A growing mountain of evidence proves pornography stunts human sexuality, warps relationships between men and women and facilitates abuse. But few — if any — progressive thinkers denounce porn consumption.

Author and cultural critic Christine Emba observed as much in a piece for The New York Times:

“Despite significant evidence that a deluge of pornography has had a negative impact on modern society, there is a curious refusal, especially in progressive circles, to publicly admit disapproval of porn.”

Emba attributes the phenomenon to progressives’ perception of themselves as “forward-thinking, thoughtful and open-minded.” The true cause is far more existential.

Progressives cannot denounce porn without invalidating their long-held views on sex and sexuality — the same ones that normalize homosexuality, “kink,” and the “sexual rights” of children.

The progressive sexual ethic centers on the assertion that humans are inherently sexual beings, born with sexual tastes and preferences that cannot be changed.

This central premise undergirds three of the left’s most consequential stances on sexuality:

Because sexuality is immutable and unchanging, sexual tastes and preferences must be legally protected as identities.

To celebrate National Foster Care Month, First Lady Melania Trump welcomed foster and adoptive families to the White House during the last week of May.

Attending families participated in a series of specially arranged tours and experiences, the White House announced, including tours of the White House and East Wing; conversations with White House staff; and watching President Trump’s Marine One departure from the South Lawn on Friday.

The White House said each foster and adoptive family departed the White House on Friday with an official copy of President Trump’s proclamation on National Foster Care Month, which the president signed on May 7.

“During National Foster Care Month, the First Lady and I honor the individuals and families who make room in their hearts and homes for thousands of children and youth throughout the year,” the president said in his proclamation.

“Without a question, these dedicated men and women are unsung heroes in our local communities across the country for giving each child in their care as much normalcy as possible while also preparing them to be reunited with family or adopted.”

First Lady Melania Trump also issued statement on May 7, “I am proud of the work I have done to support the foster care community during the past several years, and I am pleased to join my husband in honoring the families, caregivers, and advocates who provide shelter, stability, and inspiration to our children.”

With about one month left in the United States Supreme Court’s term, three critically important cases for parents still await a ruling. The three cases involve protecting children from pornography, permitting an opt-out from LGBT materials in classrooms and a ban on “transgender” mutilation of minors.

Here’s what you need to know.

In Mahmoud v. Taylor, a group of Muslim, Jewish and Christian parents in Maryland are asking to opt their children out of public school mandated LGBT materials.

The parents argue that the curriculum is in conflict with their religious teachings on gender and sexuality, and therefore, without an opt-out provision, it infringes on their First Amendment rights to free exercise of religion.

The question presented to the Court is whether the public schools violate the religious freedom of parents by requiring LGBT materials in the curriculum without providing an opt-out.

Both lower courts ruled against the parents holding that exposure to differing viewpoints in public education is not a violation of religious freedom.

As reported by the Daily Citizen, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments on the case in April and appeared to be leaning towards requiring opt-outs which would set precedent for broader religious exemptions and expand parental rights in public schools.

The White House has declared it is considering taking $3 billion in federal funds away from Harvard University, which rests on a fat $53.2 billion endowment – the largest in the world – and giving the money to trade schools in order to educate working class Americans in meaningful, highly productive trades.

Focus on the Family and Daily Citizen strongly applaud this policy proposal.

The reason is simple.

Getting young men good paying jobs is fundamental for good family formation.

Many young women will tell you that they are having a hard time finding marriageable men. Men will tell you they are disinclined to seek a wife when they do not have the means to support her and children.

Recent research conducted jointly at Yale, Cornell and Harvard notes that “economic outcomes for other non-college men have sharply declined, accompanied by a drop in marriage rates for non-college women.”

These women are not likely to marry men who have no or very little real career prospects.

It has long been documented how workforce participation among men has been declining in our nation.

You can see the declining trend line for male employment in the United States. It is not an encouraging picture.