Should marriage be preserved?

[civver_764]

The marriage rate is at an all time low, as can be seen here:

Spoiler :

At the same time, the out of wedlock birth rate has skyrocketed:

Spoiler :

Similarly, the rate of children being raised by single parents has also been increasing:

Spoiler :

When I was a teenager, the message I got from society was that marriage was a bad idea. A significant number of my friends had parents who were divorced. I thought to myself, "what's the point?"

But, data suggests that children fare best when raised by a stable marriage. Consider the following:

• Children raised in intact married families are more likely to attend college, are physically and emotionally healthier, are less likely to be physically or sexually abused, less likely to use drugs or alcohol and to commit delinquent behaviors, have a decreased risk of divorcing when they get married, are less likely to become pregnant/impregnate someone as a teenager, and are less likely to be raised in poverty. ("Why Marriage Matters: 26 Conclusions from the Social Sciences," Bradford Wilcox, Institute for American Values, www.americanvalues.org/html/r-wmm.html)
  
  
• Children receive gender specific support from having a mother and a father. Research shows that particular roles of mothers (e.g., to nurture) and fathers (e.g., to discipline), as well as complex biologically rooted interactions, are important for the development of boys and girls. ("Marriage and the Public Good: Ten Principles," 2006, www.princetonprinciples.org)
  
  
• A child living with a single mother is 14 times more likely to suffer serious physical abuse than is a child living with married biological parents. A child whose mother cohabits with a man other than the child's father is 33 times more likely to suffer serious physical child abuse. ("The Positive Effects...")
  
  
• In married families, about 1/3 of adolescents are sexually active. However, for teenagers in stepfamilies, cohabiting households, divorced families, and those with single unwed parents, the percentage rises above 1/2. ("The Positive Effects...")
  
  
• Growing up outside an intact marriage increases the chance that children themselves will divorce or become unwed parents. ("26 Conclusions..." and "Marriage and the Public Good...") * Children of divorce experience lasting tension as a result of the increasing differences in their parents' values and ideas. At a young age they must make mature decisions regarding their beliefs and values. Children of so called "good divorces" fared worse emotionally than children who grew up in an unhappy but "low-conflict'"marriage. ("Ten Findings from a National Study on the Moral and Spiritual Lives of Children of Divorce," Elizabeth Marquardt, www.betweentwoworlds.org)

So this begs the question, as the marriage rate continues to decline, should there be concern about reversing that trend? If so, what factors are causing this decline, and how should they be countered?

 

[yung.carl.jung]

Divorce is a great thing. Every divorce that did not or does not happen because of stigma/pressure/laws/religion where a man or a woman suffer(ed) is a complete tragedy that can sometimes go on for a lifetime. A literal lifetime of suffering. A functional marriage can be a beautiful thing, a toxic one an equally vile thing.

People make decisions, sometimes they don't work out. Atleast nowadays both women and men are ready to stand up and admit they ****** up and can move on with their life. That takes a big amount of courage and is the only respectable decision in a toxic, abuse or simply destructive relationship, for both the partners and their direct surroundings.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

I think there's a big difference between unmarried parents and single parents. All the points you raised are to do with single parent families and stepfamilies. I don't think this should be conflated with families where the parents are simply unmarried.

 

[Ryika]

I think we should give up on the idea of "parenthood" and let the state do the work, because let's face it - why let damn ROOKIES do the job, when we could also industrialize the system and train professionals to do it properly? Especially when it frees people to live their lives however they want*.

(*unless they want to be full-time parents)

So here's what I propose:

- Outlaw private parenting. Parents can visit their children on weekends if they want, other than that, they have nothing to do with their children
- To advance our species, parents with particularly good traits get money for reproducing (but no penalty for bad traits, as that would be cruel)
- Put the children together in like, groups of 10, have professional workers who do 6 hours a day, in groups of 4 each, ideally with a 50/50 gender split

And there we go. No more spoiled brats, children with special needs will be found early on and can get the specialized help they need asap, we've founded a ton of new jobs, parents are free do enjoy their lives without having to care for the children they've put into the world, and our species even becomes more intelligent in the process.

 

[civver_764]

I think there's a big difference between unmarried parents and single parents. All the points you raised are to do with single parent families and stepfamilies. I don't think this should be conflated with families where the parents are simply unmarried.

Well I would argue that two biological parents who make the commitment to stay together for the good of their children is basically a marriage, whether or not they have the legal status to go along with it.

There is also this to consider:

Spoiler :

- Outlaw private parenting. Parents can visit their children on weekends if they want, other than that, they have nothing to do with their children.

There is no way in hell I would ever be ok with that. Why would anybody have kids if they didn't get to spend time with them?

 

[BvBPL]

Why would anybody have kids if they didn't get to spend time with them?

You should try the process of making children sometime. It is quite enjoyable.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Well I would argue that two biological parents who make the commitment to stay together for the good of their children is basically a marriage, whether or not they have the legal status to go along with it.

Erm... well that would be redefining words wouldn't it? Which is something I'm sure you're generally not a fan of.

 

[Ryika]

There is no way in hell I would ever be ok with that. Why would anybody have kids if they didn't get to spend time with them?

That's how people think now, wait a few generations, then we're at the point where people are okay with it.

Of course, if you want to nurse children in that society, then you can just apply to become a professional at childcare. Can't be assigned to your own children of course, as that would likely lead to a bias towards them, at the expense of the others of that group, but you can care for 10 children at once, and unlike now, you only have to do it 6 hours a day, so the whole thing about stressed parents has been solved, too.

 

[El_Machinae]

Absolutely marriage should be preserved. It's a great thing.

I don't know if Americans pay an unmarried tax like Canadians do. But there's that incentive already.

We need to remove welfare subsidies for being unmarried. Live with your kid? Get a cheque. None of this "If one parent vanishes, you get a cheque" bs

Marriage is awesome. Not for everyone. But it's awesome

 

[Berzerker]

data suggests that children fare best when raised by a stable marriage

How do children fare in unstable marriages? I imagine quite a few marriages are so unstable the children would be better off orphans, with relatives, or with the better of the two parents

 

[civver_764]

That's how people think now, wait a few generations, then we're at the point where people are okay with it.

Of course, if you want to nurse children in that society, then you can just apply to become a professional at childcare. Can't be assigned to your own children of course, as that would likely lead to a bias towards them, at the expense of the others of that group, but you can care for 10 children at once, and unlike now, you only have to do it 6 hours a day, so the whole thing about stressed parents has been solved, too.

Do you have data to suggest that children fare better when raised by "professionals" rather than their biological parents? Aren't you ignoring millions of years of hardwired incentives to care for one's own children? Who decides how these professionals are trained? Do the parents get to pick and choose which "professionals" they send their children to?

 

[Ryika]

Do you have data to suggest that children fare better when raised by "professionals" rather than their biological parents?

Because such a thing has never been done, no, of course not. But it makes sense as a concept.

Aren't you ignoring millions of years of hardwired incentives to care for one's own children?

Not really. Before Civilization, the "two-partner childcare"-thing as we know it today did not exist. What is hardwired is that we want our children to thrive, if we know they're taken care of by people much better at the job than we are, then that should be fine.

Who decides how these professionals are trained?

The government of course, who else could be trusted to want the best for our children? They need them as the laborers of the future after all.

Do the parents get to pick and choose which "professionals" they send their children to?

Yes, and this is important. Groups get extra pay based on how many people want their children to be sent there, so good work is being rewarded.

 

[schlaufuchs]

Do you have data to suggest that children fare better when raised by "professionals" rather than their biological parents? Aren't you ignoring millions of years of hardwired incentives to care for one's own children? Who decides how these professionals are trained? Do the parents get to pick and choose which "professionals" they send their children to?

I imagine it would be hard to say because orphanages and foster care rarely receive sufficient funding.

@Valessa: it sounds like you're essentially proposing an expansion of the British boarding school system.

 

[Berzerker]

Do you have data to suggest that children fare better when raised by "professionals" rather than their biological parents? Aren't you ignoring millions of years of hardwired incentives to care for one's own children? Who decides how these professionals are trained? Do the parents get to pick and choose which "professionals" they send their children to?

children were/are raised by mothers and extended families and the troupe or clan and I imagine fathers didn't do too much raising in our related species

 

[Tahuti]

Divorce is a great thing. Every divorce that did not or does not happen because of stigma/pressure/laws/religion where a man or a woman suffer(ed) is a complete tragedy that can sometimes go on for a lifetime. A literal lifetime of suffering. A functional marriage can be a beautiful thing, a toxic one an equally vile thing.

People make decisions, sometimes they don't work out. Atleast nowadays both women and men are ready to stand up and admit they ****** up and can move on with their life. That takes a big amount of courage and is the only respectable decision in a toxic, abuse or simply destructive relationship, for both the partners and their direct surroundings.

Although it ought to be an individual decision, I personally wouldn't think as lightly about divorce when children are involved. I was such a child, though I lucked out I didn't have memories about it so the damage to be done was limited already.

 

[civver_764]

Not really. Before Civilization, the "two-partner childcare"-thing as we know it today did not exist. What is hardwired is that we want our children to thrive, if we know they're taken care of by people much better at the job than we are, then that should be fine.

But what if a parent thinks they're the best for the job?

The government of course, who else could be trusted to want the best for our children? They need them as the laborers of the future after all.

Lol.

Yes, and this is important. Groups get extra pay based on how many people want their children to be sent there, so good work is being rewarded.

And then presumably they could choose not to use professionals at all?

children were/are raised by mothers and extended families and the troupe or clan and I imagine fathers didn't do too much raising in our related species

I'm interested to learn more about this, do you have any sources?

 

[EnglishEdward]

Getting married used to be amongst other things a way of saying one was heterosexual. But now that it's meaning has changed, that purpose was lost.

The way I see it divorce is so favourable to women, men are deterred from marrying them, so marriage is being increasingly left to the gays and lesbians.

And when I was summoned in to an ante-natal class thirteen years ago; I was told off for referring to my wife as my wife as the SJWs hate male-female marriage.

Moderator Action: This is not the place to talk about how "the gays" have ruined marriage and being heterosexual. - Vincour
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Ryika]

But what if a parent thinks they're the best for the job?

+

And then presumably they could choose not to use professionals at all?

Then we make sure it's frowned upon by society. Social pressure fixes the problem.

 

[civver_764]

+

Then we make sure it's frowned upon by society. Social pressure fixes the problem.

Well now you're just contradicting yourself. First you say the parents will naturally prefer this then you say they need to be pressured into preferring this?

 

[EnglishEdward]

And I thought you were right-wing.

Tell me Valessa; were you yourself raised in such a commie creche?