Certainly it may, under present imperfect conditions, often be a duty not to destroy the outward form of marriage for the sake of the children. But by no means can this duty be preached as universally binding.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
With children no longer the universally accepted reason for marriage, marriages are going to have to exist on their own merits.
The marriage of a man and woman is the most enduring human institution, honored in all cultures and by every religious faith. It's in this institution that children are meant to be nurtured. We know this after thousands of years of human experience.
And that is why marriage and family law has emphasized the importance of marriage as the foundation of family, addressing the needs of children in the most positive way.
For a healthy society, those laws and conventions should always support marriage as an institution characterised by an openness to children and the responsibility of fathers and mothers remaining together to care for children born into their family.
I don't know that human beings were meant to mate for life or be monogamous. But, for me, the aspect of marriage that is troubling is that it's a contract that is governed by the state, and I don't want the state to have control over my personal affairs.
My argument is simple, which is, that for several thousand years in Western civilization, marriage has been the union of one man and one woman. Research is overwhelming that children need mothers and fathers.
Marriage encourages the men and women who together create life to unite in a bond for the protection of children.
I think marriage is only necessary if you've got children. It's quite nice for them.
There is no doubt that, as a society, we have become blase about the importance of marriage as a stabilising influence and less inclined to prize it as a worthwhile institution.
Marriage cannot be severed from its cultural, religious and natural roots without weakening the good influence of society.
No opposing quotes found.