Now that SCOTUS has opined (creating a mess), friends of traditional marriage will need to defend it in
the culture war, The best way to do this is to get a copy of Bill
May’s booklet, Getting
the Marriage Conversation Right, which has the best strategies for
defending the nature of marriage. I have it already, and will no doubt need it soon.
May’s thesis, absolutely correct from the point of both
history and social science, is that marriage
is the only institution in existence that guarantees the rights of children to
be united with their mother and father. Period. Pope Francis
has said as much too many times to count. For the 4000 years marriage has
existed as a social and legal institution marriage has been understood as the institution
that unites a man and a woman to each other and any children born from their
union. No other social structure does that.
Furthermore, the reason heterosexual marriage has
enjoyed preeminence in society for 4000 years is not because of the
bigotry or prejudice of the ancient pagan society that first gave marriage
legal and social status. Heterosexual marriage was given priority over
other relationship types common to the time (hook-ups with temple prostitutes,
cohabiting, same-sex unions) because it, much more than any other relationship
type, yielded several observable
benefits that were necessary for the creation of an orderly society.
The first of these: Marriage
unites children to their mother and father.
- Even compared to cohabiting couples, marriage comes out ahead.
- About 30% of couples who live together give up their children. It is almost unheard of for married couples to give up their children.
- Additionally, only children born in a marriage have a legal right to know who their mother and father are and to be raised by that mother and father.
- Any social movement that undercuts this fact does violence to the dignity of children.
The second: Children raised by
married mothers and fathers do significantly better.
·
He reality that children born to a married mother and father do
better on all academic, social, psychological, spiritual, and interpersonal
measures.
·
Any social movement that weakens this fact does violence to the
dignity of children
The
third: No other relationship protects the financial and social security
of women as does marriage.
·
The middle-class does not exist without marriage.
·
Married women are more financially and socially secure than women
in any other relationship type (including lesbian relationships).
·
This is true even of college-educated women (Although this group
is most likely to be secure without marriage, only 37% of women have a college
degree).
The fourth. Marriage
socializes men.
In addition to the fact that
married men are exponentially more willing to claim and raise their own
children, married men are significantly less likely to commit violent crime
than unmarried men.
·
For example, according to the DOJ, 65% of crimes against women are
committed by unmarried men.
·
Only 9% of married men have committed a violent crime against a
woman.
·
This ratio holds up across the board for crime statistics.
The
fifth: Marriage secures sustainable fertility rates.
·
Even though the gap has narrowed somewhat, married couples still
have more children than unmarried couples.
·
De-population is the most serious social problem facing the
West. As marriage rates have decreased, societies are not producing
enough children to support their social infrastructure.
·
Marriage looks to to the success of future generations.
In sum, Gay marriage does not grant any benefits to society and in fact,
undermines several:
- Gay marriage makes it discriminatory to say that ANY child has a right to a mother and father.
- Same-Sex marriage does not provide the same level of security for the partners or children raised in those households.
- Same-Sex marriage does not socialize partners to the same degree.
Comments
Post a Comment