgeon, was sustained as a member of the Quorum of the Twelve on April 7, 1984. During the same session, Dallin H. Oaks, a lawyer and a justice of the Utah Supreme Court, was called to fill the vacancy created by the death of Elder Mark E. Petersen on January 11, 1984."
President Nelson Reflects on Being an Apostle of the Lord





So what can we guarantee will happen during conference starting Saturday October 3rd?
That the Prophet of God and head of the Living church on earth has been in communication with Heavenly Father and the Lord Jesus Christ as to whom they want to fill the vacancies in the Quorum of the 12 Apostles.  We also know that if one or more Apostles are called it will be the right person for the assignment at the right time.  We should not attempt to second guess or speculate as to who it will be.   Many times it is not as we expected but, exactly who we needed.

Take for instance Elder Neil L. Andersen.  He served as a mission president in France, and later as a general authority in Brazil, Europe, and Central America.  So he has the international flavor, language skills and experience  necessary to help the church as it grows in places like Latin America.
So many might have though a non-US person would be called like Elder Dieter F Uchtdoft was in the past.  It really was not necessary since a person had been prepared for many years that would work perfectly with the ever growing international part of the church.

There are many great candidates.  Many would do fine.  Each with special unique skills and attributes.  Does it have to be a Non-US person?  Not necessarily.... though as mentioned before there are curtain advantages to each person.
I do know the person or persons called will be just the right person at just the right time.....
As of this posting likely that have already had a chance to receive their call from a member of the First Presidency.

So join with me and watch the first session of Conference Saturday October 3rd 10 AM (MST).



Buaidh - NO - BAS

Comparing Mutual Funds

  Even before the recent correction in the markets at the end of August 2015 many people have always wanted to know if they have a good mutual fund in their portfolio.   Many think they might but, really don't have a good way to verify.
Some go after the high recent return, others have heard of the hold/wait principle.

  In as much as it is advised to hold and not panic just because the  S&P 500 or Dow Jones Industrial Average lost 5 % in one day, how do you know if one mutual fund is better then another, or a stock for that matter.


  I came to the conclusion that there are a couple of things that have to be looked at to help determine if one mutual fund is better then another.  First you have to determine your investment goal.
If it is short term (not likely that you are doing this in an IRA or 401(k) account), then the price is all that really matters. You want it to go up in value quickly and then dump it.  If you are planning on holding for a period of time,  say 10 years, you will need to factor in dividends.  I think I need to explain the importance.


  So you acquire a mutual fund back in the day and it has a NAV (Net Asset Value) of say 16.50.
10 years later you go to sell and it has a NAV of 20.50.  The value went up right?  On the other you are comparing with one that started at 23.50 and ended at 24.15.   The second fund went up almost nothing.
So the first is the better fund?  Not necessarily.




  By straight percentage increase the first fund is better.... until you factor in the dividend.
I originally tried to compare funds by the simple annual increase/decrease.  Seemed to work though I knew the final amount of the investment was not exactly accurate. I imagined it would be off by a couple thousand dollars depending on the data.  As with any stock or mutual fund you acquire a certain number of shares with your initial investment.  After a time you sell those shares hoping they have gone up in value.  But, what about a big stable, slow growing company like GE, GM, IBM etc.  You don't expect their value to change all that much, so why hold that stock for 5, 10 or 20 years?  It's because these stocks pay a dividend.  They share their profits with you the owner of the company.

  So if you have the reinvestment option turned on you acquire additional shares every time they pay dividends.  Each consequent payment of dividends increases your number of shares.  So you might have a very high final value of your investment if you have been able to increase the number of shares significantly.  The share price may have not gone up much but, it the number of shares has doubled you have more then if you go up a lot with minimal change in the number of shares.  Hopefully the principle is clear.

A stock or mutual fund that goes up only 5% but, doubles its shares will be worth more then the stock or mutual fund that goes up 20% but has not change in the number of shares.




So as I mentioned earlier, I had to throw out method of calculating only via the percentage change in a stock year to year over a 10 year period.  It just was not accurate.
I realized I needed the start price (NAV), end price and the price at each instance they paid a dividend since I'm assuming there is dividend reinvestment.
That way I could figure out how much my number of shares changes over time.

http://dividendmonk.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/reinvest_dividends.png

Take the following mutual funds - OSMAX and ODMAX.
Both funds from Oppenheimer with an emerging markets or international flavor.  Both are on their list of best overall.  So which would be better?
I generally start by checking out the provided rate of return - 1 yr. 5 yr. 10 yr. lifetime etc.
Then I check for any dividends.  if the rate of return is ok but no dividend forget it.  Remember I'm in it for the long haul not the short term.

On the face of it ... either could be good.  ODMAX even though it has a change in NAV which is smaller then OSMAX he does have some large dividends.  You have to dig into the numbers or create the calculation to find out who will have the larger final value.  Turns out the high dividend payments don't secure the deal.  There is a difference of about $3,000 when all is figured out.
Though ODMAX only had a change of 29% compared to 95% for OSMAX.
Dividends do make a big difference.....  the smaller change was offset by a couple of large dividends.

See the chart below and notice how the number of shares becomes important.

Programmed by Mark-David McCool

Want a copy of the program?  Just let me know via a comment..... I'll gladly share so you too can have a half a chance of picking a better stock or mutual fund.  Remember though we never can predict when a correction or dip is going to come along.  This just gives you a chance to get a better fund based on past performance.........

You need this information if you are not lucky enough to have tapped into The Dirty Little Secret.

Buaidh - NO - Bas

The following is a repost. I take no credit for writing any of this material. To view the original post please click here The Divine Institution of Marriage

The Divine Institution of Marriage

Introduction 
In 1995, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints published “The Family: A Proclamation to the World,” which declares the following truths about marriage:

We, the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, solemnly proclaim that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to the Creator’s plan for the eternal destiny of His children. . . .

The family is ordained of God. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan. Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity.[1]

Since the publication of that statement, there have been many challenges to the institution of marriage. Prominent among these challenges has been the recognition by several national governments and some states and provinces that same-sex marriage—formal unions between two individuals of the same gender—are the equivalent of traditional marriage. Yet God’s purposes for establishing marriage have not changed. One purpose of this document is to reaffirm the Church’s declaration that marriage is the lawful union of a man and a woman.
Another purpose is to reaffirm that the Church has a single, undeviating standard of sexual morality: intimate relations are acceptable to God only between a husband and a wife who are united in the bonds of matrimony.
A third purpose is to set forth the Church’s reasons for defending marriage between a man and a woman as an issue of moral imperative. The Church’s opposition to same-sex marriage derives from its doctrine and teachings, as well as from its concern about the consequences of same-sex marriage on religious freedom, society, families, and children.
A fourth purpose of this document is to reaffirm that Church members should address the issue of same-sex marriage with respect and civility and should treat all people with love and humanity.
The Vital Importance of Marriage
Marriage is sacred and was ordained of God from before the foundation of the world. Jesus Christ affirmed the divine origins of marriage: “Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, and said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?”[2]
From the beginning, the sacred nature of marriage was closely linked to the power of procreation. After creating Adam and Eve, God commanded them to “be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth,”[3] and they brought forth children, forming the first family. Only a man and a woman together have the natural biological capacity to conceive children. This power of procreation—to create life and bring God’s spirit children into the world—is divinely given. Misuse of this power undermines the institution of the family.[4]
For millennia, strong families have served as the fundamental institution for transmitting to future generations the moral strengths, traditions, and values that sustain civilization. In 1948, the world’s nations issued the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, affirming that “the family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society.”[5]
Marriage is far more than a contract between individuals to ratify their affections and provide for mutual obligations. Rather, marriage is a vital institution for rearing children and teaching them to become responsible adults. Throughout the ages, governments of all types have recognized marriage as essential in preserving social stability and perpetuating life. Regardless of whether marriages were performed as a religious rite or a civil ceremony, in almost every culture marriage has been protected and endorsed by governments primarily to preserve and foster the institution most central to rearing children and teaching them the moral values that undergird civilization.
It is true that some couples who marry will not have children, either by choice or because of infertility. The special status granted marriage is nevertheless closely linked to the inherent powers and responsibilities of procreation and to the innate differences between the genders. By contrast, same-sex marriage is an institution no longer linked to gender—to the biological realities and complementary natures of male and female. Its effect is to decouple marriage from its central role in creating life, nurturing time-honored values, and fostering family bonds across generations.
In recent decades, high rates of divorce and out-of-wedlock births have resulted in an exceptionally large number of single parents. Many of these single parents have raised exemplary children. Extensive studies have shown, however, that a husband and wife who are united in a loving, committed marriage generally provide the ideal environment for protecting, nurturing, and raising children.[6] This is in part because of the differing qualities and strengths that husbands and wives bring to the task by virtue of their gender. As an eminent academic on family life has written:

The burden of social science evidence supports the idea that gender differentiated parenting is important for human development and that the contribution of fathers to child rearing is unique and irreplaceable. . . . The complementarity of male and female parenting styles is striking and of enormous importance to a child’s overall development.[7]

In view of the close links that have long existed between marriage, procreation, gender, and parenting, same-sex marriage cannot be regarded simply as the granting of a new “right.” It is a far-reaching redefinition of the very nature of marriage itself. It marks a fundamental change in the institution of marriage in ways that are contrary to God’s purposes for His children and detrimental to the long-term interests of society.
Threats to Marriage and Family
Our modern era has seen traditional marriage and family—defined as a husband and wife with children in an intact marriage—come increasingly under assault, with deleterious consequences. In 2012, 40% of all births in the United States were to unwed mothers.[8] More than 50% of births to mothers under age 30 were out of wedlock. Further, the marriage rate has been declining since the 1980s. These trends do not bode well for the development of the rising generation.
A wide range of social ills has contributed to this weakening of marriage and family. These include divorce, cohabitation, non-marital childbearing, pornography, the erosion of fidelity in marriage, abortion, the strains of unemployment and poverty, and many other social phenomena. The Church has a long history of speaking out on these issues and seeking to minister to our members with regard to them. The focus of this document on same-sex marriage is not intended to minimize these long-standing issues.
More recently, the movement to promote same-sex marriage as an inherent or constitutional right has gained notable ground in recent years. Court rulings, legislative actions, and referenda have legalized same-sex marriage in a number of nations, states, and jurisdictions. In response, societal and religious leaders of many persuasions and faiths have made the case that redefining marriage in this way will further weaken the institution over time, resulting in negative consequences for both adults and children.[9]
A large number of people around the world recognize the crucial role that traditional marriage has played and must continue to play if children and families are to be protected and moral values propagated. Because the issue of same-sex marriage strikes at the very heart of the family and has the potential for great impact upon the welfare of children, the Church unequivocally affirms that marriage should remain the lawful union of a man and a woman.
Unchanging Standards of Morality
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints teaches that God has established clear standards of morality for His children, who are accountable before Him for their behavior. Such standards cannot be changed by the reasoning, emotions, personal interests, or opinions of mortal beings.[10] Without the higher authority of God, as revealed in scripture and by His prophets, secular society will flounder and drift.
Many advocates of same-sex marriage argue that traditional standards of sexual morality have changed and that “tolerance” requires that these new standards be recognized and codified in law. If tolerance is defined as showing kindness for others and respect for differing viewpoints, it is an important value in all democratic societies. But as Elder Dallin H. Oaks has observed, “Tolerance does not require abandoning one’s standards or one’s opinions on political or public policy choices. Tolerance is a way of reacting to diversity, not a command to insulate it from examination.”[11]
The Savior taught that we should love the sinner without condoning the sin. In the case of the woman taken in adultery, He treated her kindly but exhorted her to “sin no more.”[12] His example manifested the highest love possible.
In addition to using the argument of tolerance to advocate redefining marriage, proponents have advanced the argument of “equality before the law.” No mortal law, however, can override or nullify the moral standards established by God. Nor can the laws of men change the natural, innate differences between the genders or deny the close biological and social link between procreation and marriage.
How Would Same-Sex Marriage Affect Religious Freedom?
As governments have legalized same-sex marriage as a civil right, they have also enforced a wide variety of other policies to ensure there is no discrimination against same-sex couples. These policies have placed serious burdens on individual conscience and on religious organizations.[13]
Same-sex marriage and anti-discrimination laws have already spawned legal collisions with the rights of free speech and of action based on religious beliefs. For example, advocates and government officials in certain states have challenged the long-held right of religious adoption agencies to follow their religious beliefs and place children only in homes with both a mother and a father. As a result, Catholic Charities in several states was forced to give up its adoption services rather than be forced to place children with same-sex couples.[14]
In the United States, the First Amendment right of free exercise of religion is coming under pressure from proponents of same-sex marriage. Some of these proponents advocate that tax exemptions and benefits should be withdrawn from any religious organization that does not accept such marriages.[15] The First Amendment may protect clergy from being forced to perform same-sex marriages, but other people of faith have faced and likely will continue to face legal pressures and sanctions. The same will happen with religiously affiliated institutions and educational systems. For example, a Georgia counselor contracted by the Centers for Disease Control was fired after an investigation into her decision to refer someone in a same-sex relationship to another counselor. In New Jersey, a ministry lost its tax-exempt status for denying a lesbian couple the use of its pavilion for their wedding. New Mexico’s Human Rights Commission prosecuted a commercial photographer for refusing to photograph a same-sex commitment ceremony. When public schools in Massachusetts began teaching students about same-sex civil marriage, a Court of Appeals ruled that parents had no right to exempt their students.^[16]
Similar limitations on religious freedom have already become the social and legal reality in several European nations, and the European Parliament has recommended that laws protecting the status of same-sex couples be made uniform across the European Union.[17] Where same-sex marriage becomes a recognized civil right, it inevitably conflicts with the rights of believers, and religious freedom is diminished.
How Would Same-Sex Marriage Affect Society?
The possible diminishing of religious freedom is not the only societal implication of legalizing same-sex marriage. Perhaps the most common argument that proponents of same-sex marriage make is that it is essentially harmless and will not affect the institution of traditional heterosexual marriage in any way. “It won’t affect your marriage, so why should you care?” is the common refrain. While it may be true that allowing same-sex marriage will not immediately and directly affect existing marriages, the real question is how it will affect society as a whole over time, including the rising generation and future generations.
In addition to undermining and diluting the sacred nature of marriage, legalizing same-sex marriage brings many practical implications in the sphere of public policy that will be of concern to parents and society.[18] When a government legalizes same-sex marriage as a civil right, it will almost certainly enforce a wide variety of other policies to enforce this. The implications of these policies are critical to understanding the seriousness of condoning same-sex marriage.
The all-important question of public policy must be: what environment is best for the child and for the rising generation? While some same-sex couples will obtain guardianship over children, traditional marriage provides the most solid and well-established social identity for children.[19] It increases the likelihood that they will be able to form a clear gender identity, with sexuality closely linked to both love and procreation. By contrast, the legal recognition of same-sex marriage may, over time, erode the social identity, gender development, and moral character of children. No dialogue on this issue can be complete without taking into account the long-term consequences for children.
As one example of how children will be adversely affected, the establishment of same-sex marriage as a civil right will inevitably entail changes in school curricula. When the state says that same-sex marriages are equivalent to heterosexual marriages, public school administrators will feel obligated to support this claim.[20] This has already happened in many jurisdictions, where from elementary school through high school, children are taught that marriage can be defined as a legal union between two adults of any gender, that the definition of family is fluid, and in some cases that consensual sexual relations are morally neutral.[21] In addition, in many areas, schools are not required to notify parents of this curriculum or to give families the opportunity to opt out.[22] These developments are already causing clashes between the agenda of secular school systems and the right of parents to teach their children deeply held standards of morality.
Throughout history, the family has served as an essential bulwark of individual liberty. The walls of a home provide a defense against detrimental social influences and the sometimes overreaching powers of government. In the absence of abuse or neglect, government does not have the right to intervene in the rearing and moral education of children in the home. Strong, independent families are vital for political and religious freedom.
Civility and Kindness
The Church acknowledges that same-sex marriage and the issues surrounding it can be divisive and hurtful. As Church members strive to protect marriage between a man and a woman, they should show respect, civility, and kindness toward others who have different points of view.
The Church has advocated for legal protection for same-sex couples regarding “hospitalization and medical care, fair housing and employment rights, or probate rights, so long as these do not infringe on the integrity of the traditional family or the constitutional rights of churches.”[23] In Salt Lake City, for example, the Church supported ordinances to protect gay residents from discrimination in housing and employment.[24]
The Church’s affirmation of marriage as being between a man and a woman “neither constitutes nor condones any kind of hostility toward gays and lesbians.”[25] Church members are to treat all people with love and humanity. They may express genuine love and kindness toward a gay or lesbian family member, friend, or other person without condoning any redefinition of marriage.
Conclusion
Strong, stable families, headed by a father and mother, are the anchor of society. When marriage is undermined by gender confusion and by distortions of its God-given meaning, the rising generation of children and youth will find it increasingly difficult to develop their natural identities as men or women. Some will find it more difficult to engage in wholesome courtships, form stable marriages, and raise another generation imbued with moral strength and purpose.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, along with many other churches, organizations, and individuals, will continue to defend the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman, because it is a compelling moral issue of profound importance to our religion and to the future of society.
The final words in the Church’s proclamation on the family are an admonition to the world from the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles: “We call upon responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society.”[26]
This document is a revised and updated version of “The Divine Institution of Marriage,” first published by the Church in 2008 (.pdf file).
References

---

[1] “The Family: A Proclamation to the World,” Ensign, Nov. 1995, 102.

[2] Matthew 19:4–5.

[3] Genesis 1:28.

[4] See M. Russell Ballard, “What Matters Most Is What Lasts Longest,” Ensign, Nov. 2005, 41–44.

[5] United Nations, “Universal Declaration of Human Rights,” General Assembly Resolution 217 A (III), Dec. 10, 1948.

[6] David Blankenhorn, Fatherless America: Confronting Our Most Urgent Social Problem (New York: Basic Books, 1995); Maggie Gallagher and Joshua K. Baker, “Do Moms and Dads Matter? Evidence from the Social Sciences on Family Structure and the Best Interests of the Child,” Margins Law Journal 4:161 (2004); Mark Regnerus, “How Different Are the Adult Children of Parents Who Have Same-Sex Relationships? Findings from the New Family Structures Study,” Social Science Research 41:4 (July 2012): 752–70; Regnerus, “Parental Same-Sex Relationships, Family Instability, and Subsequent Life Outcomes for Adult Children: Answering the Critics of the New Family Structures Study with Additional Analyses,” Social Science Research 41:6 (Nov. 2012): 1367–77; W. B. Wilcox, J. R. Anderson, W. Doherty, et al., Why Marriage Matters, Third Edition: Thirty Conclusions from the Social Sciences (New York: Institute for American Values and National Marriage Project, 2011); M. E. Scott, L. F. DeRose, L. H. Lippman, and E. Cook, Two, One, or No Parents? Children’s Living Arrangements and Educational Outcomes around the World (Washington, D.C.: Child Trends, 2013; worldfamilymap.org/2013/articles/essay/two-one-or-no-parents); Andrew J. Cherlin, The Marriage-Go-Round: The State of Marriage and the Family in America Today (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2009).

[7] David Popenoe, Life Without Father (New York: The Free Press, 1996), 146.

[8] See J. A. Martin, B. E. Hamilton, M. J. K. Osterman, et al. Births: Final Data for 2012. National Vital Statistics Reports; vol. 62, no. 9 (Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics, 2013).

[9] See Sherif Girgis, “Check Your Blind Spot: What Is Marriage?” Marriage, Feb. 15, 2013; thepublicdiscourse.com/2013/02/7942/; Lynn Wardle, “The Attack on Marriage as the Union of a Man and a Woman,” North Dakota Law Review, vol. 83 (June 2008): 1364–92; David Blankenhorn, The Future of Marriage (2007); Lynn Wardle, ed., What’s the Harm? Does Legalizing Same-Sex Marriage Really Harm Individuals, Families, or Society? (2008); R.R. Reno, “The Future of Marriage,” First Things, Jan. 2013, 3–4; Richard Neuhaus, “Disingenuousness and Clarity,” On the Square, May 30, 2008; firstthings.com/onthesquare/2008/05/disingenuousness-and-clarity.

[10] See Dallin H. Oaks, “No Other Gods,” Ensign, Nov. 2013, 72–75.

[11] Dallin H. Oaks, “Weightier Matters,” Ensign, Jan. 2001, 17.

[12] John 8:11.

[13] See Douglas Laycock, Anthony R. Picarello Jr., and Robin F. Wilson, eds., Same-Sex Marriage and Religious Liberty, Emerging Conflicts (Lanham, Maryland: Rowman and Littlefield, 2008).

[14] See usccb.org/issues-and-action/religious-liberty/fortnight-for-freedom/upload/Catholic-Adoption-Services.pdf

[15] See Jonathan Turley, “An Unholy Union: Same-Sex Marriage and the Use of Governmental Programs to Penalize Religious Groups with Unpopular Practices,” in Laycock, Picarello, and Wilson, eds., Same-Sex Marriage and Religious Liberty: Emerging Conflicts, 59–76.

[16] Sherif Girgis, Ryan T. Anderson, and Robert P. George, What Is Marriage? Man and Woman: A Defense (New York and London: Encounter Books, 2012), 62–64.

[17] See Roger Trigg, Equality, Freedom, and Religion (London and New York: Oxford University Press, 2012); The Observatory on Intolerance and Discrimination against Christians in Europe, Report 2012 (Vienna, Austria, 2013); “European Parliament Resolution on Homophobia in Europe,” adopted Jan. 18, 2006.

[18] See Girgis, Anderson, and George, What Is Marriage? Man and Woman: A Defense.

[19] See endnote 6.

[20] Charles Russo, “Same-Sex Marriage and Public School Curricula: Preserving Parental Rights to Direct the Education of Their Children,” University of Dayton Law Review, vol. 32 (Spring 2007): 361–84.

[21] Gerry Shih, “Clashes Pit Parents vs. Gay-Friendly Curriculums in Schools,” The New York Times, Mar. 3, 2011, page A21A; John Smoot, “Children Need Our Marriage Tradition,” Public Discourse, June 13, 2013; thepublicdiscourse.com/2013/06/10344/; Challenging Homophobia and Heterosexism: A K-12 Curriculum Resource Guide, Toronto District School Board (2011).

[22] Parker v. Hurley, 514 F. 3d 87 (1st Cir. 2008); Fields v. Palmdale School District, 427 F.3d 1197 (9th Cir. 2005).

[23] mormonnewsroom.org/article/church-responds-to-same-sex-marriage-votes.

[24] See mormonnewsroom.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/news-releases-stories/statement-given-to-salt-lake-city-council-on-nondiscrimination-ordinances.

[25] mormonnewsroom.org/article/church-responds-to-same-sex-marriage-votes.

[26] “The Family: A Proclamation to the World,” 102.

The Debt Snowball - Getting out of Debt Faster!

You may have heard of it.   The debt snowball.  NO it is not the snowball of debt you build up when you have to pay a ton of interest to the bank, credit card or finance company.

The debt snowball is the method that you can get your debt under control and begin to have your money work for you and not the person you are paying.
It is basic in theory and maybe hard to implement.  Especially if you have come to rely on credit cards.  For this to work properly you really need to get to the point that you are paying for things in cash, and saving up for purchases using a sink fund (see my post on the topic - Pay Yourself First Some Thoughts on Finances ).  You'll see how using this method in conjunction with the snowball method will not just save you money but, make you money!

The steps to the debt snowball debt - crazyrunninggirl.com

 The snowball method basically require you to determine all your debts - student loans, credit cards, mortgage, car loan, etc.
You then take these debts and order them by the balance amount.  The amounts should be smallest to largest.  Then you do everything you can to pay off the smallest amount first.  All other debt you only pay the minimum.   What happens here is that you get to the point of consolidation.  You'll end up having less debt fairly quickly especially if you have several smaller balances.




Think if you try and pay off that credit card with just a little extra every month, say $5 thinking your doing some good.  Now if you have 3 cards with a balance and an auto loan and house payment and a smallish student loan.  That would amount to say $30 extra every month.  Now that helps a bit but not much.  If that $30 is combined and applied to one balance only it will be more helpful and get better results sooner.  How as you get rid of a balance you also get rid of the interest on that balance.  That savings together with the small combined amount of extra can then be applied to the next and the results begin to grow with time.  This is why it is called a snowball.


There is an alternate method where you pick which debt to start with by the interest rate.  That might be a credit card.... not like the mortgage or  student loan.  This can work also and due to this is called an avalanche.  See the comparison in the chart below.

Basically you get quick results with the snowball method compared to the avalanche.  This can help to keep someone motivated especially if they have a lot of debt.  it can help also since you have fewer balances out there and seem to be making head way.  Which is best?  You'll have to decide.  Dave Ramsey recommends the snowball.




I think that would also be the best.  With fewer balances you are doing less juggling and will soon regain your sanity.  You might feel tempted to do a consolidation loan.  He mentions that it is just kicking the can down the road.  You have to remove your debt sources as well if this is to work in any form.   That means cutting the credit cards etc.

Either way concentration on removing debt with all you can muster is far better then throwing a little extra at each one of your balances.......


Buiadh - NO - Bas

---

Total Money Make Over and 3rd World Countries

I've been reading the book The The Total Money Makeover: Classic Edition: A Proven Plan for Financial Fitness by Dave Ramsey recently.  It sure has been an eye opener in a variety of areas.
I did suspect many of the "myths" but, then I got to thinking.




I came up with an idea that  IMF acting like a credit card or line of credit to 3rd world countries is hampering their ability to build wealth.

As Dave puts it... as long as you are owing money to someone else, living beyond your means, doing the "90 days same as cash" etc you'll never get ahead.   You see he proffers and I think he is right..... if you carry a balance... just a little over every month you will eventually be owing a chunk of interest... that interest is no going to your pocket but, theirs.  Thus slowly you erode your opportunity for wealth.

So if the 3rd world countries would pay as they go..... kept to their budget they'd build wealth.  So instead of getting money from the IMF (in our case it would be the local lending institute) it actually saved up for projects it would come out ahead.   Think if they are borrowing 25 billion  at 5% for some dam project.  You might think the amount is small and the interest spread out over 30 years would be low.  However, they could save the interest payments if they took just a couple of years to save up the 25 billion.  In most cases the total amount of payments will be about double the amount borrowed.  So depending a little up front sacrifice will bring long term advantages.
For this example on this 25 billion dollar loan there would be payments of about 1.34 billion monthly over the 30 years.  So in reality they would need to wait about 2 or 3 years and would have the total they need for the project.  Granted the payments are based on the fact they have a certain amount of upfront money in say the neighborhood of 5 billion.  so they likely need about 30 billion total for the project.  So three years would do it to save if the 1.34 billion payment amount were used.




Think of that 3 years of waiting to basically save 20-30 billion.  They would by waiting have two projects in less time then it would have been to pay off the first one by taking the loan.

I discussed the concept of a stink fund in a prior post - Pay Yourself First - some thoughts on personal finance

If countries would us this method they could have some real GDP growth, as they potentially would have double the money in the long haul.

So there is my 2¢ worth of thoughts.
Applying the total money makeover could do wonders not only for average household in the USA, but, those in other countries and for the governments of those countries.




Buaidh - NO - Bas