Redefining Marriage Undermines the Family Structure Best for Children
There appears to be an underlying assumption inherent in the arguments of those who promote a redefinition of marriage, and who oppose Proposition 8 on the California ballot. They contend that 1) marriage has no original purpose, or that 2) the purpose of marriage as an institution is to impart benefits to people who choose to live together.
There is an original purpose to marriage, however, rooted in human biology and noticeable in of the laws of early civilizations. Marriage exists because the sexual union of a man and a woman results in children. For centuries, community leaders in diverse cultures maintained that a man and woman had an obligation to raise the child they had created. The marriage bond also served to bring the father into a legal relationship with his offspring. While the childbearing capacity of a woman bound her physically to her child, a social construct was required to tie the father to his child. Understood as a publicly-recognized sexual relationship between one man and one woman, marriage accomplished at least two things: children received the benefits of having both biological parents, and society did not bear the responsibility of financial or civic support for orphans.
In our modern era, we have seen that the social institution of marriage became not only practical, but also beneficial for women, men and children. More than three decades of social science evidence indicates that children function best with the married presence of their biological parents. Moreover, Child Trends, a leading child advocacy organization, claims that the marriage of the parents remains significant to their children.
“An extensive body of research tells us that children do best when they grow up with both biological parents in a low-conflict marriage… Thus, it is not simply the presence of two parents, as some have assumed, but the presence of two biological parents that seem to support child development.[1] (Emphasis in original)
This paper can be found in the evidence section below.
Same-sex marriage advocates often contend that widespread divorce among heterosexuals has detrimentally affected the stability of marriage long before there was a push to redefine the institution, and this is true. It does not follow, however, that because marriage as an institution is weakened that its original purpose is lost, or that civilization can or should use it to promote another end entirely.
As we consider that marriage is our most pro-child institution, it remains especially pertinent that the wants and desires of adults should not supersede the needs and rights of children to a mother and a father -- whether through the laxness of our divorce laws, or as we consider redefining marriage beyond one man and one woman. Widespread divorce was a social experiment which undermined the stability of family and failed more than two generations of children. If marriage is redefined, our family laws will have undermined the family structure that we know is best for children.
Proponents of redefining marriage want it to accomplish something which it was never designed or intended to do — the affirmation of homosexual relationships. Marriage is not a legal vehicle for equality; it is a social institution with children at its heart.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
Even though I understand where this article is coming from and I too agree that the well being of the child should be everyones main concern, I do not see how being part of a family , gay /straight or otherwise, would be harmful to the child. If they have two mommies, or two daddies that love each other and are working to the bennifit of the childs well-being, then there is no harm that can come to the child except from ignorant, uneducated anti-gay individuals whom probably and most likely have homosexual tendencies themselves but are to afraid to come out and admit it themselve.
My comment on the institution of marriage is that it serves no purpose in todays American Culture. Churches are quick to point out the conflict with bibical directive from God and damnation to hell for not following the "Established Mandates". The church throughout history and down through the ages have always used bibical stories to control the masses to their own gain. All main line denominations act in this manner, (church dogmas). Granted, their are some guidelines to live by are good for man; The Golden Rule. However, for the church leaders to lay the brain trip on you that you must marry of burn in hell is a bunch of bunk! American society today has more evidence to show the institution of marriage should be abolished that it does to support the institution. Frankly, the institution distroys lives and is a negative influence on children than a positive one. Simple ask youself the question, for those that argue the point, how would your life be different if you were not married ? You might still live together and have children, along with the other benifits of being married without a legal contract. Our American culture has used churches, laws , public pressures both individually and in business to encourage individuals to marry. Years ago, the masses would frown on couples living and having children, (known as bastards) together outside the institution of marriage, imparting a negative conotation to your choice. The value of marriage exists only in the minds of the individuals. God has nothing to do with it, since his involvement in individuals lives is extreamly limited. God only exists in the hearts and minds of individuals who choose to embrace his statutes and laws, thus dividing culturals and peoples. When these groups achieve social power over the masses, some real bad events are usually the result stemming from "MOB RULE". Mob Rule is NOT a civil society; it is simply a mob, nothing else. Therefore, it is apparent that laws change depending on the mob that is currently in power. Those apposing the mob are usually killed off in favor of the masses. Its only a matter of time before the mob chooses to eliminate the institution of marriage.
I have read what you presented as evidence on an argument that marriage between a man and woman is the only thing that should be allowed when children are involved hence hinting that homosexual couples should not adopt or be allowed to raise children. Bogus. Bogus. Bogus.
There was no mention of abused children in your evidence, nor any mention of children being raised by drug addict, or criminal parents. How then can those marriages benefit a child?
To imply that heterosexual relationships and marriages are the only way to raise children was touted as being biological parents only. So that does not allow for non biological married couples to raise any one's child other than their own. Hence your own argument prohibits opposite sex couples from adopting any child also.
The best interest of the child should be taken in to consideration is true. And it is also true that Homosexual couples children face a world of discrimination, hardship, hate, bigotry, and the cause is by people like you. Those who preach just those values as above. To say to a child that their parents are abnormal, should go to jail, are sinners, etc is hate at its finest. It is the leading cause of children in same sex marriage or unions or family's to have a need of mental health care later in life. To allow same sex marriage, or unions should be excepted by all persons who value the need of children in the world. To argue that same sex persons are looking to sexually abuse the child is a bogus arguement also as it is a proven fact that 98% of all child abuse cases are done by heterosexual persons and mostly by family members of the child in the first place. So 2 % are gay, the rest were not. Another hole in your arguments, by focus on the family. To spout off non facts, or lies will only hurt Focus on the family in the long run when people find the truth in these matters. My mother all ways taught me that you get more flys with sugar then vinegar and that is true here also. Telling the truth will gain you more then the lies you are telling now. To use a religion to hide behind is also bogus lies. No where in the gospels does it prohibit or condemn homosexuality, only in the old testament does it do so. However it also allows for selling our children into slavery, stoning people for eating shrimp and more. So to use the religious argument is totally bogus.
Thank you for your time.
#1: I doesn't take marriage to raise children. It takes two devoted people. Whether married or not, the child is better off being raised by two. Marriage is an institution of the Church and the government. Nothing more. It has nothing to do with raising children in my opinion should stay out of it. Over 50% of marriages end up in divorce and in some cases, it can get ugly. How do you think that effects the children. HMMM???
#2: Christians can't even handle their own marriages that are under "god". See Statistics below.
Ecclesiastes 4:12 (bible) A cord of three strands isn't easily broken.
NONSENCE!!!
U.S. DIVORCE RATES AMONG RELIGIONS & NON-RELIGIONS
Jews: 30%
Born-Again Christians: 27%
Other Christians: 24%
Atheists & Agnostics: 21%
3: Christians couldn't give a crap less about "children". They promote absence only (unrealistic), deny birth-control (irresponsible), and claim they are "Pro-Life", (but support religious wars) and to top it off, their "god" isn't even pro-life . What happens to all of those children born to people who didn't want them, couldn't afford them, are addicted to drugs, ect.? Let's put them into foster care or an orphanage. YEAH!!! Great idea. And to top it all off won't even let gay or single folks adopt the unwanted children and give them a loving home. Real nice. Let's not forget all of the whining that goes on about having to pay for welfare by the religious right. HYPOCRITES!!! Christians only care about their RELIGIOUS agenda.
4: Million of dollars spent on the Prop 8 campaign by the Christians. Maybe they should have donated to people who would like to adopt a few of the children that were born into this world because of the irrational teachings of the church!
5: It was once ok to discriminate against interracial marriages according to the Church. I wonder if that is still acceptable.
6: Gay folks who would like to devote their lives to one another is NO business of the church. They are hurting no one but themselves. They want to have the right to build their lives with someone they love. They want the right to put each other on their insurance. They want to buy a house together, when one of them croaks they want the same rights that come with marriage. I have NO problem with it. I do hope that they get the right to marry and show those busybody Christians how marriages are supposed to work!
Christians are the ones who undermine the family structure that is best for children. Keep your bigoted noses in the Holey book and out of everyone elses buisness!!!
Attack the argument, not the source. Also, it's "abstinence," not "absence." As in to abstain from sex. I don't know if you're trying to make some kind of point or if you just didn't know that, but it makes you sound ignorant, not witty. If you take that and the logical fallacy of argumentum ad hominem out of the equation, the sentence or two that's left (namely point 1, point 5, and parts of point 6) I wholeheartedly agree with. Points 2, 3, 4, the second half of six, the title, and the closing statement, on the other hand, are ad hominem.
You're making the assumption that homosexuality is not natural - that only sex between man and woman is natural and therefore what binds them together.
Homosexuality is quite natural. It exists in nature between animals and also in humans.
You're also making the assumption that marriage has typically been between one man and one woman. As if the entire world has always shared this decidedly Christian view.
Furthermore, in most societies - including those ancestral societies you speak of in which the child was better off with the biological mother and father - the raising of the child has typically been a group effort. It's only been in our society, within the past 200 years that this has changed.
What benefits children is having as many people as possible in their lives who love and support them. It makes little difference if these people are biologically related, or married.
Gay marriage isn't about raising children, it's the right that exists to bind yourself to a person for rest of your life if you so choose. Placing another factor in the mix doesn't say anything about the original argument - that gay marriage is wrong.
And further to that - marriage is a religious act. Government should makes no laws establishing rules of any religious ceremony (barring sacrifices of humans or anything that infringes upon the rights of another).
I'm a little confused by your screen name. Tell me, what socialist country allows same sex marriages? And don't say Canada, because it's not a Socialist country.
Exactly. The title makes no sense and neither does what you're asking.
Who said ANYTHING about socialism being a factor for allowing same sex marriage? Anywhere? It's a fucking screen name. I happen to like a blend of socialism and capitalism as I think they complement one another's flaws. I also happen to like the negative reaction people give the word "Socialism". As if we don't already live in a semi-socialist country as it is.
Anywho, anymore off topic questions, please click on my icon and read that. Okay thanks.
I live in a place I'd rather not acknowledge exists. Many children here only have one parent to care for them. It would be a GIFT for these children to have a second adult in their life guiding and supporting them. Gay marriage is not going to tear apart the family structure (and if it does it wasn't a good structure to begin with). I agree that marriage has its purpose to bring children into this world but there are plenty of heterosexual marriages that result in two people who have no desire to reproduce. Is that a marriage in the eyes of organized religion?
In closing I don't agree that the best family structure is two parents of opposite genders. I believe the best family structure is two parents who care for their children.
I'm amazed the hatred of gays, other by so called Christains!!
You are going to have a problem with this because who is to say what someone is, man or woman?
Everyone is really both man and woman, just different %. Very few supermales/superfemales are born, most a combo of the 2.
Where the problem comes is those whom are both sex appearing having various combo's of sex organs or none at all. Since they are both, does that mean they can't marry? There are many more of these than talked about.
But really sex is in the brain. If you see a nice female and want to kiss her, you are a male sex wise no matter what sexual organs you have.
So this law is illegal if passed as it restricts some to no marriage at all, violating their basic human rights. Let's stop the hate and let whomever wants to be a family be between consenting adults. A family is those who care for you, not whom is biological your parent if they don't care..
God will punish those whom hate, hurt.
jerryd
This is not an argument against gay marriage, this is an argument for "traditional" families who are dropping the ball to step up. If you really believe that children do best with married biological parents in a low-conflict marriage, why aren't you encouraging that? Why not ban divorce, make fighting illegal, or forbid adoption? All of those things are more of a threat to the ideal child-rearing environment you propose than gay marriage. How exactly does two guys getting married stop you from providing your ideal environment to your children? It shouldn't.
On the other hand, I noticed that you argued that the purpose of marriage is to have children, and no other purpose should be allowed. The vast array of legal benefits to marriage are completely irrelevant in your mind, right? Fine, if the sole purpose of marriage is for the children, you will have no objection to immediately stripping all legal rights granted to spouses. You said yourself, the purpose of marriage is not to grant rights. It also seems that those who will not or cannot have children, like me, should not be allowed to marry even if they are heterosexual. This is the logical end point of your argument, are you sure this is really what you're proposing? I have a problem with that, and I'm sure I'm not alone.
It is purely alarmist to think and believe that granting the liberty of legal marriage to same-sex couples or any set of non-traditional individuals is the end of what has been traditional marriage. Opposite-sex couples will continue to meet, fall in love and perhaps marry as they always have and likely always will. Perhaps it is time they no longer are able to do so as an elite set of human beings with their liberty purchased at the expense of denying such liberty to others.
The liberty of legal marriage reserved for man-woman couples is elitism. It has little to no respect for the higher value of individual rights and mutual liberty. There is no righeousness in in denying homosexuals the liberty to marry whomever or as many as they choose in the pursuit of personal happiness.
As for redefining "marriage", perhaps we ought not limit ourselves to the very narrow special-interest definition of the major religions. After all, "christian" is only a subset of "human".
In this day and age, many gay couples choose to have children. Using the rationale of the above argument, they should be able to marry.
The reality is that the "Yes on 8" crowd aren't concerned with the wellbeing of children, they are just anti-gay. If they really were concerned with children they would be working to make divorce much harder. Personally I think it would be good if divorced couples had to pay higher taxes for 10 years following a divorce. It would also be good to have a law that says that if a baby is born out of wedlock, the father and mother automatically become married upon the birth of the baby. If the issue really is having children raised by two parent families, they should be advocating those approaches, not trying to make some families feel they are second class.
It