‘Old rules’ about marriage obsolete? No, and here’s why

On March 25, 2012, The Salt Lake Tribune editorialized on “Marriage reality: Old rules becoming obsolete.” To understand the chasm separating its reality from truth, it would be helpful to deconstruct its opinions.[pullquote]The culture war today is between those worldviews that see the natural family as an injustice and those that see the natural family as the source of all happiness.[/pullquote]

The Tribune’s editorial begins,

“There was a time when marriage was necessary for the very survival of the family.”

There also was a time when males and females were born and began to bond socially and physically. We call that time “in the beginning.”

“At least most people believed that to be true and perpetuated the theory.”

Most people, at one time, believed the Earth to be flat but sailed and sailed across the seas and never fell off the edge. And, yet, nearly every human being, then and now, marries. Marriage never seems to go away. A “theory” of marriage? The Earth thought to be flat is a theory. Global warming is a theory. Marriage between a man and a woman as the foundation of the natural family is truth proven since the beginning of human history. 

“Women were not allowed to make their way independently, and both they and their children needed the financial support of a man.”

If the Tribune is still describing human beings in marital bonds and families, neither have men been allowed to make their way independently. Of course, breaking those bonds and destroying a family through divorce creates “independence.” But for many single mothers, another man has simply taken over their financial support. His name is Uncle Sam.

“Having sex before marriage was a risky venture, because it could make a woman less desirable, and an unmarried woman’s future was usually bleak. Children produced outside of marriage were almost certainly doomed to a low social status and poverty.”

In other words, little has changed. Sex outside of marriage is still risky, an unmarried woman’s future remains relatively bleak in terms of happiness, and children produced outside of marriage today are among the lowest achievers educationally, financially, productively, emotionally and in terms of health.

All of these prefatory words from the Tribune editorial board lay the groundwork to simply say this:

“Perhaps those archaic realities and the tendency of some people (mostly men) to cling to the strictures of the past have led to such desperate measures as Utah’s HB 363.”

Ah, yes, that evil “no-sex” education bill.

“It would have stupidly elevated ignorance about sexuality to the law of the land. But refusing to instruct young Utahns in the facts about sex, contraception, homosexuality and other realities will not stem the tide of inevitable changes in the social fabric.”

First, and for the millionth time, removing the teaching of contraception in public schools is about ignorance only if ignorance is measured by the absence of information taught within public schools. And, in that case, the entire public school system is a vast sea of ignorance because its curricula do not teach all things known to man. For instance, Utah’s public schools don’t teach how to load a gun and play Russian roulette. It leaves that sort of play to be taught elsewhere. Likewise, schools could easily leave the teaching of contraception to Planned Parenthood and other proponents of Russian roulette-like sexual practices.

Second, the best thing Utah’s public schools can teach to “stem the tide of inevitable changes in the social fabric” championed by the Tribune is to avoid its worldview like a plague. The worldview expressed within this Tribune editorial has led to more human misery and suffering than the world’s wars in human history combined. (Wow! Did I really say that? Oh yeah, wait … no, I’m right because not only has that worldview destroyed the sacred and stable bonds of marriage within families as the fundamental unit of every free society, but the breakdown of the natural family and the resulting social and economic dysfunctions have led to the most monstrous and evil systems of governmental tyranny known to man.)

The secular materialism taught within this Tribune editorial is a disease that has plagued mankind for centuries. (Start the drum roll of progressives screaming about how religion is the greatest blight, the greatest murderer and the most oppressive force ever known to mankind. But there is good religion. There never has been good secular materialism.) And our public schools should seek to avoid giving our children diseases, right? Maybe there’s a prophylactic to protect against this Tribune editorial? Maybe our Utah schools should be required to teach “comprehensive intelligent education”? Maybe there’s a way to teach “safe thinking”?

“A new study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention shows that about 60 percent of American couples now live together before marriage.”

The Tribune forgot to mention the high rate of divorce among those relationships.

“Not only are many people having sex before marriage, they are setting up homes together that are as permanent as those established after a ceremony.”

Two thoughts: (1) the latter point is not true and (2) did people not have premarital sex in times past?

The problem of ideology, exemplified in the Tribune editorial, is that it seeks a nonexistent ideal in the name of “reality,” even if the “reality” cited is dysfunction. The Tribune is asking readers to set aside the “archaic” system clung to by desperate men (i.e., virtue, fidelity, self-control, marriage and family) and replace it with a system of dysfunction (i.e., humans are mortal, hence they screw up, so let’s accept that we’re all screwups and embrace the dysfunction) because, of course, it’s the honest thing to do. To embrace our dysfunctions is a matter of integrity.

“The nuclear family is becoming just one of many types of healthy family structures, even if conservative Utah legislators and church leaders want to ignore the fact.”

That’s clever phraseology. The Tribune makes it sound like the state Legislature doesn’t recognize the fact that the nuclear family is a healthy family structure. Of course, what the Tribune is saying is that other “family” structures are just as healthy – which is another lie. The best family structure – the best for men, women and children in their human development and progress – is the natural family of a man and woman bonded by marriage, bearing children and tied to generations past and future. Period. Any other family structure is less than, not equal to and certainly not better.

The people within these other structures may very well be equal to and even better in many cases, but the natural family structure has no equal – at least if your goal is peace, prosperity, freedom and human happiness.

The culture war today is between those worldviews that see the natural family as an injustice and those that see the natural family as the source of all happiness.

This entry was posted in Family, Marriage and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.
  • 1deb

    The effort by the Utah Legislature to remove the confusion about ‘safe sex’ by offering the only safe sex alternative of abstinence only was heroic. I am disappointed in the governor for not having the courage to allow it to become law. For people who are from dysfunctional families, which was the biggest reason for offering ‘safe sex’, about the only place they could come to for the truth of the matter is the schools. Everywhere else in our saturated society preaches ‘safe sex’, which is an oxymoron. The Federal Government already makes ‘safe sex’ info available at taxpayer expense, as does Planned Parenthood.

    The Center for Disease Control (CDC) and the National Institute for Health (NIH) have declared that we are experiencing a hidden epidemic of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs)–hidden because 85% of the time there are no symptoms, and despite reports that 67% of sexually active teens are using condoms. The NIH reports, “…condoms at best, reduce the risk of HIV and Gonorrhea in men, but for all other STD’s, there is insufficient evident that condoms reduce the risk at all.” The number of STD’s has grown from 2 in the 1960’s to around 25 presently, and strains are mutating and becoming resistant to antibiotics. There are 20 million STD’s contracted annually, half of those to people under the age of 25.

    For teenaged girls, 46% get HPV the first time they have sex. The vaccination for HPV does not cover all strains of the disease and lends to a sense of false security. Genital Herpes can be transmitted to unborn children and can cause damage to the brain, leading to death or severe mental retardation and pain.

    Oral sex is not safe sex. Any STD you can get from vaginal sex you can get from oral sex. Research is showing a cause/effect relationship between teen sex and suicide, and suicide is the third leading cause of death among teens. 

    With these statistics, Abstinence Only makes a lot of sense, and teens are responding when they are taught this information, instead of the false information of ‘safe sex’.

    Another very related issue is your comment that Uncle Sam becomes the provider instead of the husband/father. There are too many monetary incentives to single women to have children, which is resulting in 40% of our population being born under these circumstances. As you have pointed out, this does not lend to these children having the stability and opportunities necessary for them to be able to develop their potential, their natural interests and strengths. I was told of a 13-year-old girl who was living in an inner city, pregnant, and declaring that she was going to have as many children as she can until she is 20 years old. Then she’ll be set for life, living off the largesse of public funds coming in, purportedly for the support of her children, never needing to go to school, to work, to improve herself and develop her innate talents. This is not freedom, it is tragedy. 

  • 1deb

    The effort by the Utah Legislature to remove the confusion about ‘safe sex’ by offering the only safe sex alternative of abstinence only was heroic. I am disappointed in the governor for not having the courage to allow it to become law. For people who are from dysfunctional families, which was the biggest reason for offering ‘safe sex’, about the only place they could come to for the truth of the matter is the schools. Everywhere else in our saturated society preaches ‘safe sex’, which is an oxymoron. The Federal Government already makes ‘safe sex’ info available at taxpayer expense, as does Planned Parenthood.

    The Center for Disease Control (CDC) and the National Institute for Health (NIH) have declared that we are experiencing a hidden epidemic of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs)–hidden because 85% of the time there are no symptoms, and despite reports that 67% of sexually active teens are using condoms. The NIH reports, “…condoms at best, reduce the risk of HIV and Gonorrhea in men, but for all other STD’s, there is insufficient evident that condoms reduce the risk at all.” The number of STD’s has grown from 2 in the 1960’s to around 25 presently, and strains are mutating and becoming resistant to antibiotics. There are 20 million STD’s contracted annually, half of those to people under the age of 25.

    For teenaged girls, 46% get HPV the first time they have sex. The vaccination for HPV does not cover all strains of the disease and lends to a sense of false security. Genital Herpes can be transmitted to unborn children and can cause damage to the brain, leading to death or severe mental retardation and pain.

    Oral sex is not safe sex. Any STD you can get from vaginal sex you can get from oral sex. Research is showing a cause/effect relationship between teen sex and suicide, and suicide is the third leading cause of death among teens. 

    With these statistics, Abstinence Only makes a lot of sense, and teens are responding when they are taught this information, instead of the false information of ‘safe sex’.

    Another very related issue is your comment that Uncle Sam becomes the provider instead of the husband/father. There are too many monetary incentives to single women to have children, which is resulting in 40% of our population being born under these circumstances. As you have pointed out, this does not lend to these children having the stability and opportunities necessary for them to be able to develop their potential, their natural interests and strengths. I was told of a 13-year-old girl who was living in an inner city, pregnant, and declaring that she was going to have as many children as she can until she is 20 years old. Then she’ll be set for life, living off the largesse of public funds coming in, purportedly for the support of her children, never needing to go to school, to work, to improve herself and develop her innate talents. This is not freedom, it is tragedy. 

  • Pingback: Another strike against cohabitation: mom’s boyfriend can be deadly | Sutherland Daily()