Until now, we have reviewed that (1) there is no scientific evidence for a homosexual gene (2) European adventures in legitimizing homosexual ‘marriages’ proved disastrous for the monogamous heterosexual marriages. If you have read the articles (website links) which were given along with the brief review, you would be ready for this third series. Why should society protect and encourage monogamous heterosexual marriages?

 


To answer the question- why should society protect and encourage monogamous heterosexual marriages, we introduce a distinguished scholar Maggie Gallagher.  Maggie Gallagher is a graduate of Yale University. She is the co-author of the much acclaimed book The Case for Marriage: Why Married People Are Happier, Healthier, and Better-Off Financially. The co-author of this book is Linda Waite Professor at the University of Chicago. This book received two positive reviews from the Harvard University. Thereafter, Harvard University Press decided to publish the book. However, due to the stiff opposition from fanatical feminists, Harvard University Press changed its decision (speak about the freedom of expression!!!).

Argument 1: Monogamous Heterosexual Marriages are the Best Suited for Children

Maggie Gallagher and Joshua K. Baker in a paper titled Do Mothers and Fathers Matter? The Social Science Evidence on Marriage and Child Well-Being argues that benefits of monogamous heterosexual family are immense for the children. The advantage is not just over homosexual ‘families’ but even over the other forms of ‘family’ like co-habitation.

They write: Twelve leading family scholars recently summarized the research literature this way: “Marriage is an important social good associated with an impressively broad array of positive outcomes for children and adults alike. . . . [W]hether American society succeeds or fails in building a healthy marriage culture is clearly a matter of legitimate public concern.” Among their conclusions:

  • Marriage increases the likelihood that children enjoy warm, close relationships with parents.
  • Cohabitation is not the functional equivalent of marriage.
  • Children raised outside of intact married homes are more likely to divorce or become unwed parents themselves.
  • Marriage reduces child poverty.
  • Divorce increases the risk of school failure for children, and reduces the likelihood that they will graduate from college and achieve high status jobs.
  • Children in intact married homes are healthier, on average, than children in other family forms.
  • Babies born to married parents have sharply lower rates of infant mortality.
  • Children from intact married homes have lower rates of substance abuse.
  • Divorce increases rates of mental illness and distress in children, including the risk of suicide.
  • Boys and young men from intact married homes are less likely to commit crimes.
  • Married women are less likely to experience domestic violence than cohabiting and dating women.
  • Children raised outside of intact marriages are more likely to be victims of both sexual and physical child abuse.

One may ask: but what about a few studies which points out that there is no difference between children in a homosexual family (adopted) with children in a heterosexual family. Gallagher and Baker answer that too. They point out that the sample data for these studies has been children from single parents or heterosexual families where there is a clear domestic violence.

The comparison ought to have been with the best of monogamous heterosexual families with the best of homosexual ‘families’. Whenever the comparison has been with the best with the best, monogamous heterosexual families had a huge advantage over any other form of families.

In summary we can say that it is not just two people irrespective of gender or man and many women (polygamy) that makes the best of the family but it is the family that consist of a man and a woman that makes the best of the family for children.

Argument 2: Monogamous Heterosexual Marriage is Best Suited for Adults

In an interview given to www.womenof.com, Gallagher and Waite summarized the gist of their research findings.

The empirical evidence points to the fact monogamous heterosexual marriages are the best institution for even adults.


Here are the excerpts from the interview.

Q. How big a difference does marriage make?

Maggie: It can be the difference between life and death. Take long life for example, we did a study looking at people in late middle age and tracked them as they married, divorced, remained single or died. What we found is astonishing. Take two 48-year-old men. Make them as alike in terms of income, family background, etc. as you can, except that one is married and the other is not. What is the likelihood these men will still be alive at age 65? The answer is that 9 out of 10 married guys will make it to 65, but only six out of 10 single guys. That’s amazing. Three out of 10 guys lose their lives if they lose their wives. For women you also see powerful effects, just not quite as large. Nine out of 10 wives will make it to age 65, but only eight out of 10 single or divorced women will live to collect social security.

Q. You say marriage makes people happier—how can it do that?

Linda: If you ask people in a survey how happy they are in general, married people say they are happier than unmarried people. They are less likely too be lonely or depressed, or to abuse drugs or alcohol than single people, and all of these problems lead to unhappiness. And married people always have someone who cares about them to talk to.

Q. But isn’t it true that marriage is good for men, but bad for women’s mental health?

Maggie: No, it’s not true actually. Both married men and women are mentally and emotionally healthier, on average, than their single counterparts. We’ve even tracked couples into marriage, looking at their initial mental health status, and watched what happens when they marry. It's not just that happier, healthier people marry: getting married actually boosts your happiness and reduces signs of mental distress.

Linda: And getting unmarried makes things worse.

Full text can be read here http://www.womenof.com/The_Case_for_Marriage_A_conversation_with_the_authors-Article.aspx


Let us summarize the arguments in this article- as an institution monogamous heterosexual marriages suits the best for both children and adults. It thus performs a function which is irreplaceable by any form of any other institution. Therefore society must protect and encourage monogamous heterosexual marriages.

Society in turn has also a responsibility to discourage anything that destroys the monogamous heterosexual families. Allowing homosexual ‘families’ destroys monogamous heterosexual families as we have seen in the second article in this series. Therefore society must not allow homosexuals to form ‘families’.

We highly recommend and encourage everyone to take sometime and read the researched articles of Gallagher http://www.marriagedebate.com/ssm.php

 

  {moscomment}