Natural Law Arguments in Defense of Marriage

In a more educated and non idiotic society.... marrige would be a meaningless institution.

Who needs the stupid vows... if you keep your promises in the first place.

Originally posted by tothetenthpower

Originally posted by Solasis

Originally posted by ACTS 2:38

There are studies that prove children need their bio mother and father through out their development

Show me these studies.

I'd love to see them as well. I am living proof that children don't need both a mother and a father to be raised properly.

In that same breath however, you are stating that single parents cannot properly raise children as well?

~Keeper

www.clasp.org...

Most
researchers now agree that together these
studies support the notion that, on
average, children do best when raised by

In 1994, Sara McLanahan and Gary Sandefur, using evidence from four nationally representative
data sets, compared the outcomes of children growing up with both biological parents, with
single parents, and with step-parents.6 McLanahan and Sandefur found that children who did not
live with both biological parents were roughly twice as likely to be poor, to have a birth outside
of marriage, to have behavioral and psychological problems, and to not graduate from high
3
school.

just one study
their two married, biological1 parents
who have low-conflict relationships.

Originally posted by Solasis

Originally posted by ACTS 2:38

There are studies that prove children need their bio mother and father through out their development

Show me these studies.

Here's a few:

Research Indicates Children Do Best When Raised By Married Mom & Dad


Quotes from leading scholarly summaries of this research:

• “An extensive body of research tells us that children do best when they grow up with both biological parents. … Thus, it is not simply the presence of two parents, as some have assumed, but the presence of two biological parents that seems to support child development.”

(Kristin Anderson Moore, et al., “Marriage From a Child’s Perspective: How Does Family Structure Affect Children, and What Can We Do about It?” Child Trends Research Brief (June 2002): 1.)

• “Most researchers now agree that together these studies support the notion that, on average, children do best when raised by their two married, biological parents.”

(Mary Parke, “Are Married Parents Really Better for Children?” Center for Law and Social Policy, Policy Brief (May 2003): 1)



• “Overall, father love appears to be as heavily implicated as mother love in offsprings’ psychological well-being and health.”

(Ronald P. Rohner and Robert A. Veneziano, “The Importance of Father Love: History and Contemporary Evidence,” Review of General Psychology 5.4 (2001): 382-405)

• Health scores are 20 to 35 percent higher for children living with both biological parents, compared with those living in single or stepfamilies.

(Deborah A. Dawson, "Family Structure and Children's Health and Well-being: Data from the National Health Interview Survey on Child Health," Journal of Marriage and the Family, 53 (1991): 573 -584)

• “When young boys have primary caretakers of both sexes, they are less likely as adults to engage in woman-devaluing activities and in self-aggrandizing, cruel or overly competitive male cults.”

(Mary Stewart Van Leeuwen, My Brother’s Keeper: What the Social Sciences Do (and Don’t) Tell Us About Masculinity, (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2002), p. 121)

• “We should disavow the notion that ‘mommies can make good daddies,’ just as we should disavow the popular notion of radical feminists that ‘daddies can make good mommies.’ …The two sexes are different to the core, and each is necessary – culturally and biologically – for the optimal development of a human being.”

(David Popenoe, Life Without Father: Compelling New Evidence That Fatherhood and Marriage are Indispensable of the Good of Children and Society, (New York: The Free Press, 1996), p. 197)

Sara McLanahan of Princeton University, one of the world’s leading scholars on how family form impacts child well-being, explains from her extensive investigations:

• “If we were asked to design a system for making sure that children’s basic needs were met, we would probably come up with something quite similar to the two-parent family ideal. Such a design, in theory, would not only ensure that children had access to the time and money of two adults, it would provide a system of checks and balances that promote quality parenting. The fact that both adults have a biological connection to the child would increase the likelihood that the parents would identify with the child and be willing to sacrifice for that child and it would reduce the likelihood that either parent would abuse the child.”

(Sara McLanahan and Gary Sandefur, Growing Up with a Single Parent: What Hurts, What Helps, (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1994), p. 38)

Source

[edit on 23-2-2010 by FortAnthem]

reply to post by ACTS 2:38


Fair enough, but the study is almost twenty years old.

I'm not attempting to remove any validity, obviously it was a study and they found certain results.

From the study:

Same-sex couple families
The 2000 Census revealed that out of 5.5 million cohabiting couples, about 11 percent weresame-sex couples—with slightly more male couples than female. One-third of female same-sexhouseholds and 22 percent of male households, or about 163,000 same-sex households in total,lived with children under 18 years old.40 (This compares with about 25 million married-couplehouseholds with children under 18.)

Although the research on these families has limitations, the findings are consistent: children raised by same-sex parents are no more likely to exhibit poor outcomes than children raised by divorced heterosexual parents.41 Since many children raised by gay or lesbian parents have
undergone the divorce of their parents, researchers have considered the most appropriate comparison group to be children of heterosexual divorced parents.42

Children of gay or lesbian parents do not look different from their counterparts raised in heterosexual divorced families
regarding school performance, behavior problems, emotional problems, early pregnancy, or difficulties finding employment.43 However, as previously indicated, child

So effectively they are comparing Gay couples to divorced couples for some reason, which I dont' understand.

But according to the research they would be in that same category of children of divorced heterosexual couples. Which today is 50%?

So really there is no real difference..

~Keeper

Originally posted by Wertdagf
In a more educated and non idiotic society.... marrige would be a meaningless institution.

Who needs the stupid vows... if you keep your promises in the first place.

vow
   /vaʊ/ Show Spelled[vou] Show IPA
–noun
1.
a solemn promise, pledge, or personal commitment: marriage vows; a vow of secrecy

who need a promise if you keep your vows

Furthermore, as far as I am concerned, so long as you raise your children in an environment of love, understanding and give consistant opportunity for growth and development, it doesn't matter who raises the children.

This is how my kids were raise, they are all honor students and contributing members of society.

Perhaps my family is a "Unicorn" in the study sense of the word when it comes to statistics, but the proof is in puddin'.

~Keeper

I have a few issues with this article and the first being that the author calls the nature of marriage "divinely ordained". Right off the bat we are into a debate of religious morality and not facts. Since this article is based off of Christianity let's take a look at another statement that the author makes

...marriage is the lifelong union of one man and one woman for the purpose of begetting, rearing and educating children.

Ok, if this is the case then why did God see it fit to allow several prominent men to have more than one wife? Just to name a few Lamech, Abraham, Jacob, David, and Solomon all had more than one wife. Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines and God even said that if David needed more wives or concubines he would give them to him.

So, at best we have a case where God allowed marriage to be something different in the past than what it is today. When the cornerstone of your argument is based on waffling religious documents your position is invalid.

There is so much dogmatic spill in this article I could go on all day pulling it apart but, there is no need.

reply to post by FortAnthem


Alright.

• “Overall, father love appears to be as heavily implicated as mother love in offsprings’ psychological well-being and health.”

This suggests nothing about biological father or mother, nor about the necessary sources of the father-love or mother-love; just the ideas of "father-love" and "mother-love." A high school sports coach can act as a father figure in this regard.

Most of the other quotes have similar flaws. Further, your quot eis a list of quotes from other studies, which are not actually linked to and at least one of which I had a bit of trouble finding, though I wasn't looking very hard. These quotes are not given very much context and there is no reason, without actually going to the studies themselves to think that these blanket statements actually mean what they seem to mean.

It's incredibly unfortunate that the pro-same-sex-parenting side in the debate you link to does not cite any sources. I don't have time to do the research (I probably shouldn't have spent so much time here...), but I hope someone who does will find the data on same-sex-raised children.

reply to post by Solasis


You asked for studies proving children are raised best in a 2 parent household and I provided the info.

If you go back to my list, I have been able to provide links to most of the quoted material.

reply to post by FortAnthem


Actually I don't think it was always about children. I think it was more about slavery of the wife. Marriage probably dates back to a time when women were more or less property and marriage was merely to secure exclusive sexual rights to a woman.

I for one think marriage itself is a barbaric religious practice that is no longer needed. Let the religious have marriage and make the legal version be called something else like Civil Union or Registered Couple or something like that.

How many marriages are ending in divorce these days? Those numbers alone should prove that marriage is no longer relevant to modern society. But I guess if we're gonna keep marriage for now, let whoever wants to get married get married.

Maybe it used to be related heavily to kids and the preservation of family units and such but now there are so many custody battles because of marriage, all its doing is hurting society.

"Natural Law" is not the only theory that describes laws and why they are rational or just. Utilitarianism and other schools come into play.

Your religious or personal beliefs may not recognize gay "marriage" but that does not mean gay people should be able to have a "civil union" that gives them all the rights of married people. As it stands, gay people have to put up with tons of headaches because they do not have the same legal rights as heterosexual couples.

A utilitarian approach to marriage would be to allow gay people to have all the rights as heterosexual people with respect to marriage. This would streamline many processes gay couples have to go through like probate, separation, and filing a tax return. As it now stands, it can be very expensive for gay couples to do things as simple as filing a tax return or writing a will that provides for their significant other.

reply to post by BlackJackal


There is not one instance where God whose name is Jesus condones the act of having more than one wife

Gen.2

1. [24] Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

right from the get go he say they shall one flesh, notice that the term is man and not men and wife and not wives.

Every time in the Bible that a man had more than one wife the man had much trouble in his life.

One man one woman

reply to post by ACTS 2:38


God's name is not Jesus. In your own thing, Jesus is the name of one aspect of God. Yahweh, the god of the Old Testament, is the name of another aspect of God.

reply to post by hotpinkurinalmint


Documentation of that will thing because with a will you can leave your worldly belongings to your cat,

Tax returns bah why? File separately like many married couples do.

Create a civil union with a lawyer and probate becomes not and issue.

As for separation walk out the door, like married couples do.

Originally posted by ACTS 2:38
reply to post by BlackJackal

 

There is not one instance where God whose name is Jesus condones the act of having more than one wife

I beg to differ....

2 Samuel 12:8

Then Nathan said to David, “You are the man! This is what the Lord, the God of Israel, says: ‘I anointed you king over Israel, and I delivered you from the hand of Saul. I gave your master’s house to you, and your master’s wives into your arms. I gave you the house of Israel and Judah. And if all this had been too little, I would have given you even more.

bible.logos.com...=2%20Sa%2012%3A8%2Chi%3D2%20Sa%2012%3A8-2%20Sa%2012%3A8&ver=NIV

reply to post by poedxsoldiervet


Sorry! no offense intended, i was trying to refer to the argumnet of natural law marriage as a poor argument. I dont think there is anything wrong with your argument and im sorry for the poor phrasign of my post.