Why should we continue to believe in marriage?

[thewanderer]

Any? Ok, my mother was divorced, and yes, it was hard for her as a single parent. She did remarry when I was 13, but she doesn’t regret the time that it was just us. I think that’s actually one of the reasons that I have a more honest and closer relationship with my mom than most people. (She was never a helicopter parent though.)

My fiance’s parents divorced when he was 11, and he’s glad they did. He was still very close to both parents, but he got more one on one time with each and his house was far more peaceful after his parents stopped living together.

Don’t paint everyone with the same brush. Many of us had wonderful childhoods and great families, even if they weren’t traditional.

I think you’re misreading the post. I think pretty much everybody would agree that ideally they would have preferred to have lived in an intact family, and it is proven that broken families lead to many emotional and psychological wounds in children that last well into adulthood and even their future attempts at relationships. Does that mean that every child who grew up in a broken home will be a mess and have lived through a miserable childhood? Of course not. I come from a broken home and definitely do not think of my childhood as miserable and absolutely agree with my mothers decision to separate from my dad, it was the best for all of us. That doesn’t change the fact that intact marriages are better environments for children.

 

[styrgwillidar]

One of my favorite quotes, it’s from the movie ‘Secondhand Lions’

Sometimes the things that may or may not be true are the things a man needs to believe in the most. That people are basically good; that honor, courage, and virtue mean everything; that power and money, money and power mean nothing; that good always triumphs over evil; and I want you to remember this, that love… true love never dies. You remember that, boy. You remember that. Doesn’t matter if it’s true or not. You see, a man should believe in those things, because those are the things worth believing in.

 

[EasterJoy]

Marriage is incredibly important for the proper care and raising of children. Ask any sane but divorced single parent. Ask any child victim of divorce.

I know children of divorce who feel very strongly that they were most victimized by how long it took their mother to get away from her abusive spouse. But yes, those same children know that while they were better off without the father they had, they deserved to have had the love and support of a good father. It’s just that the fullness of what they needed wasn’t one of their mother’s options.

The mom who does her children good by getting away from their dad is the proverbial exception that is the proof of the rule.

 

[thewanderer]

I know children of divorce who feel very strongly that they were most victimized by how long it took their mother to get away from her abusive spouse. But yes, those same children know that while they were better off without the father they had, they deserved to have had the love and support of a good father. It’s just that the fullness of what they needed wasn’t one of their mother’s options.

The mom who does her children good by getting away from their dad is the proverbial exception that is the proof of the rule.

This!

 

[BlueEyedLady]

I think you’re misreading the post. I think pretty much everybody would agree that ideally they would have preferred to have lived in an intact family, and it is proven that broken families lead to many emotional and psychological wounds in children that last well into adulthood and even their future attempts at relationships. Does that mean that every child who grew up in a broken home will be a mess and have lived through a miserable childhood? Of course not. I come from a broken home and definitely do not think of my childhood as miserable and absolutely agree with my mothers decision to separate from my dad, it was the best for all of us. That doesn’t change the fact that intact marriages are better environments for children.

I honestly don’t. I never wanted a dad or missed having one. As a kid I loved that it was just me and my mom. I had an older brother who lived on his own and a doting grandmother, but that was it. I really wouldn’t have preferred it any other way. When I look at the people I know who come from traditional families I definitely feel like I came out on top.

My husband and his siblings were all much happier after their parents divorced. Neither parent was abusive at all, but when they got divorced they both had more time and energy for their kids and there wasn’t any fighting. He liked having two homes and being able to drift between them at will.

Yep, there are divorce and single parent horror stories out there. But there are a lot of people who wouldn’t change a thing about how they were raised and don’t take it as a given that they would have been better off with two married, biological parents.

 

[shainski]

Mother Teresa said:

People are often unreasonable, irrational, and self-centered. Forgive them anyway.

        If you are kind, people may accuse you of selfish, ulterior motives.  Be kind anyway.

        If you are successful, you will win some unfaithful friends and some genuine enemies.  Succeed anyway.

       If you are honest and sincere people may deceive you.  Be honest and sincere anyway.

        What you spend years creating, others could destroy overnight.  Create anyway.

        If you find serenity and happiness, some may be jealous.  Be happy anyway.

        The good you do today, will often be forgotten.  Do good anyway.

     Give the best you have, and it will never be enough.  Give your best anyway.

     In the final analysis, it is between you and God.  It was never between you and them anyway.

I think it is a fallacy to remove institutions in our lives because they don’t always work out to an ideal. Yes, people are imperfect. marriages are imperfect - many fail.

Isn’t it true that what’s causing marriage to fail is not a loss of moral values, but rather a loss of economic incentive to remain married? (I have asked this in several other threads but got no significant response.)

So you believe that people get married BECAUSE of an economic incentive? I have a hard time believing that would be most marriages - or even a significant minority. In fact, the cost of divorce is probably significant enough that there is economic incentive to remain married.

And you say that there are lots of children born out of wedlock. Unfortunately that is true. Can you cite anything - anything at all - that would say that children born out of wedlock have any advantages because of it?

So, you want to say that it is unnatural to only desire one mate for life. If that is true - then even with a high divorce rate - at least half of the people overcome their “biological drives” for something that they feel is superior.

Just because something doesn’t always work - is not a good reason to scrap it. I can’t think of anything that always works. You wouldn’t take a job because you could get fired - or the company could fail. You wouldn’t make friends - because you may have a falling out.

 

[EasterJoy]

I honestly don’t. I never wanted a dad or missed having one. As a kid I loved that it was just me and my mom. I had an older brother who lived on his own and a doting grandmother, but that was it. I really wouldn’t have preferred it any other way. When I look at the people I know who come from traditional families I definitely feel like I came out on top.

My husband and his siblings were all much happier after their parents divorced. Neither parent was abusive at all, but when they got divorced they both had more time and energy for their kids and there wasn’t any fighting. He liked having two homes and being able to drift between them at will.

Yep, there are divorce and single parent horror stories out there. But there are a lot of people who wouldn’t change a thing about how they were raised and don’t take it as a given that they would have been better off with two married, biological parents.

How do you know that you have not missed anything? How are you so sure that your mother never missed having the father of her children to help her bear the burden of parenting a family and to share the joy of seeing them grow to adulthood? I don’t know anyone with a good father who does not feel they owe him a huge debt. Do you know anyone with a father or husband who loved them and supported them, but then died an untimely death, who said, “Eh, we did OK, his death didn’t matter one way or the other. It was like when the dog died; once I got over the initial shock I never really missed him.”?

Maybe you don’t know anyone whose dad really fulfilled his vocation as a husband and father? I hope that is not true; it would be very sad.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

How do you know that you have not missed anything? How are you so sure that your mother never missed having the father of her children to help her bear the burden of parenting a family and to share the joy of seeing them grow to adulthood? I don’t know anyone with a good father who does not feel they owe him a huge debt. Do you know anyone with a father or husband who loved them and supported them, but then died an untimely death, who said, “Eh, we did OK, his death didn’t matter one way or the other. It was like when the dog died; once I got over the initial shock I never really missed him.”?

Maybe you don’t know anyone whose dad really fulfilled his vocation as a husband and father? I hope that is not true; it would be very sad.

Uh, of course I do. But no, I don’t think I missed anything. I’ll call it an even trade. I didn’t have a father so my mom, grandma, and brother all banded together to give me the best life possible. They were very careful to make sure that I was exposed to things traditional to both genders, they made sure that I got enough one on one attention, they made sure that i learned what I needed to know. I have a closer relationship with my family than most “traditional” families I know. I think it’s because my mom knew that she had to be more conscientious to make sure I had what I needed.

 

[EasterJoy]

Uh, of course I do. But no, I don’t think I missed anything. I’ll call it an even trade. I didn’t have a father so my mom, grandma, and brother all banded together to give me the best life possible. They were very careful to make sure that I was exposed to things traditional to both genders, they made sure that I got enough one on one attention, they made sure that i learned what I needed to know. I have a closer relationship with my family than most “traditional” families I know. I think it’s because my mom knew that she had to be more conscientious to make sure I had what I needed.

I mean that a person is more than what they do for you. They are also what they are to you. But yes, I expect you understand better what a mother and brother and grandmother are than most of us do, because yes, to be family is not to concern yourself with what your role is, but with what your family needs.

Still, that we can live without a spleen doesn’t make a spleen a vestigial organ. That seems to be what people are arguing fathers are–unnecessary, because it is possible to survive without one. I hope you’re not arguing along those lines.

 

[CaliLobo]

I think the replies are getting are based on an assumption that married couples raise happier, better-adjusted children. But that is simplistic.

Is that assumption still true if the married couple is fighting and unhappy? We know BlueEyedLady, and all of my friends who have grown up under divorced parents, have done just fine.

And as for me, there are times I wish that my parents had divorced. My parents would’ve been happier. But old-fashioned shame and need to uphold a promise has kept them from doing so.

It is also a big Catholic assumption that breakdown of marriage will lead to the decline of society. But we have seen that countries that have adopted gay marriage have not suffered the negative consequences that traditionalists feared. And there are many cohabiting but stable couples that raise children just fine. Last time I checked, life in Europe is still happy.

And we all know that 33% of American children, and a majority of black American children, are born out of wedlock, but so what? How do we know marriage would have helped them? Would it have helped the children if their parents married later? Of course not, as the parents were never fully compatible for marriage to begin with.

Humans are resourceful and will find ways to take care of those children too. Those children grow up just fine in the grand scheme of things.

There are many articles on the out-of-wedlock birthrate among blacks. But none of them say that it’s due to a decline of religion or moral values among blacks.

It can’t be put in black-and-white that marriage makes families better. Every family situation is different, and from what I’m seeing in CAF there are times when divorce is warranted and needed.

Sometimes divorce makes families better.

Sometimes a good family can be made without marriage.

So why is marriage still relevant?

And the fearmongering about population decline is not necessary; humans are not going extinct anytime soon, and besides, a population decline will be beneficial to the natural environment that God has created.

 

[CaliLobo]

Another thing is that male-female marriage does not address the reality that many homes these days are NOT traditional nuclear families. Here is a great excerpt from BeyondMarriage.org:

Marriage is not the only worthy form of family or relationship, and it should not be legally and economically privileged above all others. A majority of people – whatever their sexual and gender identities – do not live in traditional nuclear families. They stand to gain from alternative forms of household recognition beyond one-size-fits-all marriage. For example:

· Single parent households

· Senior citizens living together and serving as each other’s caregivers (think Golden Girls)

· Blended and extended families

· Children being raised in multiple households or by unmarried parents

· Adult children living with and caring for their parents

· Senior citizens who are the primary caregivers to their grandchildren or other relatives

· Close friends or siblings living in non-conjugal relationships and serving as each other’s primary support and caregivers

· Households in which there is more than one conjugal partner

· Care-giving relationships that provide support to those living with extended illness such as HIV/AIDS.

The current debate over marriage, same-sex and otherwise, ignores the needs and desires of so many in a nation where household diversity is the demographic norm. We seek to reframe this debate. Our call speaks to the widespread hunger for authentic and just community in ways that are both pragmatic and visionary.

 

[EasterJoy]

Another thing is that male-female marriage does not address the reality that many homes these days are NOT traditional nuclear families. Here is a great excerpt from BeyondMarriage.org:

Marriage is not the only worthy form of family or relationship, and it should not be legally and economically privileged above all others. A majority of people – whatever their sexual and gender identities – do not live in traditional nuclear families. They stand to gain from alternative forms of household recognition beyond one-size-fits-all marriage. For example:

· Single parent households

· Senior citizens living together and serving as each other’s caregivers (think Golden Girls)

· Blended and extended families

· Children being raised in multiple households or by unmarried parents

· Adult children living with and caring for their parents

· Senior citizens who are the primary caregivers to their grandchildren or other relatives

· Close friends or siblings living in non-conjugal relationships and serving as each other’s primary support and caregivers

· Households in which there is more than one conjugal partner

· Care-giving relationships that provide support to those living with extended illness such as HIV/AIDS.

The current debate over marriage, same-sex and otherwise, ignores the needs and desires of so many in a nation where household diversity is the demographic norm. We seek to reframe this debate. Our call speaks to the widespread hunger for authentic and just community in ways that are both pragmatic and visionary.

If you are saying that
a) we have a legal situation where people are taking societal benefit from civil marriage with no repercussions if they do not contribute in their marriages in the way that society foresaw when marriage was given these benefits in the first place AND
b) that meanwhile other people who may not marry but who do deserve and need certain of these benefits as much as a married couple, but cannot get them

you will not find a quarrel from me and I don’t think you’ll find a quarrel from the Church. Since the advent of no-fault divorce and contraception, there is little compelling a heterosexual couple to give any benefit to society at large in exchange.

I found it very telling, however, that when there was a push for civil unions in my state of Oregon, and the local Archbishop said he would back it if it were open to all adults in situations of mutual care that could not marry–to include, for instance, siblings and others who were not in a sexual relationship–the gay lobby rejected that! They wanted to be treated the same as heterosexuals, but they did not want people who weren’t having sex to get treated the same as them! So let us not pretend that this is a simple issue of justice. It is not. The issue of gay marriage is a push to recognize homosexual relationships and homosexual relations to be not just equally permissible under the law, but having both equal and the same status.

Honestly, though, I think it is a matter of time before some single people go to the courts and complain that the preferential treatment given by the government to people in sexual relationships is unfair to them, because society at large does not realize a benefit from couples when “marriage” is defined as it has come to be defined: meaning, when marriage laws do not actually encourage procreation to take place chiefly within marriage, nor does it keep nuclear families together after a couple has children. The way things are going, I do not know what shred of defense is going to be left in favor of the institution of civil marriage.

The answer to that is not to eliminate marriage. The answer to that is to re-visit marriage laws and what is required of married couples, starting with no-fault divorce.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

I mean that a person is more than what they do for you. They are also what they are to you. But yes, I expect you understand better what a mother and brother and grandmother are than most of us do, because yes, to be family is not to concern yourself with what your role is, but with what your family needs.

Still, that we can live without a spleen doesn’t make a spleen a vestigial organ. That seems to be what people are arguing fathers are–unnecessary, because it is possible to survive without one. I hope you’re not arguing along those lines.

I’m not arguing that fathers are unnecessary anymore than mothers are. I just don’t buy into the superiority of the traditional nuclear family. I just believe that any stable home with devoted caregivers and a solid support system is best for children. More often than not the most stable homes do have a married mother and father, but there are families and situations that are in fact just as good. The push to get back to “traditional” families makes my skin crawl, and I don’t think that in our current society it’s even realistic. What I am in favor of is working to make sure that even nontraditional households are healthy, happy places for children.

 

[EasterJoy]

I’m not arguing that fathers are unnecessary anymore than mothers are. I just don’t buy into the superiority of the traditional nuclear family. I just believe that any stable home with devoted caregivers and a solid support system is best for children. More often than not the most stable homes do have a married mother and father, but there are families and situations that are in fact just as good. The push to get back to “traditional” families makes my skin crawl, and I don’t think that in our current society it’s even realistic. What I am in favor of is working to make sure that even nontraditional households are healthy, happy places for children.

I’m the opposite. I see all these people going out and planning to give birth to a child–or having someone give birth to a child for them!–with the explicit plan of denying the child one of that child’s parents, not to mention the child’s other siblings and relatives, and I think it’s like they’re getting themselves a puppy. It’s not like fate took that child’s parent and half their extended family away from them. It’s not like fate makes a woman into an incubator, carrying a child with the intention of taking it from her as if she were a domesticated animal. No, it is an adult’s decision that took that child’s parent away. The adult wants the child but does not want the child’s other parent or does not want the woman who carried the child, and what the adult wants wins. This is entirely different than going into marriage with the intention of raising children as an integral part of a gift of self to both the child and the child’s other parent, and having that intention denied through no fault of your own, and finding yourself solely responsible for the child’s welfare. This is even different from taking responsibility for having unintentionally brought a child into a relationship which did not have the moorage of marriage to keep it together. It is treating children like chattel, and I don’t know why it garners the sympathy that it does. To tell a child, “I am going to take it upon myself to decide that you don’t need one of your parents and you don’t need those blood relatives, because I have plans of my own that don’t include them” seems incredibly arrogant to me.

Because children have become chattel and even Christians have decided that their bodies are for their own pleasure instead of for the glory of God, you may be right a change of heart in our society is not very likely. And yes, I agree that the good that is attainable and necessary is preferable to the good that is also necessary, but not attainable. You did deserve to have a relationship with your dad, but Heaven bless your hero of a mother, because by her generosity the loss of the birthright of a loving father did not leave you without the greater birthright of knowing without a doubt that you are loved, that you are irreplaceable, and that your loss does not leave you anything less than the image of Himself that God made you.

 

[styrgwillidar]

I’m the opposite. I see all these people going out and planning to give birth to a child–or having someone give birth to a child for them!–with the explicit plan of denying the child one of that child’s parents, not to mention the child’s other siblings and relatives, and I think it’s like they’re getting themselves a puppy. It’s not like fate took that child’s parent and half their extended family away from them. It’s not like fate makes a woman into an incubator, carrying a child with the intention of taking it from her as if she were a domesticated animal. No, it is an adult’s decision that took that child’s parent away. The adult wants the child but does not want the child’s other parent or does not want the woman who carried the child, and what the adult wants wins. This is entirely different than going into marriage with the intention of raising children as an integral part of a gift of self to both the child and the child’s other parent, and having that intention denied through no fault of your own, and finding yourself solely responsible for the child’s welfare. This is even different from taking responsibility for having unintentionally brought a child into a relationship which did not have the moorage of marriage to keep it together. It is treating children like chattel, and I don’t know why it garners the sympathy that it does. To tell a child, “I am going to take it upon myself to decide that you don’t need one of your parents and you don’t need those blood relatives, because I have plans of my own that don’t include them” seems incredibly arrogant to me.

Because children have become chattel and even Christians have decided that their bodies are for their own pleasure instead of for the glory of God, you may be right a change of heart in our society is not very likely. And yes, I agree that the good that is attainable and necessary is preferable to the good that is also necessary, but not attainable. You did deserve to have a relationship with your dad, but Heaven bless your hero of a mother, because by her generosity the loss of the birthright of a loving father did not leave you without the greater birthright of knowing without a doubt that you are loved, that you are irreplaceable, and that your loss does not leave you anything less than the image of Himself that God made you.

With you on this. I’m a single Dad, there is no way I can model/be/provide to my children the things they would get from having both a Mom and Dad present in the home. I can not model the relationship between a man and women, husband/wife, to help develop their expectations for relationships in the future. As much as I try to provide stability for them-- which ironically precludes me getting into a relationship that would necessarily infringe on that stability in many ways- emotionally/financially etc.-- it is simply not the same. I get my kids around their grandparents, uncles and aunts to try and mitigate that, but it just isn’t the same as seeing the day-to-day give and take, respect and love in a relationship. The different genders do provide different things to a child. I can not be both man and woman.

That said, kids will believe their situation is normal since for their most impressionable years it is all they know. I do agree that it is better to have a child in a single parent home than witnessing abuse/violence/disrespect that will give them distorted or very low expectations for what relationships should be. As well as their physical and emotional well-being.

I had always hoped I would set the bar very high for what my daughters will expect from the men they meet, and be demanding of the qualities they will expect in whom they marry.

 

[PaulGH]

It is treating children like chattel, and I don’t know why it garners the sympathy that it does. To tell a child, “I am going to take it upon myself to decide that you don’t need one of your parents and you don’t need those blood relatives, because I have plans of my own that don’t include them” seems incredibly arrogant to me.

+1

I could not agree more. I don’t understand why surrogate motherhood, IVF, and artificial insemination are looked upon as noble and laudable ways to bring children into the world or into a family. I don’t understand how anyone can look at these situations and see something other than children being treated as commodities to satisfy the wishes of adults.

 

[EasterJoy]

With you on this. I’m a single Dad, there is no way I can model/be/provide to my children the things they would get from having both a Mom and Dad present in the home. I can not model the relationship between a man and women, husband/wife, to help develop their expectations for relationships in the future. As much as I try to provide stability for them-- which ironically precludes me getting into a relationship that would necessarily infringe on that stability in many ways- emotionally/financially etc.-- it is simply not the same. I get my kids around their grandparents, uncles and aunts to try and mitigate that, but it just isn’t the same as seeing the day-to-day give and take, respect and love in a relationship. The different genders do provide different things to a child. I can not be both man and woman.

That said, kids will believe their situation is normal since for their most impressionable years it is all they know. I do agree that it is better to have a child in a single parent home than witnessing abuse/violence/disrespect that will give them distorted or very low expectations for what relationships should be. As well as their physical and emotional well-being.

I had always hoped I would set the bar very high for what my daughters will expect from the men they meet, and be demanding of the qualities they will expect in whom they marry.

When they have not been abandoned by a spouse from a valid marriage–that is, when their spouse has died or their marriage was null-single parents can and do re-marry in ways that are not harmful to their children, and that in fact benefit both children and parents tremendously. The problem many Catholics run into is that there are too few others who want to marry someone without having a sexual relationship in the meantime, and that is particularly something that has to be avoided when one has children. I hope that you have an opportunity to perhaps meet someone who can be a wife to you and a mother to your children, though. Provided you are not bound by a marriage that was dissolved in civil court but cannot be dissolved in the eyes of God, it would not be any offense against your children to want that.

 

[PaulGH]

When they have not been abandoned by a spouse from a valid marriage–that is, when their spouse has died or their marriage was null-single parents can and do re-marry in ways that are not harmful to their children, and that in fact benefit both children and parents tremendously. The problem many Catholics run into is that there are too few others who want to marry someone without having a sexual relationship in the meantime, and that is particularly something that has to be avoided when one has children. I hope that you have an opportunity to perhaps meet someone who can be a wife to you and a mother to your children, though. Provided you are not bound by a marriage that was dissolved in civil court but cannot be dissolved in the eyes of God, it would not be any offense against your children to want that.

St. Thomas More came immediately to mind when I read this. He re-married after his first wife died. And I get the impression that a major reason for this second marriage was because it would benefit his children to have a step-mother.

(I am not intending to comment on styrgwillidar’s situation specifically, but just making a general comment about single parents marrying again if the first marriage is no longer binding.)

 

[marymary1975]

I honestly don’t. I never wanted a dad or missed having one. As a kid I loved that it was just me and my mom. I had an older brother who lived on his own and a doting grandmother, but that was it. I really wouldn’t have preferred it any other way. When I look at the people I know who come from traditional families I definitely feel like I came out on top.

My husband and his siblings were all much happier after their parents divorced. Neither parent was abusive at all, but when they got divorced they both had more time and energy for their kids and there wasn’t any fighting. He liked having two homes and being able to drift between them at will.

Yep, there are divorce and single parent horror stories out there. But there are a lot of people who wouldn’t change a thing about how they were raised and don’t take it as a given that they would have been better off with two married, biological parents.

Blue eyed lady I am a little confused with your post. First do you have a fiancee or a husband? In your first post you are saying that your fiancee’s parents are divorced then you talk about your “husband” so which one is it. You can’t be both married and not married at the same time so make up your mind, what it is?

Then you talk about having no dad when you say your mother was divorced. I am sorry, maybe comes from the fact that I am the child of a real single mother …not married and no father from day one…but I have severe difficulty seeing a divorced woman as a real single.mother and a.child of divorce as having no father. If your mother was married then you have a dad who was your mother’s husband and who was in your life until the divorce, so yes you have a dad. That your dad is an irresponsible man who didn’t do what he was supposed to do doesn’t mean that you didn’t have a father. Also bear in mind that there are many situations that arise from divorce as child support etc that give a divorce woman a totally different status than the one of a real single mother so I don’t agree with the view that you.didn’t have a father.

Obviously your situation was better with your parent’s divorced as what your situation really is about is highly irresponsible father who doesn’t take care of his kids. And obviously having one responsible parent is better than having a parent who is plain irresponsible and a bad example, but the fact that your father was an irresponsible person and your mother made the best of the situation doesn’t mean that that situation is the ideal scenario for a child.

 

[marymary1975]

+1

I could not agree more. I don’t understand why surrogate motherhood, IVF, and artificial insemination are looked upon as noble and laudable ways to bring children into the world or into a family. I don’t understand how anyone can look at these situations and see something other than children being treated as commodities to satisfy the wishes of adults.

I totally agree with both you and Easterjoy.