Family Matters (long version)

Blogger's note: The article presented here was originally authored 2013-2014, with some revisions made since then -- Les Govment

FAMILY MATTERS

Reviving the family is essential to society's future 

by Les Govment

133 views

 
If you are middle-aged or older, you’ve probably noticed that the traditional, biological family isn’t as tenacious as it was in the past. Certainly, there still are good, tight-knit families in America. But families in general aren't as cohesive as families used to be.

 
The decline of the traditional family spans several decades, and a variety of things-- including personal, cultural, and political culprits-- have contributed to that downward slide. However, I’m not going to go into detail here about the causes of the decline of the family. For now, it’s sufficient to say that the sexual revolution and some elements of the feminist movement certainly played roles in weakening the family.

 
We can see the disheartening evidence of the weakened condition of many families throughout our society: a high number of one-parent households, domestic violence, absent parents, cross-dressing children, cyber-bullying, flash-mobs of teenagers robbing stores, rioting and looting, college kids who can't handle hearing opposing views, ad nauseam.

 
We are on a path to becoming a dysfunctional society.

Every Child Deserves A Good Mother And Father

 
It’s well established that the best social structure to raise a child in is the traditional, biological family. Therein, a child can experience the benefits of having both a father and a mother, and all that they can provide: sustenance, love, guidance, protection. It’s also beneficial for a child to have siblings, which gives a child a chance to experience peer relationships with adult supervision. Inevitably, such families will have conflicts within them, but life in a good family will provide experiences for a child that cultivate things like affection and respect for others, self-discipline, a sense of self-worth, and a good work ethic.

 
Unfortunately, too many children in America are missing out on the advantages of being raised in a good family. Child abuse and spouse abuse are problems that exist in too many households. Another problem is inadequate moral guidance from parents-- and it's a problem that is rather widespread, too (hint: public schools and day-care centers can't be depended on to supplement or take the place of parental guidance). Also, there has been a huge increase in the number of one-parent households. In 1960, only about 10% of all children under 18 years of age in the U.S. were being raised in one-parent households. By 2016, that number had increased to about 30%-- over 22 million kids.

 
One-parent households come about through a variety of ways.

 
Some one-parent households come to be through the misfortune of one parent passing away prematurely or getting killed in an accident-- which leaves the widowed spouse stuck with being a single parent (and faultless in that, of course).

 
Another way that one-parent households come to be is through births outside of marriage-- there are well over a million babies born annually in the U.S. to single females. (Obviously, males are involved in conceiving those babies. While some single males do take on their responsibilities toward the mother and child, all too many do not. It’s also reasonable to place some of the blame for the high out-of-wedlock birthrate on government hand-out programs, which can create an extra incentive for unattached females of low income to have babies and thus become eligible for, or get an increase in, government assistance.)

A third way that one-parent households come about is through divorce.

 
I’m not going to throw a blanket of condemnation over everyone who has been divorced. Obviously, it’s perfectly legitimate to get divorced when one is in a situation where there is ongoing spouse abuse or child abuse. Sexual infidelity on the part of one’s spouse can also be grounds for divorce. And there might be other unique circumstances under which divorce can be justified. But the high divorce rate in the U.S. serves as evidence that marriage hasn’t been taken seriously enough by many Americans.

 
The problems that prompt people to consider divorce are varied. Some couples might find that they’re poorly matched-- possibly the result of marrying in haste. In other cases, personality conflicts can develop over time within marriage. Other couples might quarrel a lot about money matters. And I’m sure there are plenty of other reasons why couples consider divorce. But when children are involved, a couple should try to save their marriage, because getting divorced will likely have a negative effect on their kids-- particularly in cases where the children have lived with both parents for several years.

I’ve raised the issue of single parenting mainly to stress that a single parent’s best efforts usually can’t equal the best efforts of a mother-and-father couple. Nearly one out of three kids live in one-parent households, so there is a need to discourage out-of-wedlock pregnancy (primarily by fostering sexual abstinence among teens and young single adults), and a need to promote lifelong commitment in marriage.

 
I don’t endorse government intervention to accomplish those goals; I choose persuasion instead.

 
Our ability to reproduce carries with it vast responsibilities; therefore, the reproductive act should be treated in kind and marital commitment should be taken seriously. So, I encourage people to rediscover the value of sexual abstinence outside of a marital commitment. I urge single females to shun the trend of getting pregnant and having babies outside of marriage (but I don't support abortion toward that end). I encourage those who are married to exercise the necessary practice of compromise, and the worthy trait of forgiveness. I urge couples to try to solve the problems that come up along the way, instead of walking out on each other.

Defining Marriage

 
In addition to the need for stronger families, it’s also important that we properly define the family’s cornerstone: marriage.

 
The proper definition of marriage isn't determined by state legislatures; nor is it determined by what you or I tell pollsters. It's determined by human nature.

 
Opposite-sex marriage has been around in some form or another for millenniums, and the reason for that is unmistakable: heterosexual mating is firmly ingrained in human nature. In contrast, the concept of same-sex marriage has been foreign to humans for practically the entire history of the human race.

 
One-man/one-woman mating has a biological basis and is undoubtedly the result of intelligent design. The companionship of a member of the opposite sex can be quite beneficial to a person psychologically and emotionally-- which has a lot to do with why most people seek a mate, fall in love, and eventually marry at some point in their lives. In establishing a spousal relationship, a man and a woman bring together much more than just their physical characteristics; they also bring to each other the psychological and emotional traits typical of the biological sex each was born as. Their complementary traits have a direct influence on the differing roles they fill as they go about their daily lives. Human sexuality isn’t only about reproduction; it’s also about fostering marital closeness. Sexual intimacy isn’t just highly pleasurable; it also works to bond partners. That bond-- in the context of a mutual love-- is a feature of a good marriage.

 
Same-sex relationships don’t fulfill that formula.

 
In human nature, there isn’t any provision for same-sex mating. So-called "marriage equality" is a faulty political mantra that has been parroted by people who have overlooked the fact that the personal relationship concept of same-sex marriage doesn’t have any basis in human biology-- thus they are in conflict with science in this matter. Whether or not same-sex attraction is biologically-acquired is irrelevant to this discussion because, regardless of how same-sex attraction is acquired, homosexual relationships lack the psychological and physical complementarities that together form the basis of a truly marital relationship (attempts by some gays to mimic opposite-sex complementarity notwithstanding). Same-sex partners can’t “complete” each other (in the opposite-sex sense) in the psychological realm, and they can’t become “as one” physically through genital coupling and in a face-to-face manner like a male and female. To be more specific about becoming “as one” physically, there isn’t any such thing as same-sex sexual intercourse. Gay females don’t have any natural way to join together in intercourse. As for gay males, anal sex doesn't equate to sexual intercourse because the rectum is part of the digestive system-- it isn't a sex organ.

 
Clearly, human nature doesn’t support the concept of same-sex mating/marriage.

 
Since marital relationships are rooted in human nature, marriage-- like choosing friends-- is a natural right. I don’t see a need for government involvement in marriage. (Birth certificates can be used to establish legal obligations toward children.)

 
My negative view of government involvement in marriage (which I developed years before gay marriage became an issue) serves as my secondary reason for rejecting same-sex marriage. I disagree with those among my fellow libertarians who support same-sex marriage. Same-sex marriage is a liberal concoction. The libertarian ideology opposes unnecessary government involvement in people’s personal lives. Civil same-sex marriage is an expansion of unnecessary governmental involvement in adult relationships.

 
Some people have argued that same-sex marriage is needed, in part, so that gays don’t get discriminated against concerning various matters. I agree that gays have had some legitimate concerns, such as visitation rights at hospitals. Also, gays are sometimes targeted victims of crime (and wrongly so). But gays currently are not widely targeted victims of illegitimate discrimination in American society. (Author’s note: It’s perfectly legitimate for an entrepreneur to choose to not provide goods or services for a project or an event; that’s not the same as refusing to sell groceries to a person. A wedding is an event, not a person. Without any moral justification, some gays have initiated legal actions against business owners who, for religious reasons, chose to not provide goods or services for the plaintiffs’ weddings/receptions. The Thirteenth Amendment makes it perfectly clear that all Americans-- and that includes people who own businesses-- have a right to turn down requests for their services, as they see fit. No one has a constitutional obligation to service gay weddings or admit gay couples into a bed-and-breakfast; any court rulings or laws to the contrary are unconstitutional, and are inherently unjust.)

 
Government has failed to maintain the integrity of marriage. Just as divorce has already weakened marriage, the establishment of civil same-sex marriage will ultimately further weaken the institution. I’m not making the baseless claim that a gay couple’s “marriage” hurts the marriages of heterosexuals. That’s not an issue. The real problem should be self-evident: widespread acceptance of same-sex marriage will further weaken marriage as an institution, by critically distorting its meaning and diminishing its value in the minds of many, particularly in the minds of kids, teens and young adults.

 
I don’t plan to campaign to get state governments out of marriage, but I must insist that since government didn’t invent the spousal relationship, it lacks the moral authority to redefine marriage-- dictatorial rulings by federal courts and the constitutional illiteracy of five Supreme Court Justices notwithstanding.

 
I do believe that government should stay out of the bedrooms of consenting adult gays-- what they do in private is their own business. But homosexual relationships are not the same as heterosexual relationships. A marital relationship necessarily involves both sexes. A gay relationship excludes one sex, and thus is not marital in nature. 

Gay Adoption

 
(Author’s note: My following comments on the topic of adoption aren't meant to disparage gays-- I simply support what is best for children in need of adoption.)

 
The expansion of marriage licensing to include same-sex relationships raises a greater concern: gay adoption.

 
The American College of Pediatricians has concerns about gay parenting and is an advocate of father-and-mother parenting:

 
"The family environment in which children are reared plays a critical role in forming a secure gender identity, positive emotional well-being, and optimal academic achievement. Decades of social science research documents that children develop optimally when reared by their two biological parents in a low conflict marriage. The limited research advocating childrearing by same-sex parents has severe methodological limitations."

 
No one really knows how many children in the U.S. live in gay-led households-- estimates range from hundreds of thousands to several million or more. In any case, the nationwide establishment of civil same-sex marriage will likely eventually lead to a sizable increase in the number of children adopted by gays. I think it would be a regrettable moral failure for society to allow that.

 
One reason why we as a society should disallow adoption by gays has to do with parental example during childhood. Children are quite impressionable, and they learn much through example. Younger children in particular are imitators and will mimic things done in their presence by the adults in their lives. So it’s important for children to have parents who are not models of anomalous romantic behavior. Children should be spared the confusion of things like seeing their two “mothers” smooching or their two “fathers” smooching, for instance. It might seem like a trivial matter for children to be exposed to things like that, but the cumulative effect of such things likely won’t be trivial when puberty starts. Let’s not forget that young, impressionable, developing minds are at issue.

 
Another reason why gay adoption shouldn’t be allowed has to do with parental guidance through the sexual development years. All kids need guidance as they go through the changes they encounter during the period formed by puberty and adolescence. They should be given age-appropriate sex education by their father or mother, not by school teachers. (Note: In saying “age-appropriate” I mean starting sex-ed at something like 10-11 years of age; I do not mean starting at kindergarten age.) Adolescents should also be given guidance in treating members of the opposite sex with proper respect (much of that guidance imparted through example). Gay partners-- because of their sexual orientation and because they are both the same sex-- are, at minimum, compromised in the task of properly guiding heterosexual kids through puberty/adolescence. Also, if an adult gay was actually born gay, he, or she, presumably didn’t personally experience heterosexual puberty and adolescence, and therefore lacks an important parenting asset.

I’m not demonizing gays here, and I’m not trying to demonize them. I’m simply pointing out that certain aspects of the homosexual life are incompatible with raising children. Children in need of adoption deserve to go to married heterosexual couples (good couples) because that aligns with the norm imbedded in human nature.

 
Adoption isn’t supposed to be about fulfilling the lives of adults. The adoption process should always maintain what’s in the best interests of the children. People should have to fulfill certain requirements in order to be allowed to adopt, and normative sexual orientation (heterosexual) should be one of several requirements. Normal gender identity (cisgender) should also be required. Furthermore, gay adoption should not be treated like a civil rights issue by the courts, because there isn’t any such thing as a constitutionally-guaranteed right to adopt. 

Conclusion: Better Families Needed

 
The human race consists of two sexes, each sex having its own set of nature-based, gendered traits. (Note: only a miniscule percentage of people are born with a biologically-based intersexual condition). Adhering to the natural method, it takes one male and one female to conceive a child. Love, commitment and the sexual bond-- combined with good morals-- are basic ingredients of a good marriage. In turn, a good marriage is the cornerstone that’s needed to build and maintain a good, cohesive, traditional family-- ultimately contributing to a better society.

 
Our country is currently in a decades-long, family-eroding cultural decline that bears the fingerprints of some badly bent liberal thinking in a variety of places-- particularly in education and entertainment. Those of us who know the value of having a good mother and father should do what we can to make the traditional family a stronger and more revered part of American culture again-- not by pursuing a litany of government mandates, but through moral resolve, example and persuasion. // 

 
ABOUT THE AUTHOR: The author was born and raised in the USA, and is a life-long libertarian-moralist with no party affiliation. He opposed the Gulf War and the Iraq War and favors a non-interventionist foreign policy. 

© 2021 Les Govment

..