Why Defend Traditional Marriage?

[MMDad]

There are good societal reasons for incentivising marriage as it exists today.

According to one of our pointless government arms (HHS):

(Lack of traditional marriage has) caused a great deal, perhaps all, of the increases in child poverty between the early 1970s and the 1990s (Lerman 1996; Sawhill 1999). In addition, the shift toward single-parent families may have contributed to a higher incidence of other social problems, such as higher rates of school dropouts, of alcohol and drug use, of adolescent pregnancy and childbearing, and of juvenile delinquency (Lang and Zagorsky 2000; McLanahan and Sandefur 1994). Family structure has become so important to the well-being of American children that some observers now argue that marriage is replacing race, class, or neighborhood as the greatest source of division in the U.S. (Rector, Johnson, and Fagan 2001; Rauch 2001).​

So, why should we incentivise marriage? Because it lowers poverty, increases education and the benefits to society thereof, lowers drug use and other juvenile crimes, lowers adolescent pregnancy......

In short, it has profound effects - all by itself - on society at large.

Again, when same-gendered relationships can show the same benefit to society, they will deserve the same breaks and benefits.

Is marriage the cause or the symptom? Is it that decreased traditional marriage caused all of societies ills? Or did a morally bankrupt society affect marriage?

Polygamy laws preceded this moral decline. The laws were forced onto people who took their vows "for time and all eternity" far more seriously than most "traditional" marriages.

Since you say that the decrease in the number of marriages is the cause, maybe polygamist marriage will fix all of our problems! Imagine that, a more moral society, but they just don't conform to your myopic world view. Hmmmm... Wouldn't that just be awful?

 

[2ndAmendment]

Heres a philosophical question for you to ponder.

Hypothetical: You can to a step light. Unlike in the real world where you don't know what is going to happen if you go through that stoplight, you understand all the consequences of going through the stop light and 1) You won't get caught, 2) Nobody will get injured or harmed and 3) And it will not make you or anybody else more or less likely to run a stop light in the future.

Do you have a moral obligation to stop for the redlight.

To me you don't have a moral obligation to stop for the stoplight--but I am a legal realists which takes a less nuanced view of the law's moral obligation. Natural law theorist would say you still have a moral obligation to stop at the stop line.

Your true character is what you do when no one but you and God know.

There are various types of crimes - crimes against the person (assault, homicide), crimes against society (fraud, tax evasion), and crimes against morality (marriage and prostitution).

The government has no business enforcing morality. Do you have a better reason than "because that's the way we've always done it?"

Are you familiar with the slippery slope? The more you let the government enforce your morality, the more power you give them. When they get too much power, they start to enforce things that go beyond what you want enforced and suddenly you get up in arms. What if they decide to enforce Muslim morality instead of yours?

Yes we certainly have a slippery slope. Spending money from taxpayers on individuals started long ago and was objected to by Madison in 1794 and the Congress has not stopped since.

I am all for getting government out of everything not specifically authorized in the founding documents. We can get rid of the FCC, EPA, FDA, AoA, USDA, BATF, and a few hundred more agencies.

Marriage was originally a religious ceremony even though not specifically Christian. Government got into it to set rules and to charge taxes. Brings meaning to the pursuit of money is the root of all evil.

 

[MMDad]

Your true character is what you do when no one but you and God know.

Yes we certainly have a slippery slope. Spending money from taxpayers on individuals started long ago and was objected to by Madison in 1794 and the Congress has not stopped since.

I am all for getting government out of everything not specifically authorized in the founding documents. We can get rid of the FCC, EPA, FDA, AoA, USDA, BATF, and a few hundred more agencies.

Marriage was originally a religious ceremony even though not specifically Christian. Government got into it to set rules and to charge taxes. Brings meaning to the pursuit of money is the root of all evil.

 

[Larry Gude]

Is marriage the cause or the symptom? Is it that decreased traditional marriage caused all of societies ills? Or did a morally bankrupt society affect marriage?

Neither.

The underlying core of all of this is individual freedom and liberty. Women in marriage used to be property. Then, they used to have no property rights. They used to not have a vote.

Over time, all of this has changed, legally, and, over time, it has been changing as a practical matter as well; not always one in the same.

It, like any other major cultural change, has not been seamless or perfect, by any measure. The impact on child raising, stability at home, community stability, individual responsibility, all of that has had negative repercussions in other areas, all in the continuing pursuit of individual freedom and liberty.

Freedom and liberty is a messy thing. However, we were not founded as a nation on the pursuit of order, discipline and societal norms.

 

[shorti]

There are good societal reasons for incentivising marriage as it exists today.

According to one of our pointless government arms (HHS):

(Lack of traditional marriage has) caused a great deal, perhaps all, of the increases in child poverty between the early 1970s and the 1990s (Lerman 1996; Sawhill 1999). In addition, the shift toward single-parent families may have contributed to a higher incidence of other social problems, such as higher rates of school dropouts, of alcohol and drug use, of adolescent pregnancy and childbearing, and of juvenile delinquency (Lang and Zagorsky 2000; McLanahan and Sandefur 1994). Family structure has become so important to the well-being of American children that some observers now argue that marriage is replacing race, class, or neighborhood as the greatest source of division in the U.S. (Rector, Johnson, and Fagan 2001; Rauch 2001).​

So, why should we incentivise marriage? Because it lowers poverty, increases education and the benefits to society thereof, lowers drug use and other juvenile crimes, lowers adolescent pregnancy......

In short, it has profound effects - all by itself - on society at large.

Again, when same-gendered relationships can show the same benefit to society, they will deserve the same breaks and benefits.

And when same sex marriages have the same consequences - i.e. "divorce", single parent homes, etc??? then what?

high school drop outs, drugs, alcohol... i believe has much to do with the parental involvement in the kids lives more than anything else. My husband & I both work full time, yet all 4 of our kids are on honor roll, play sports, have no interest in being more than just friends w/ the opposite sex, they all make good choices in their lives, be it friends or just overall decisions. But we are actively involved in their lives. And as a family, we are all actively involved in our church. The 2 oldest kids (teenagers) are in our youth group. the oldest plays in the youth worship team. They openly post on their FB pages that their relationship with Christ is their 1st priority. And the 2nd most important thing next to making Christ the head of our household, we hold our children accountable as well.

 

[Marie]

Heres a philosophical question for you to ponder.

Hypothetical: You can to a step light. Unlike in the real world where you don't know what is going to happen if you go through that stoplight, you understand all the consequences of going through the stop light and 1) You won't get caught, 2) Nobody will get injured or harmed and 3) And it will not make you or anybody else more or less likely to run a stop light in the future.

Do you have a moral obligation to stop for the redlight.

To me you don't have a moral obligation to stop for the stoplight--but I am a legal realists which takes a less nuanced view of the law's moral obligation. Natural law theorist would say you still have a moral obligation to stop at the stop line.

Gods law says we need to stop for the light, as he has place leaders and governments over us and we are to obey them unless they violate the word of God which is the higher authority.

 

[Marie]

And why do you care, anyway? If someone wants to marry a building in France, how does that affect you or even have anything to do with you?

Good Question
Judeo Christian principles that were given to the Jews, to create a Holy people set apart for him, of which our country was found upon in this case define the moral issues and the reason we have marriage.
Prior to God saying you should only have sex with the opposite sex of the same spices and not with family members, society was in shams, much like with the Muslims, women were objects to be owned and their only value was for having children, but its the children that they take their sexual desires out on. In the Greek society men were having sex with boys or other men and women were nothing more than possessions. Other society's and religions were having temple sex rituals and sex with animals was common as well.

Judaism and Christianity though but a stop to that, and defined sexual practices under the umbrella of marriage, women became partners not just property.
Now we see society rejecting God and his laws, and reverting back to behaving worse than most animals. Traditional marriage has a purpose and a history.

As to marriage predating Judaism. I don't see that, as Adam was given Eve by the father. So even though we don't see a ceremony, we have a good picture of it there, with the same reasons for God providing Adam with a companion as in the reason for marriage today.

If you take marriage out of context, or add or take away elements than its not marriage at all, but some other kind of pagan ritual or rite, but its not a marriage. So if you want civil unions, them call them that but don't hijack a term that belongs to us, or pretend it has anything to do with Christ and his church. If its not two believers coming together before the eyes of God and man, than don't have it in a church, and don't ask a man of God to perform it, as its not of God, and the church should not have anything to do with it. Its not a marriage its something other.

That was kind of the whole point of the thread, that what is being termed as a marriage today is not, and is being used in appropriately.

 

[This_person]

Is marriage the cause or the symptom? Is it that decreased traditional marriage caused all of societies ills? Or did a morally bankrupt society affect marriage?

The views on marriage were effected by the legislation, the results came to society from the change in the views.

Polygamy laws preceded this moral decline. The laws were forced onto people who took their vows "for time and all eternity" far more seriously than most "traditional" marriages.

Since you say that the decrease in the number of marriages is the cause, maybe polygamist marriage will fix all of our problems! Imagine that, a more moral society, but they just don't conform to your myopic world view. Hmmmm... Wouldn't that just be awful?

Where did I say the cause was the decrease in the number of marriages? I said the cause was the view society took towards marriage, not the number.

But, actually arguing against my points is too difficult, so you make up what I'm saying and then argue against your made up point. What's the term for that?