"1. (broadly) any of the diverse forms of interpersonal union established in various parts of the world to form a familial bond that is recognized legally, religiously, or socially, granting the participating partners mutual conjugal rights and responsibilities...
...Anthropologists say that some type of marriage has been found in every known human society since ancient times.
2.
- Also called opposite-sex marriage. the form of this institution under which a man and a woman have established their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.
- this institution expanded to include two partners of the same gender, as in same-sex marriage; gay marriage." (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/marriage?s=t)
In the 1828 Webster's dictionary, it was defined as, "The act of uniting a man and woman for life; wedlock; the legal union of a man and woman for life. Marriage is a contract both civil and religious, by which the parties engage to live together in mutual affection and fidelity, till death shall separate them. Marriage was instituted by God Himself for the purpose of preventing the promiscuous intercourse of the sexes, for promoting domestic felicity, and for securing the maintenance and education of children." (http://webstersdictionary1828.com/Home?word=Marriage)
Today marriage is often called a social construct, therefore it can be whatever we, or our governments and legislators define it to be. However, using these terms to define marriage is inaccurate. While I will express strong opinions on this matter in this post, I recognize that not everyone shares my same opinions and I respect others who have differing opinions.
The dictionary was
indeed correct in observing that marriage was instituted by God Himself.
The institution of marriage by God can be easily found by turning to
the first few chapters in the Holy Bible.
The Biblical narrative teaches us that Adam and Eve were the first man and woman to be placed on the Earth and thus became the first wedded couple. The marriage occurred in the Garden of Eden, a place where there were no ends, which indicates that God intended that marriage should not have an end. Additional insights about what marriage was intended to be by God can be gained by carefully studying the first two chapters of Genesis.
(Here I would like to insert a comment for any of those who may not accept the Biblical narrative as truth and might see some other alternative explanation as the valid beginning of humankind. Eventually there had to reach a point through creation or evolution, where there had to be a male and female human in order for the species to continue.)
In Genesis 2, God makes crystal clear what He intends of marriage. In verse 18, He says that "it is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him." Following this, God causes a "deep sleep to fall upon Adam", and then takes a rib from Adam's side, with which he creates a woman called Eve. Several important principles are illustrated by this story.
First, why was it "not good that man should be alone"? Supposing the first man was left without companionship? The male without the complementary female or vice versa? Not only would they be lonely and purposeless, but the narrative would end there, and the debate over marriage would never have occurred. Thus, one of the primary purposes of this union can be ascertained by seeing that God created them male and female so that they might be able to perpetuate the species (he did this with animals as well, and again if we take the religious narrative out, the fact remains that there had to be a male and female in order to reproduce and continue the species, regardless of how you believe that the male and female got there).
This fact is further illustrated by the command that God gives to the couple when He tells them to multiply and replenish the earth. Multiply in the original Hebrew means "to become many" and replenish means "to be full, to fill, or to accomplish." It is apparent that the intent of this first marriage included the creation of children. It is also apparent that God intended for the marriage to last forever since it was performed in the Garden of Eden when Adam and Eve were in an immortal state where they were not subject to death (see also 1 Peter 3:7 and 1 Corinthians 11:11).
The Biblical narrative teaches us that Adam and Eve were the first man and woman to be placed on the Earth and thus became the first wedded couple. The marriage occurred in the Garden of Eden, a place where there were no ends, which indicates that God intended that marriage should not have an end. Additional insights about what marriage was intended to be by God can be gained by carefully studying the first two chapters of Genesis.
(Here I would like to insert a comment for any of those who may not accept the Biblical narrative as truth and might see some other alternative explanation as the valid beginning of humankind. Eventually there had to reach a point through creation or evolution, where there had to be a male and female human in order for the species to continue.)
In Genesis 2, God makes crystal clear what He intends of marriage. In verse 18, He says that "it is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him." Following this, God causes a "deep sleep to fall upon Adam", and then takes a rib from Adam's side, with which he creates a woman called Eve. Several important principles are illustrated by this story.
First, why was it "not good that man should be alone"? Supposing the first man was left without companionship? The male without the complementary female or vice versa? Not only would they be lonely and purposeless, but the narrative would end there, and the debate over marriage would never have occurred. Thus, one of the primary purposes of this union can be ascertained by seeing that God created them male and female so that they might be able to perpetuate the species (he did this with animals as well, and again if we take the religious narrative out, the fact remains that there had to be a male and female in order to reproduce and continue the species, regardless of how you believe that the male and female got there).
This fact is further illustrated by the command that God gives to the couple when He tells them to multiply and replenish the earth. Multiply in the original Hebrew means "to become many" and replenish means "to be full, to fill, or to accomplish." It is apparent that the intent of this first marriage included the creation of children. It is also apparent that God intended for the marriage to last forever since it was performed in the Garden of Eden when Adam and Eve were in an immortal state where they were not subject to death (see also 1 Peter 3:7 and 1 Corinthians 11:11).
In
fact, the promises that God has given to His children who accept the
blessings of the Atonement of Jesus Christ include the promise of the
ability to have children on into the eternities. Abraham, Isaac and
Jacob receive these promises (see Genesis 17 for Abraham, and Genesis 26
for Isaac and Genesis 28 Jacob) and the Lord teaches about these same
promises in Isaiah 48:19-20. If the ability to continue to create
children is promised, then it is apparent that the Lord intends for
marriages to be between a man and a woman where that blessing remains
possible.
But such a total, virtually unbreakable union, such an unyielding commitment between a man and a woman, can only come with the proximity and permanence afforded in a marriage covenant, with the union of all that they possess--their very hearts and minds, all their days and all their dreams. They work together, they cry together, they enjoy Brahms and Beethoven and breakfast together, they sacrifice and save and live together for all the abundance that such a totally intimate life provides such a couple. And the external symbol of that union, the physical manifestation of what is a far deeper spiritual and metaphysical bonding, is the physical blending that is part of--indeed, a most beautiful and gratifying expression of--that larger, more complete union of eternal purpose and promise.
As delicate as it is to mention in such a setting, I nevertheless trust your maturity to understand that physiologically we are created as men and women to fit together in such a union. In this ultimate physical expression of one man and one woman they are as nearly and as literally "one" as two separate physical bodies can ever be. It is in that act of ultimate physical intimacy we most nearly fulfill the commandment of the Lord given to Adam and Eve, living symbols for all married couples, when he invited them to cleave unto one another only, and thus become "one flesh" (Genesis 2:24).
Obviously, such a commandment to these two, the first husband and wife of the human family, has unlimited implications--social, cultural, and religious as well as physical--but that is exactly my point. As all couples come to that moment of bonding in mortality, it is to be just such a complete union. That commandment cannot be fulfilled, and that symbolism of "one flesh" cannot be preserved, if we hastily and guiltily and surreptitiously share intimacy in a darkened corner of a darkened hour, then just as hastily and guiltily and surreptitiously retreat to our separate worlds--not to eat or live or cry or laugh together, not to do the laundry and the dishes and the homework, not to manage a budget and pay the bills and tend the children and plan together for the future. No, we cannot do that until we are truly one--united, bound, linked, tied, welded, sealed, married." http://www.familylifeeducation.org/gilliland/procgroup/Souls.htm
That Adam and Eve were indeed
married by the Lord is confirmed in Genesis 2:24 as God tells Adam and
Eve to cleave to each other, meaning to stick to or to adhere to each
other. God continues to teach them of the intent of this union when He
tells them to become one flesh. This certainly refers to the physical or
sexual Union that occurs in the creation of life, but it is also a
symbol of a total and complete Union. Elder Jeffrey R. Holland described
it this way: "...human intimacy, that sacred, physical union ordained of God for a married couple, deals with a symbol that
demands special sanctity. Such an act of love between a man and a woman
is--or certainly was ordained to be--a symbol of total union: union of
their hearts, their hopes, their lives, their love, their family, their
future, their everything. It is a symbol that we try to suggest in the
temple with a word like seal.The Prophet Joseph Smith once said
we perhaps ought to render such a sacred bond as "welding"--that those
united in matrimony and eternal families are "welded" together,
inseparable if you will, to withstand the temptations of the adversary
and the afflictions of mortality. (See D&C 128:18.)
But such a total, virtually unbreakable union, such an unyielding commitment between a man and a woman, can only come with the proximity and permanence afforded in a marriage covenant, with the union of all that they possess--their very hearts and minds, all their days and all their dreams. They work together, they cry together, they enjoy Brahms and Beethoven and breakfast together, they sacrifice and save and live together for all the abundance that such a totally intimate life provides such a couple. And the external symbol of that union, the physical manifestation of what is a far deeper spiritual and metaphysical bonding, is the physical blending that is part of--indeed, a most beautiful and gratifying expression of--that larger, more complete union of eternal purpose and promise.
As delicate as it is to mention in such a setting, I nevertheless trust your maturity to understand that physiologically we are created as men and women to fit together in such a union. In this ultimate physical expression of one man and one woman they are as nearly and as literally "one" as two separate physical bodies can ever be. It is in that act of ultimate physical intimacy we most nearly fulfill the commandment of the Lord given to Adam and Eve, living symbols for all married couples, when he invited them to cleave unto one another only, and thus become "one flesh" (Genesis 2:24).
Obviously, such a commandment to these two, the first husband and wife of the human family, has unlimited implications--social, cultural, and religious as well as physical--but that is exactly my point. As all couples come to that moment of bonding in mortality, it is to be just such a complete union. That commandment cannot be fulfilled, and that symbolism of "one flesh" cannot be preserved, if we hastily and guiltily and surreptitiously share intimacy in a darkened corner of a darkened hour, then just as hastily and guiltily and surreptitiously retreat to our separate worlds--not to eat or live or cry or laugh together, not to do the laundry and the dishes and the homework, not to manage a budget and pay the bills and tend the children and plan together for the future. No, we cannot do that until we are truly one--united, bound, linked, tied, welded, sealed, married." http://www.familylifeeducation.org/gilliland/procgroup/Souls.htm
It
is very apparent that only in a union between a man and a woman can the
symbol be fulfilled and that the purpose of the Union to create life
can be fulfilled as well. Sexual intimacy in any other relationship
besides a heterosexual relationship does not fulfill the completeness of
the Symbol and Union for which God intended marriage to be.
Related
to this issue are questions that I think need to be asked of problems
today. Questions for which I do not claim to be an expert but questions
that I believe have some merit. One of these would be the question of
population decline in many European countries. Many of these countries
are unable to replace their current population and are having
significant difficulties as a result. Although I am certain that there
are many contributing factors to this phenomenon, I do have to wonder if
the increase in the number of homosexual marriages contributes to the
problem.
The joy that comes in
family life and through the creation and raising of children in a
committed heterosexual marriage cannot be overstated. I have experienced
this joy myself and have had confirmed to me in many different ways.
The majority of the posts on this blog deal in one way or another with
the joys of family. It is apparent that I am not the only one who feels
this way. As Elder L. Tom Perry said:
“Public opinion polls show that marriage is still the ideal and the hope among the majority of every age group—even among the millennial generation, where we hear so much about chosen singleness, personal freedom, and cohabitation instead of marriage. The fact is that strong majorities worldwide still want to have children and to create strong families. …
“… As a church, we want to assist in all that we can to create and support strong marriages and families.
“That is why the Church actively participates in and provides leadership to various coalitions and ecumenical efforts to strengthen the family. It is why we share our family-focused values in the media and on social media. It is why we share our genealogical and extended family records with all nations.
“We want our voice to be heard against all of the counterfeit and alternative lifestyles that try to replace the family organization that God Himself established. We also want our voice to be heard in sustaining the joy and fulfillment that traditional families bring. We must continue to project that voice throughout the world in declaring why marriage and family are so important, why marriage and family really do matter, and why they always will.”
The reasons why same-sex marriage can be detrimental to society as a whole continue on. An additional reason is that social scientists have shown that children are more likely to have a completely (meaning mental, emotional, physical, etc.) healthy childhood when they have a mother and a father. The unique traits and characteristics that men and women have contribute to the overall health and well-being of children. The institution of marriage was never intended to be only about the happiness and enjoyment of two adults. There are both rights AND responsibilities that come with marriage. Responsibilities to the married spouse, responsibilities to the children born (or adopted) into that union, and responsibilities to society to raise the children in an environment that leads them to be adults who will contribute positively to the world around them.
Of course not all heterosexual marriages do not meet these lofty goals, and I would not be arrogant enough to say that my wife and I are meeting all of them perfectly. There are many things that we don't know, but based on what we do know, the assumption is that even imperfect heterosexual marriages still provide the most reliable setting for the raising and nurturing of children, and we should certainly pursue and encourage the best possible setting for these children even if we do not always achieve the desired results. Children need to be considered more in this discussion regarding same-sex marriage, but also in many other situations including abortion, adoption, abuse, etc. Elder Dallin H. Oaks related the following:
"There are few examples of physical or emotional threats to children as important as those arising out of their relationships with their parents or guardians. President Thomas S. Monson has spoken of what he called the “vile deeds” of child abuse, where a parent has broken or disfigured a child, physically or emotionally. I grieved as I had to study the shocking evidence of such cases during my service on the Utah Supreme Court.
Of utmost importance to the well-being of children is whether their parents were married, the nature and duration of the marriage, and, more broadly, the culture and expectations of marriage and child care where they live. Two scholars of the family explain: “Throughout history, marriage has first and foremost been an institution for procreation and raising children. It has provided the cultural tie that seeks to connect the father to his children by binding him to the mother of his children. Yet in recent times, children have increasingly been pushed from center stage.”
A Harvard law professor describes the current law and attitude toward marriage and divorce: “The [current] American story about marriage, as told in the law and in much popular literature, goes something like this: marriage is a relationship that exists primarily for the fulfillment of the individual spouses. If it ceases to perform this function, no one is to blame and either spouse may terminate it at will. … Children hardly appear in the story; at most they are rather shadowy characters in the background.”
Our Church leaders have taught that looking “upon marriage as a mere contract that may be entered into at pleasure … and severed at the first difficulty … is an evil meriting severe condemnation,” especially where “children are made to suffer.” And children are impacted by divorces. Over half of the divorces in a recent year involved couples with minor children.
Many children would have had the blessing of being raised by both of their parents if only their parents had followed this inspired teaching in the family proclamation: “Husband and wife have a solemn responsibility to love and care for each other and for their children. … Parents have a sacred duty to rear their children in love and righteousness, to provide for their physical and spiritual needs, and to teach them to love and serve one another.” The most powerful teaching of children is by the example of their parents. Divorcing parents inevitably teach a negative lesson.
There are surely cases when a divorce is necessary for the good of the children, but those circumstances are exceptional. In most marital contests the contending parents should give much greater weight to the interests of the children. With the help of the Lord, they can do so. Children need the emotional and personal strength that come from being raised by two parents who are united in their marriage and their goals. As one who was raised by a widowed mother, I know firsthand that this cannot always be achieved, but it is the ideal to be sought whenever possible.
Children are the first victims of current laws permitting so-called “no-fault divorce.” From the standpoint of children, divorce is too easy. Summarizing decades of social science research, a careful scholar concluded that “the family structure that produces the best outcomes for children, on average, are two biological parents who remain married.” A New York Times writer noted “the striking fact that even as traditional marriage has declined in the United States … the evidence has mounted for the institution’s importance to the well-being of children.” That reality should give important guidance to parents and parents-to-be in their decisions involving marriage and divorce. We also need politicians, policy makers, and officials to increase their attention to what is best for children in contrast to the selfish interests of voters and vocal advocates of adult interests.
Children are also victimized by marriages that do not occur. Few measures of the welfare of our rising generation are more disturbing than the recent report that 41 percent of all births in the United States were to women who were not married. Unmarried mothers have massive challenges, and the evidence is clear that their children are at a significant disadvantage when compared with children raised by married parents.
Most of the children born to unmarried mothers—58 percent—were born to couples who were cohabitating. Whatever we may say about these couples’ forgoing marriage, studies show that their children suffer significant comparative disadvantages. For children, the relative stability of marriage matters.
We should assume the same disadvantages for children raised by couples of the same gender. The social science literature is controversial and politically charged on the long-term effect of this on children, principally because, as a New York Times writer observed, “same-sex marriage is a social experiment, and like most experiments it will take time to understand its consequences.”"
Another important issue to consider is the legal implications of the change in the definition of an important word such as marriage. This can lead to many different problems in society. One example would be the changes to school curricula.
Many schools teach some sort of sexual education. Traditionally this education has involved heterosexual relationships and how they work. When the word "marriage" changes, it of necessity changes how "sex" is viewed and taught. The issue here is that more than likely the sexual activities of homosexuals will be described in detail (this has already occurred in several states, most notable Massachusetts). The inherent legal issue here is fundamentally related to first amendment rights. Public schools are funded through forcible taxation of the citizenry, and therefore have a responsibility to the taxed citizens. Many Christians, Muslims and people of other faiths consider engaging in homosexual activities to be a sin, and therefore sexual education which includes the discussion of homosexual practices would be opening young children to the normalcy of that practice if not the encouragement.
The problem is that because the schools are funded by the taxpayers, they have an obligation to respect first amendment rights. While the teaching of homosexual practices is not an establishment of an official state religion per se, it does establish practices which are contrary to many religions, and thus violates the rights of parents who would prefer to have those discussions in their own homes based on their own moral and religious standards.
Additional legal issues regarding first amendment rights occur as a result of changing the definition of marriage. Church's who may view same-sex marriage as a sin may end up being legally forced into performing these same-sex marriages, even when it contradicts their own conscience, which the first amendment provides protections for. In addition, those who provide services related to weddings may be legally forced or coerced into supporting a same-gender marriage even if their own conscience is violated in the process.
We hear so much talk of "rights" when it comes to the ability for those who identify as "gay" to be married, but oftentimes we neglect the "rights" of children in the discussion, as well as religious persons, organizations and businesses. When we talk of rights, we must also of necessity discuss responsibilities and one of the primary responsibilities of government is to protect rights. These are serious difficulties and questions that have been and are being brought about because of changes to this important institution of marriage.
Another extremely important issue is brought about with this issue. Many people are upset for Christians, Muslims and other groups drawing a line and saying that acting out on homosexual attractions is a sin. Many get upset over religious organizations and peoples voicing their opposition to same-sex marriage. Questions are put forth, such as, "how can you prevent two loving people from getting married?" You might hear, "This doesn't hurt your marriage, so why do you care?" The questions could go on, but the point is that when religious peoples and organizations draw a moral "line in the sand" if you will, they are questioned in often hurtful ways, being called bigots and backwards and other such things.
This then begs the question...where do YOU draw the line when it comes to sexual matters? It is apparent that the "natural" use of sexual relations between a man and a woman is for the production of children, because the complementary parts and productions of the male and female lead to that result. So where do you draw the line between "love" and "wrong"? If a 30 year old man "loves" an 8 year old girl (or boy), why can he not act on this "love" through sexual expression? This is not to imply in any way that those who experience same-sex attraction are also pedophiles.
The point that I am trying to make is that there are various and sundry sexual attractions that may or may not offend your morals and you may or may not consider them damaging to people and society. The point is that there is demonstrable harm to society with homosexual activity. There is demonstrable harm when there is heterosexual promiscuity. There is demonstrable harm when any sexual urges are allowed outside the bounds of a committed heterosexual marriage. As New York Times columnist David Brooks said: “People are not better off when they are given maximum personal freedom to do what they want. They’re better off when they are enshrouded in commitments that transcend personal choice—commitments to family, God, craft and country.”
The fundamental truth here is that a marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God, and is the best situation for the bearing, raising and nurturing of children.
Elder L. Tom Perry said in his last General Conference address: "The entire theology of our restored gospel centers on families and on the new and everlasting covenant of marriage. In The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, we believe in a premortal life where we all lived as literal spirit children of God our Heavenly Father. We believe that we were, and still are, members of His family.
We believe that marriage and family ties can continue beyond the grave—that marriages performed by those who have the proper authority in His temples will continue to be valid in the world to come. Our marriage ceremonies eliminate the words “till death do us part” and instead say, “for time and for all eternity.”
We also believe that strong traditional families are not only the basic units of a stable society, a stable economy, and a stable culture of values—but that they are also the basic units of eternity and of the kingdom and government of God.
We believe that the organization and government of heaven will be built around families and extended families.
It is because of our belief that marriages and families are eternal that we, as a church, want to be a leader and a participant in worldwide movements to strengthen them. We know that it is not only those who are actively religious who share common values and priorities of lasting marriages and strong family relationships. A great number of secular people have concluded that a committed marriage and family lifestyle is the most sensible, the most economical, and the happiest way to live."
“Public opinion polls show that marriage is still the ideal and the hope among the majority of every age group—even among the millennial generation, where we hear so much about chosen singleness, personal freedom, and cohabitation instead of marriage. The fact is that strong majorities worldwide still want to have children and to create strong families. …
“… As a church, we want to assist in all that we can to create and support strong marriages and families.
“That is why the Church actively participates in and provides leadership to various coalitions and ecumenical efforts to strengthen the family. It is why we share our family-focused values in the media and on social media. It is why we share our genealogical and extended family records with all nations.
“We want our voice to be heard against all of the counterfeit and alternative lifestyles that try to replace the family organization that God Himself established. We also want our voice to be heard in sustaining the joy and fulfillment that traditional families bring. We must continue to project that voice throughout the world in declaring why marriage and family are so important, why marriage and family really do matter, and why they always will.”
The reasons why same-sex marriage can be detrimental to society as a whole continue on. An additional reason is that social scientists have shown that children are more likely to have a completely (meaning mental, emotional, physical, etc.) healthy childhood when they have a mother and a father. The unique traits and characteristics that men and women have contribute to the overall health and well-being of children. The institution of marriage was never intended to be only about the happiness and enjoyment of two adults. There are both rights AND responsibilities that come with marriage. Responsibilities to the married spouse, responsibilities to the children born (or adopted) into that union, and responsibilities to society to raise the children in an environment that leads them to be adults who will contribute positively to the world around them.
Of course not all heterosexual marriages do not meet these lofty goals, and I would not be arrogant enough to say that my wife and I are meeting all of them perfectly. There are many things that we don't know, but based on what we do know, the assumption is that even imperfect heterosexual marriages still provide the most reliable setting for the raising and nurturing of children, and we should certainly pursue and encourage the best possible setting for these children even if we do not always achieve the desired results. Children need to be considered more in this discussion regarding same-sex marriage, but also in many other situations including abortion, adoption, abuse, etc. Elder Dallin H. Oaks related the following:
"There are few examples of physical or emotional threats to children as important as those arising out of their relationships with their parents or guardians. President Thomas S. Monson has spoken of what he called the “vile deeds” of child abuse, where a parent has broken or disfigured a child, physically or emotionally. I grieved as I had to study the shocking evidence of such cases during my service on the Utah Supreme Court.
Of utmost importance to the well-being of children is whether their parents were married, the nature and duration of the marriage, and, more broadly, the culture and expectations of marriage and child care where they live. Two scholars of the family explain: “Throughout history, marriage has first and foremost been an institution for procreation and raising children. It has provided the cultural tie that seeks to connect the father to his children by binding him to the mother of his children. Yet in recent times, children have increasingly been pushed from center stage.”
A Harvard law professor describes the current law and attitude toward marriage and divorce: “The [current] American story about marriage, as told in the law and in much popular literature, goes something like this: marriage is a relationship that exists primarily for the fulfillment of the individual spouses. If it ceases to perform this function, no one is to blame and either spouse may terminate it at will. … Children hardly appear in the story; at most they are rather shadowy characters in the background.”
Our Church leaders have taught that looking “upon marriage as a mere contract that may be entered into at pleasure … and severed at the first difficulty … is an evil meriting severe condemnation,” especially where “children are made to suffer.” And children are impacted by divorces. Over half of the divorces in a recent year involved couples with minor children.
Many children would have had the blessing of being raised by both of their parents if only their parents had followed this inspired teaching in the family proclamation: “Husband and wife have a solemn responsibility to love and care for each other and for their children. … Parents have a sacred duty to rear their children in love and righteousness, to provide for their physical and spiritual needs, and to teach them to love and serve one another.” The most powerful teaching of children is by the example of their parents. Divorcing parents inevitably teach a negative lesson.
There are surely cases when a divorce is necessary for the good of the children, but those circumstances are exceptional. In most marital contests the contending parents should give much greater weight to the interests of the children. With the help of the Lord, they can do so. Children need the emotional and personal strength that come from being raised by two parents who are united in their marriage and their goals. As one who was raised by a widowed mother, I know firsthand that this cannot always be achieved, but it is the ideal to be sought whenever possible.
Children are the first victims of current laws permitting so-called “no-fault divorce.” From the standpoint of children, divorce is too easy. Summarizing decades of social science research, a careful scholar concluded that “the family structure that produces the best outcomes for children, on average, are two biological parents who remain married.” A New York Times writer noted “the striking fact that even as traditional marriage has declined in the United States … the evidence has mounted for the institution’s importance to the well-being of children.” That reality should give important guidance to parents and parents-to-be in their decisions involving marriage and divorce. We also need politicians, policy makers, and officials to increase their attention to what is best for children in contrast to the selfish interests of voters and vocal advocates of adult interests.
Children are also victimized by marriages that do not occur. Few measures of the welfare of our rising generation are more disturbing than the recent report that 41 percent of all births in the United States were to women who were not married. Unmarried mothers have massive challenges, and the evidence is clear that their children are at a significant disadvantage when compared with children raised by married parents.
Most of the children born to unmarried mothers—58 percent—were born to couples who were cohabitating. Whatever we may say about these couples’ forgoing marriage, studies show that their children suffer significant comparative disadvantages. For children, the relative stability of marriage matters.
We should assume the same disadvantages for children raised by couples of the same gender. The social science literature is controversial and politically charged on the long-term effect of this on children, principally because, as a New York Times writer observed, “same-sex marriage is a social experiment, and like most experiments it will take time to understand its consequences.”"
Another important issue to consider is the legal implications of the change in the definition of an important word such as marriage. This can lead to many different problems in society. One example would be the changes to school curricula.
Many schools teach some sort of sexual education. Traditionally this education has involved heterosexual relationships and how they work. When the word "marriage" changes, it of necessity changes how "sex" is viewed and taught. The issue here is that more than likely the sexual activities of homosexuals will be described in detail (this has already occurred in several states, most notable Massachusetts). The inherent legal issue here is fundamentally related to first amendment rights. Public schools are funded through forcible taxation of the citizenry, and therefore have a responsibility to the taxed citizens. Many Christians, Muslims and people of other faiths consider engaging in homosexual activities to be a sin, and therefore sexual education which includes the discussion of homosexual practices would be opening young children to the normalcy of that practice if not the encouragement.
The problem is that because the schools are funded by the taxpayers, they have an obligation to respect first amendment rights. While the teaching of homosexual practices is not an establishment of an official state religion per se, it does establish practices which are contrary to many religions, and thus violates the rights of parents who would prefer to have those discussions in their own homes based on their own moral and religious standards.
Additional legal issues regarding first amendment rights occur as a result of changing the definition of marriage. Church's who may view same-sex marriage as a sin may end up being legally forced into performing these same-sex marriages, even when it contradicts their own conscience, which the first amendment provides protections for. In addition, those who provide services related to weddings may be legally forced or coerced into supporting a same-gender marriage even if their own conscience is violated in the process.
We hear so much talk of "rights" when it comes to the ability for those who identify as "gay" to be married, but oftentimes we neglect the "rights" of children in the discussion, as well as religious persons, organizations and businesses. When we talk of rights, we must also of necessity discuss responsibilities and one of the primary responsibilities of government is to protect rights. These are serious difficulties and questions that have been and are being brought about because of changes to this important institution of marriage.
Another extremely important issue is brought about with this issue. Many people are upset for Christians, Muslims and other groups drawing a line and saying that acting out on homosexual attractions is a sin. Many get upset over religious organizations and peoples voicing their opposition to same-sex marriage. Questions are put forth, such as, "how can you prevent two loving people from getting married?" You might hear, "This doesn't hurt your marriage, so why do you care?" The questions could go on, but the point is that when religious peoples and organizations draw a moral "line in the sand" if you will, they are questioned in often hurtful ways, being called bigots and backwards and other such things.
This then begs the question...where do YOU draw the line when it comes to sexual matters? It is apparent that the "natural" use of sexual relations between a man and a woman is for the production of children, because the complementary parts and productions of the male and female lead to that result. So where do you draw the line between "love" and "wrong"? If a 30 year old man "loves" an 8 year old girl (or boy), why can he not act on this "love" through sexual expression? This is not to imply in any way that those who experience same-sex attraction are also pedophiles.
The point that I am trying to make is that there are various and sundry sexual attractions that may or may not offend your morals and you may or may not consider them damaging to people and society. The point is that there is demonstrable harm to society with homosexual activity. There is demonstrable harm when there is heterosexual promiscuity. There is demonstrable harm when any sexual urges are allowed outside the bounds of a committed heterosexual marriage. As New York Times columnist David Brooks said: “People are not better off when they are given maximum personal freedom to do what they want. They’re better off when they are enshrouded in commitments that transcend personal choice—commitments to family, God, craft and country.”
The fundamental truth here is that a marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God, and is the best situation for the bearing, raising and nurturing of children.
Elder L. Tom Perry said in his last General Conference address: "The entire theology of our restored gospel centers on families and on the new and everlasting covenant of marriage. In The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, we believe in a premortal life where we all lived as literal spirit children of God our Heavenly Father. We believe that we were, and still are, members of His family.
We believe that marriage and family ties can continue beyond the grave—that marriages performed by those who have the proper authority in His temples will continue to be valid in the world to come. Our marriage ceremonies eliminate the words “till death do us part” and instead say, “for time and for all eternity.”
We also believe that strong traditional families are not only the basic units of a stable society, a stable economy, and a stable culture of values—but that they are also the basic units of eternity and of the kingdom and government of God.
We believe that the organization and government of heaven will be built around families and extended families.
It is because of our belief that marriages and families are eternal that we, as a church, want to be a leader and a participant in worldwide movements to strengthen them. We know that it is not only those who are actively religious who share common values and priorities of lasting marriages and strong family relationships. A great number of secular people have concluded that a committed marriage and family lifestyle is the most sensible, the most economical, and the happiest way to live."
The
family truly is ordained of God and the reasons why the family must of
necessity include a marriage between a man and a woman are to allow for
the creation of children, and a complete uniting of the complementary
characteristics and attributes of male and female. We must continue to
advocate for marriage between a man and a woman, which brings the most
supreme joys in life.
