With children no longer the universally accepted reason for marriage, marriages are going to have to exist on their own merits.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
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.
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.
I'm not that big a fan of marriage as an institution and I don't know why women need to have children to be seen as complete human beings.
People shouldn't stay married because of the kids. That's torture for everyone.
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.
Marriage encourages the men and women who together create life to unite in a bond for the protection of children.
A hundred years ago, if you had a child out of marriage, you'd be a social disgrace. Today women feel comfortable enough economically and culturally to bring up a child without a recognized commitment from a man.
It's hard enough to be in a marriage and then have a kid, then kids: it changes everything.
The institution of marriage, if you look at it over many centuries, has come and gone.
I think marriage is only necessary if you've got children. It's quite nice for them.