Gay Dad’s Disturbing Diary Illuminates Dysfunctions Of Buying Babies
The diary's author has told us exactly what the modern family prioritizes: adult appetite over child need. We should believe him.The diary's author has told us exactly what the modern family prioritizes: adult appetite over child need. We should believe him.GOP Contempt For Trump Helping Married Families Is Political And Civilizational Suicide
The Trump administration has recognized that the affordability crisis is real and hurting our voters the most. Help is finally on the way.Why are Christian women cheering on divorce?
Bad advice has always been abundantly available throughout history. But our ancestors were somewhat limited in how many sources of advice they could tap.
No such limitation exists today.
When Jesus named lust as a real, heart-level violation, He wasn't handing people a new, more permissive category of 'biblical grounds for divorce.'
Bad advice gushes from a firehose called the internet every minute of every day. On social media platforms, we’re drowning in it.
I’ve been writing about Christian women’s groups online and the bad theology they’re facilitating. To be honest, these kinds of groups are highly problematic, because anyone who claims to be a Christian can join, and a lot of the participants seem to consider the group a reasonable substitute for a church.
But no sound doctrine + endless opinions with zero scriptural basis + no personal relationships = a pretty awful “church.”
Imagine that. An army of young women, some of them with virtually no knowledge of Scripture, posting anonymously. What could possibly go wrong?
It’s almost like God knew what He was doing when He left us a book and instructions on how to learn it alongside fellow believers.
But I digress.
The problem with 'Christian' social media groups
These groups are growing and becoming more dangerous because the sheer volume of bad teaching being bandied about is mushrooming. Recently, I wrote about people who say they don’t need church (they’re wrong; you can read why here). This, of course, is just one of many examples of bad teaching: Christians are commanded to love and care for one another, which is pretty much impossible to do from your sofa.
But perhaps the most common bad advice given in virtual so-called Christian groups is something along these lines:
You gotta run, girl.
This is a common response to someone complaining about almost anything a husband has done. Of course, due to the nature of anonymous storytelling, we have no way of knowing if any given anecdote is a creative writing exercise designed for attention and clicks (yeah, that’s definitely a thing), or a genuine account of abuse (in which case, anonymously sharing it with a bunch of strangers is a profoundly unhelpful waste of time).
So if a woman shares that her husband gave her an STD or a whack across the face, of course people are going to respond with “you gotta run, girl.” Although in a case like that, I wonder if a bunch of strangers has ever been successful in persuading someone to make a life-altering decision. Because a bunch of randos on the internet for sure shouldn’t be your counsel for that kind of decision.
Common 'grounds'
But what I see more often — very often — is a woman reporting a husband who is emotionally unavailable. Or spends too much time at the office. Or has some bad habits (ranging from very serious, like porn usage, to just irresponsible and immature, like extended video game sessions).
Yet in almost every case, SOMEONE will spin it up into “you gotta run” because, she’ll argue, if he spends too much time working that means he’s abandoned you and the marriage — you have a biblical right to a divorce. He isn’t meeting all your emotional needs, he’s not fulfilling his marriage vows to care for you — you have a biblical right to divorce.
You can twist almost anything into a "biblical right to divorce" if you’re looking at it that way, so that’s maybe not the right way to look at it.
Yes, there are biblical grounds for divorce. They are pretty narrow. And there are situations (physical safety) where separation is the wisest course, whether a divorce is sought or not.
The problem with twisting everything into “grounds for divorce” should be self-evident. For one thing, those being invited to opine are only getting one side of the story, in most cases anonymously at that. It gets lots of clicks in the Facebook group, but it’s absolutely awful for the souls of the people involved.
Let’s be clear: God hates divorce. Because of people’s hard hearts (and to protect women), He allows divorce in certain very limited scenarios. But He still hates it, and note: Divorce is NEVER required.
There are so many better options, especially when children are involved. A few that can be used individually or in combination:
- Fervent prayer (and asking other trusted folks to join in prayer);
- Counseling with a biblically minded pastor;
- Marriage strengthening ministries/books/programs;
- Some time apart;
- In cases involving danger/abuse, formal separation; and
- In cases involving adultery or abandonment, divorce is allowed — but not required, especially if there is true repentance/confession, along with willingness to work toward reconciliation and rebuild trust.
What happens to the young woman who takes her complaint to a group like this, and gets countless admonitions that she needs to get out? That her feelings trump any other considerations? That his behavior is abusive (a definition I’ve seen stretched to include such "abuses" as leaving his socks on the floor, since it shows disrespect for her work caring for the home)?
If dozens or even hundreds of people tell you you’re being abused, you will start to believe it. You’re going to lean hard in that direction. The direction that God hates.
The cancer of pornography
One of the most common complaints, sadly, is that the husband is using porn. This is 100% a cancer to the marriage, and it defiles the holy union. Many claim that porn itself is grounds for divorce because Jesus said if you even look at a woman with lust, you’re committing adultery.
I asked a pastor friend to comment on this passage, and he was gracious enough to provide full context around this portion of Scripture, so that we can bring the whole counsel of God to the topic. Anyone contemplating divorce due to this issue would do well to consider his points:
First, in Matthew 5, Jesus is declaring Himself the pivotal point of history; the One to whom all the law and the prophets point — and He then shows how the Old Testament is validated and finds perfect continuity in His teaching (5:17-18).
But there's a problem: Jesus knows that much of what the crowd on the mountain has heard about the Old Testament is not actually Scripture, because the Pharisees treated certain oral traditions as carrying equal authority with Scripture itself.
That's why Jesus begins each of His next five teachings with the same formula: "You have heard it said (whatever the Pharisees claimed) ... but I say to you (Jesus’ perfect teaching)."
In each teaching, His concern is to correct people's distorted understanding of the Old Testament and point to the true direction the law was always aiming.
In 5:27-28, Jesus says, “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery’; but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” Apparently, some believed that as long as they didn't actually sleep with someone, they were in the clear.
But Jesus wasn't satisfied with mere formal obedience to the letter of the law. He wanted to expose the heart of purity the law was always meant to protect. He deepens the seventh commandment by connecting it to coveting another person's spouse; in fact, the Greek word translated "lust" in most Bibles (epithymeō) is the very same word used for "covet."
It's worth noting this doesn't mean noticing someone's beauty or feeling attraction.This coveting another person is the deep-seated greed to take and possess someone who doesn't belong to you.
RELATED: Dolly Parton never had to leave her husband to find herself
'Adultery in the heart'
Some today do use this passage to argue that porn is grounds for divorce, which is understandable given the real sin of lust and the real pain of betrayal and the devastating consequences they carry. But the distinction Jesus makes is important: The offender has committed adultery "in his heart." Sinning in your heart is not the same as committing the act itself.
In the teaching just before this one, Jesus addresses murder and anger the same way: "But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court" (5:22). Obviously, being angry with someone in your heart is different from actually killing them, and the consequences are not identical. If we use the same logic that some use, claiming that lust is automatic grounds for divorce, then everyone who has been angry with someone should be in prison.
None of this excuses porn usage or lust. But it is not the same thing as having sex with someone else.
Consider this: If Jesus truly meant that “adultery in the heart” constituted biblical grounds for divorce, then just about every marriage would have legitimate grounds for divorce — unless a husband and wife made it through their entire life together without ever once lusting after someone else.
Even more importantly, that reading would also make marriage trivial, which is the very opposite of what Jesus intended. He wanted to raise the bar for marriage, not lower it. He wanted to protect its sanctity, because mainstream Judaism at the time had taken an extremely lax position that allowed a man to divorce his wife for practically any reason, like burning food, or if the man just found another woman better looking.
So when Jesus named lust as a real, heart-level violation, he wasn't handing people a new, more permissive category of "biblical grounds for divorce" that simply met the culture where it already was. He was doing the opposite: confronting the culture's careless view of marriage with the values and standards of the Kingdom of Heaven.
That said, the waters get murkier in cases of unrepentant, habitual lust, which Jesus addresses in Matthew 19:9. But if we want to stay faithful to the text, here is the distinction: a repentant heart; one that is doing everything it can to slay the dragon of lust (see the call to gouge out an eye in Matthew 5:29-30) presents no biblical grounds for divorce.
Jesus never asked married couples for perfection. He asked for a fight: a relentless, ongoing pursuit of purity that guards the marriage — not an excuse to escape it.
So what’s a girl to do?
What do we tell a woman whose husband is entangled with porn?
It is critical to not go this issue alone. Your church must be involved. Counsel from your elders and pastors, for both husband and wife, will help everyone understand and apply biblical teaching.
If you don’t go to church, this is a good time to seek out a strong Bible-teaching congregation. There are a number of resources, programs, and books to help (here’s one).
Unrepentant, habitual lust — where the husband continues making excuses for porn use, or lying about it — is blatant sexual immorality, and that is grounds for divorce. It doesn’t mean the wife has to divorce, but she has biblical grounds.
If, however, the husband is repentant, taking steps to fight, waging a relentless ongoing battle for his own purity and the purity of the marriage union — it’s not right to walk away from a man who is willing to fight that battle and honor his vows.
That is a biblical response, but that doesn’t mean it will be easy, because trust has been betrayed, and rebuilding can be arduous and painful. That’s where those elders and pastors can meaningfully support a couple in crisis.
But remember that God is a reconciling God, a healing God, a God who not only hates divorce, but wants every marriage to reflect His love for us, His church — which He will never divorce.
Of course, no couple will meet that perfect standard. But it’s what we’re all to strive for.
So no, girl, you don’t gotta run. Don’t let anyone make you feel like you have to, but know what the Bible demands from marriage, and hold your husband accountable to move toward that standard — even as you hold yourself accountable to the same.
Charlie Kirk’s Biggest Legacy Will Be Inspiring Young People To Get Married
Charlie understood that the ideas a culture rewards eventually decide how people date, whom they marry, and how they raise their children.Dolly Parton never had to leave her husband to find herself
When Dolly Parton came to Nashville in 1964, finding a husband was the last thing on her mind. She was 18 years old, newly arrived from the mountains of East Tennessee, and clear about what she had come to do: “I was here to become a star.”
Then a young man with sky-blue eyes drove past the Wishy Washy Laundromat.
Reading about Parton and Dean makes you suspect we've forgotten how to disagree inside a marriage.
Parton was outside waiting for her clothes when 21-year-old Carl Dean spotted her, called something out the window, circled the block, and came back. She talked to him because he was “drop-dead handsome,” but she was also surprised that he looked at her face while they talked — “a rare thing for me,” she joked in her 1994 autobiography, “Dolly: My Life and Other Unfinished Business.” More seriously, she remembered that Dean “seemed to be genuinely interested in finding out who I was and what I was about.”
Dean came back every day for a week. When Parton finally had a day free for a real date, he took her to his parents' house, where his mother was putting supper on the table.
“Fix this girl a plate,” Dean announced. “She's the one I'm going to marry.”
'In the Good Old Days (When Times Were Bad)'
This was news to Parton, since Dean hadn't yet told her he loved her. But two years later, on Memorial Day 1966, they married in Ringgold, Georgia. The marriage lasted until Dean's death in March 2025, just shy of 59 years.
By then, the penniless girl doing her laundry at the Wishy Washy had become one of the most famous women in the world, while Dean had spent most of those years avoiding the public attention that followed his wife everywhere. Parton liked crowds, travel, and attention; Dean liked cars, tractors, and staying home. She became so famous that strangers took tour buses past their house; he was so private that some fans suspected she had invented him.
Their marriage is particularly interesting at a time when we're accustomed to hearing divorce described in the language of personal liberation. Celebrity divorce announcements that once might have contained at least a trace of embarrassment now tend to read like graduation speeches: Two people have decided to “choose themselves,” embark on “new chapters,” and continue their respective “journeys.” Whatever else has happened, we're assured that tremendous personal growth is underway.
Parton would have been an excellent candidate for this kind of liberation. She was financially independent, professionally ambitious, frequently away from home, surrounded by attractive men, and married to someone whose personality and interests were almost comically different from hers. They had no children, and by the time divorce became commonplace, she certainly didn't need a husband to support her.
'Just the Way I Am'
Yet there is remarkably little sense in Parton's accounts of her marriage that staying with Dean required surrendering some essential part of herself. Few entertainers have constructed a public identity as singular or pursued a career as independently as Dolly Parton did. She managed it while remaining married to the man she met outside a laundromat at 18.
The potential conflict between marriage and career appeared before the wedding. Fred Foster, the head of Parton's record label, asked her to postpone getting married because her career was beginning to move, and he worried that a husband might hurt her appeal to male record buyers. Parton told him she would wait, then she and Dean secretly drove to Ringgold to get married anyway.
Her mother went with them, having made Dolly a white eyelet dress and veil and wrapped a little white Bible in lace and field flowers for her to carry. At the courthouse, an official offered to marry them on the spot, but Parton balked. “I want to get married in a church,” she told him.
That presented a problem: They would have to wait until Monday and couldn't afford a motel for the weekend. So they drove back to Nashville, returned three days later, and were married at Ringgold Baptist Church. Their honeymoon lasted about two hours: Dean had to work the next morning, while Parton had to get up at 3 a.m. for a television appearance.
The competing demands of Carl and career didn't go away after the wedding, but the couple arrived at an arrangement that would probably horrify anyone who thinks a healthy marriage requires sharing all one's interests. Dean eventually owned an asphalt-paving company and wanted almost nothing to do with show business. According to Parton, he saw her perform only once.
'I Will Always Love You'
“My marriage is separate,” she once explained. “I have my life on the road and my life with Carl. He has seen me perform, once. But we have our own life at home — without music people.”
Their differences extended to ordinary domestic life. Parton was spontaneous; Dean liked routine. She spent money; he was frugal. She wanted more physical affection than he naturally gave. She traveled constantly while he preferred staying home. None of this prevented Parton from describing the arrangement with considerable satisfaction.
“It works out well between me and Carl,” she wrote. “We both get what we really want. We both have the freedom to come and go and do as we please.”
As she also put it in her autobiography, “Carl is the only man I could live with all of the time, because I don't.”
Freedom comes up repeatedly when Parton talks about her marriage, but not in the way the word is usually used in discussions of unhappy marriages. She and Dean weren't free from each other. They seem to have felt remarkably free with each other.
That required trust. Parton spent much of her professional life around men, and rumors about her love life were inevitable. Sometimes friends or relatives actually approached Dean to tell him his wife was involved with somebody else.
“Well, I would think less of any man that didn't fall in love with her,” Dean would respond.
Parton believed he could take the rumors in stride. “He knows that I will always come home,” she wrote.
RELATED: Dolly Parton is dead at age 80
'Mommie, Ain't That Daddy?'
This wasn't a marriage without jealousy or hurt. Dean was badly shaken early in their relationship when he learned that Parton had been sexually involved with another man before him, an experience that helped inspire her 1968 song “Just Because I'm a Woman.” A few years later, a pretty bank teller began paying so much attention to Dean that he developed a newfound enthusiasm for trips to the bank. Parton poured her jealousy into writing “Jolene.”
Jealousy may have been an inevitable byproduct of the mystery each retained for the other. “They say that opposites attract, and it’s true,” Parton told People in 2015. “We’re completely opposite, but that’s what makes it fun. I never know what he’s gonna say or do. He’s always surprising me.”
She had said much the same thing more than 20 years earlier. “I am still learning about him to this day,” she wrote. “I think that's the way a relationship should be.”
Reading about Parton and Dean makes you suspect we've forgotten how to disagree inside a marriage. He didn't like show business; she built her life around it. He liked routine; she liked spontaneity. She spent; he saved. She wanted more affection than he naturally gave. Yet neither seems to have taken every difference as evidence of incompatibility — or proof that the other was preventing some truer self from emerging.
Carl didn't ask Dolly to give up the career she wanted, and Dolly didn't demand that Carl become part of the Dolly Parton enterprise. He didn't have to learn to love awards shows, and she didn't have to stop touring. They seem to have understood something increasingly unfashionable: You can be profoundly different from the person you married without having married the wrong person.
Dean also believed in Parton's ambitions before there was much evidence that he should. When money was still tight, the couple bought 75 acres in Brentwood, Tennessee. Parton told him they needed the land for privacy because someday tour buses would drive past their house.
“He accepted that notion without question, showing that he had faith in my dream too,” she recalled. “This made me love him even more.”
'Here You Come Again'
The tour buses eventually came, but Dean never showed much interest in joining the attraction. In her autobiography, Parton recalled a visit he made to the set of “Nine to Five,” where Jane Fonda met him without initially realizing that the handsome stranger was Dolly's husband. Fonda later told Parton that she had praised Dolly to him, saying how sweet she was and how much she enjoyed working with her.
“Well, she's an angel,” Dean said.
Fonda agreed.
“No, you don't get it. She's a real angel.”
Parton was touched when Fonda repeated the conversation. “It's just like him to say it to somebody else, figuring I'll never hear about it.”
Dean had known her before the rest of the world did, meeting her on the day she arrived in Nashville with a load of laundry and the certainty that she was going to become a star. Almost 50 years later, Parton credited their meeting to something more than luck. “God has been good to me,” she said in 2014. “He gave me Carl Dean. And that was the perfect man that I needed.”
They renewed their vows for their 50th anniversary in 2016. Dean rarely spoke publicly about their marriage, but for the occasion offered his own assessment: “I wouldn't trade the last 50 years for nothing on this earth.”
Dean died in March 2025 at 82 after a long illness. Parton later said she had neglected her own health while “watching over Carl.” Shortly after his death, she released “If You Hadn't Been There,” thanking the husband who, as she put it, “made me dream more than I dared.”
Parton hardly sacrificed herself to marriage. She became rich, famous, independent, and unmistakably Dolly Parton. She just never seems to have thought that becoming herself required getting rid of Carl Dean.
Why I played ‘Zip-a-Dee-Doo-Dah’ at a funeral
The text from my friend contained one of the stranger questions I have ever received from a family planning a funeral: “Do you know ‘Zip-a-Dee-Doo-Dah’?”
I stared at my phone, a bit wild-eyed. My first instinct was to reply, “Why do you ask?” Instead, I simply wrote, “Yes.”
In that sanctuary, the music served something greater than itself.
His mother had died after a long battle with Parkinson’s. The song was one of her favorites, and the family had sung it with her for years. They hoped I could play it during a slideshow at her memorial service.
I have been a pianist longer than I have been a caregiver, which is saying something. Over the years, families have invited me to play at hundreds of funerals, and I never take that invitation lightly.
As a preacher’s kid, I began as cheap labor for my father’s church: Sunday services, weddings, funerals. I did it all. I no longer play weddings unless enormous amounts of money or extraordinary affection are involved. There is simply too much drama. Funerals are different. If possible, I still play them.
A grieving family does not need entertainment or musical pomp. They need someone willing to serve the moment. Music should give grief room to breathe while gently lifting people’s eyes, even if only an inch.
That assignment becomes considerably more demanding when the requested song is “Zip-a-Dee-Doo-Dah.”
I could have treated it as a novelty, played the familiar tune, collected a few smiles, and moved on. But this family was not asking for a joke. They were asking me to honor their mother.
A funeral is one of the few remaining places in American life where we must confront the difference between entertainment and reverence. Our culture can turn nearly anything into content, spectacle, or argument. A family’s grief deserves better.
My father had died not long before this service. He was a pastor who understood ceremony. He did not confuse reverence with stiffness or ceremony with showmanship. He knew some moments deserve the very best we can bring to them. His lessons sat close as I worked on the arrangement.
RELATED: The oldest cure for doomscrolling in one lyric
Before moving to Montana, I lived and played in Nashville. Nashville taught me polish. Montana reminded me of intimacy. In a small rural sanctuary, every note sits close to the people who need it.
I did not try to make “Zip-a-Dee-Doo-Dah” sacred. The song was not sacred. The moment was.
A family’s love was sacred. A life well lived was sacred. So was the faith that endured years of Parkinson’s and the long goodbye that accompanied it.
I arranged the piece more slowly than usual, but not sorrowfully; tenderly, but not timidly. I added a few chords no one expects to hear in “Zip-a-Dee-Doo-Dah.” My wife calls them my “non-sanctified chords.”
When I played it for her at home, she wiped her eyes. “You played it so respectfully,” she said. “It’s beautiful.”
I called one of the daughters and asked for the exact length of the slideshow. Then I shaped the arrangement to fit it.
At the service, the pastor introduced the slideshow: “It is set to one of her favorite songs, ‘Zip-a-Dee-Doo-Dah,’ played by Peter Rosenberger.”
After decades at the piano, I had never received an introduction quite like that. Chuckles rolled through the sanctuary. I understood. Then the pictures began.
Childhood. Marriage. Ranch life. Children. Grandchildren.
As her life unfolded across the screen, the novelty disappeared. The room settled into stillness. A playful song associated with happy memories in her home began carrying the weight of a family’s love and loss.
I timed the final chord to the last photograph of her face. For a moment, no one moved. The chuckles had given way to misty eyes. That familiar little tune had slipped past everyone’s defenses and carried something deeper than anyone expected.
RELATED: Gratitude is not perspective. It is remembering mercy.
Christians do not pretend that Parkinson’s is beautiful or that death is merely another happy chapter. Scripture calls death the last enemy. But it also declares that Christ has defeated it. For those in Christ, suffering does not receive the final word. Neither does Parkinson’s. Neither does the grave.
The song was not the gospel, and I did not pretend it was. But it carried the memory of a woman who had sung it through years of suffering. In that sanctuary, the music served something greater than itself.
My father’s death still weighed heavily on me as I played. Perhaps that helped me understand the assignment. Even amid our own grief, we can offer the best of what we have to someone walking through theirs.
Sometimes grief calls for a great hymn. Sometimes it calls for silence. And every now and then, it calls for “Zip-a-Dee-Doo-Dah.”
Because for those who belong to Christ, everything really is … satisfactual.
Gloria Steinem’s Belief That Female Success Requires Abortion Is Anti-Woman
Demanding abortion so women can ‘direct their lives’ is not empowering. It’s reductionist, insulting, and downright anti-woman.How to raise a family on only $380,000 a year
I recently came across a short article in which the female half of an early-30s DINK (dual-income, no kids) couple in Charlotte, North Carolina, outlined their finances.
They make a combined income of about $380,000 per year. They have no debts other than a $450,000 mortgage, which they expect to pay off in the next seven years. They've accumulated $1.1 million in savings, to which they add about $8,000 each month. Other than gym memberships and an occasional dinner out, they rarely splurge.
'People can’t have kids if they can’t afford a house,' they say. Really? Are renters rendered sterile? I was unaware.
Baby bust
"I love our life together," she says. The only thing missing? Children. They definitely want them, but have chosen to wait until they "feel more financially secure."
You read that right. An otherwise financially literate couple thinks $380,000 per year is not enough to have kids.
Prudence is one thing; this is more like paralysis. And it's fairly widespread in 2026, as evidenced by a decline in both birth rates and general happiness.
How did the standards for a good life balloon so far beyond our ancestors’ wildest imaginings? How did people come to believe they cannot start a family without things their grandparents never possessed? And how did this historically anomalous idea come to seem perfectly reasonable?
Feature creep
There is no single explanation, but our inflated expectations seem to track alongside what is sometimes called “feature creep.” This happens when manufacturers continually add conveniences that, in theory, improve a product but eventually raise the baseline — and the price — to a once-unheard-of level.
My sister recently bought a new car. It is amazing. It can do all sorts of things, and despite not being a luxury model, it was quite expensive. She told the salesman, an old-car enthusiast, that she wished she could simply buy a basic car without all the bells and whistles. He agreed.
That is feature creep. The floor has risen so high that heated steering wheels, assisted driving, and iPads embedded in the dashboard are becoming standard equipment. The same thing has happened to houses and apartments, which are now expected to have renovated kitchens, new bathrooms, smart lights, smart thermostats, and every other costly convenience.
Lease on life
As our products have become more elaborate, so have our expectations for what constitutes a good life — and for what having children requires.
People have grown accustomed to so much comfort that they have lost the ability to adapt as their parents and grandparents routinely did in the not-so-distant past.
This is usually the point when someone brings up the housing market.
“People can’t have kids if they can’t afford a house,” they say.
Really? Are renters rendered sterile? I was unaware.
The Root family must have slipped through the cracks, because we have had children while renting and somehow survived. I am obviously sympathetic to the problem of exorbitant housing costs, but I am not going to pretend that home ownership is a prerequisite for having children.
My parents had me while living in an apartment. My father’s parents had their first child in an old Army tent pitched behind the farmhouse where they were staying for the summer. And that is only the 20th century. The farther back you go, the tougher it gets.
RELATED: You will never be 'ready'
Doom patrol
The belief that renters cannot even contemplate starting a family is closely related to a couple earning $380,000 a year feeling too financially insecure to have children. Both are also distantly related to the depressive claims of online doom-mongers that life is harder than ever, when it so obviously is not.
No one starves in the United States today. It has been a very long time since that was a normal possibility. We have become so thoroughly removed from true want that we have forgotten what the word means.
After the extraordinary material abundance of the 20th century, it is perhaps unsurprising that millions of people developed unreasonable—and ultimately unsatisfiable—expectations for what they need before they can live well or bring children into the world.
The remarkable thing is that they sincerely believe it. Deep down, they really do feel that what they have is not enough, despite having more than their grandparents could have imagined.
Those DINKs in Charlotte really do believe that an income of $380,000 a year is not enough to start a family.
“This is the way the world ends
Not with a bang but a whimper.”
Strangers Has No Plot Besides Making Women Bitter About Their Marriages
Instead of championing spouses who fight for their marriages, Burden uses her platform to undermine marriage and rail against the patriarchy.If Governments Won’t End No-Fault Divorce, Churches Should Help
Anyone confused about what God says about marriage and divorce can find clarity -- and robust scriptural receipts -- in this book.Today's top stories
www.theblaze.com
www.theblaze.com