We can look at the arc of life, and see the influence of family on an individual throughout her or his life. Should ideal conditions be the rule, or the exception? We all hope for the best, so we can examine the ideal. It is not that difficult to achieve.
The ideal conditions for entry into mortal existence are birth into a family consisting (at least) of one’s biological mother and father. Circumstances do not always allow for this ideal, but it is still the best condition. Having both sources of one’s DNA present in the home provides ample identity, psychological clothing many Americans lack. Seeing a man and a woman, two disparate creatures in form and thought and appetite, exemplifying mutual tolerance and flexibility and adaptation to each others’ needs, cannot help but benefit their children. Learning how to get along with others who see things in a different way is a critical life skill.
Shooting words at children is far less effective than displaying actions in front of them. When a child sees parents exchanging affection, all is right in that child’s world. The quality of parents’ relationships determines many things about how their children will develop on a fundamental, emotional level. Are others trustworthy? How should I treat them? What goals should I have in life? What should my marriage and family look like? A close look at the relationship of a person’s parents will explain a lot about how he or she answers these questions.
As long as Mom and Dad stay together, it provides an emotional sense of security, as well as very tangible, demonstrable physical and financial security, for a child. Dad’s physical presence wards off potential threats. The sense of identity created by parents’ strong, loving relationship deters kids from falling prey to enticements like gang membership and drug addiction. A host of social ills can be traced back to absentee fathers; when Mom and Dad stay together many problems their children face are halted at their roots.
It is a sacrifice for Mom and Dad to stay together. Yes, there is joy and love and romance as well, but marriages are contracted at altars, those ancient places of sacrifice, for a reason. Family is not just about “me, me, me.” It entails enduring discomfort on each others’ behalf. When a man and a woman stay together to raise their children and care for each other, and ignore temptations to wander, commit adultery, or play incessantly, they do more than benefit their kids—they benefit everyone their kids will contact in the future. Telling kids to do the right thing and sacrifice for others is not enough; more often than not altruism must be exemplified before they will adopt it. The sacrifices involved in marriage and child-rearing pay dividends for society at large.
As kids turn into teens, the intense burden of sexuality slams onto their shoulders. What will they do with all that instinctive energy? Get pregnant? Impregnate someone else? Have sex indiscriminately? Get tattoos and piercings and listen to horrendous noisy music to drown out the incessant tapping of conscience? Having parents with a healthy sexual relationship, who discuss procreation and sex openly and frankly with their children, protects those children in two ways. First, it protects them from shame, which leads to acting out in secret and hiding sexuality. Second, it gives them a sense that everything they are experiencing is normal, and that self-restraint is healthy and completely possible, too.
In young adulthood, body and brain catch up with sexuality, and then marriage becomes a realistic option. If sex is taken out of its family context, viewed primarily as self-indulgent recreation, then it is more likely to happen during teen years, without any lasting commitment. When sex is seen as a central element of family life, between two life-long committed, exclusive partners, then kids will wait until they are adults. They will see the reality that the main point of sex is begetting children, and see this as a blessing, not just an inconvenience or a burden. Sacrificing on behalf of others is already ingrained in people who watched their parents exemplify it.
As children start having their own children, the first generation becomes grandparents, happy babysitters. Who are these wrinkled, gray strangers who smell funny and dole out candy? Grandkids do not care, as long as love and goodies keep appearing. They see the kindness between their parents and their grandparents, and instinctive inklings about intergenerational love begin to form in their minds. They will understand fully such strong love and devotion themselves when they enter young adulthood, and later learn about parental feelings from their own experience.
Roles reverse as Grandma and Grandpa age. The original caregivers need care themselves. Children and grandchildren come back to visit and share love. The luckiest kids, children or grandchildren, get to sit with Grandma and Grandpa and listen to their stories about past family members. This serves to further strengthen a sense of identity, mission, purpose, and potential in successive generations.
Finally comes the funeral, a family reunion where first, second, third, and maybe even forth generations come to cry and rejoice and reunite and remember and bond with each other.
Does all this seem oversimplified, unrealistic, and idealized? Does it sound like a fairy tale to your jaded, cynical, modern mind?
It is not unrealistic. I have watched all of these things unfold in my own extended family. It is within reach of anyone who has a body healthy enough to procreate, and a spouse who wants these things, too. Maybe it seems unrealistic because the main ingredient, aside from sex and love and following pre-programmed genetic tendencies, is the steady application of one unpopular virtue: altruism, or self-sacrifice.
Begetting children instead of preventing them or aborting them? Sacrifice. Staying with your spouse instead of divorcing or cheating or shopping around? Sacrifice. Raising children instead of putting them up for adoption? Sacrifice. Dealing with frustrated, frustrating teens? Sacrifice. Paying for a reception, giving those kids away when they find the right person? Sacrifice. Babysitting grandkids? Sacrifice. Caring for aging parents? Sacrifice. “Great Big Self” has to take a back seat in order to achieve all this idealistic stuff I have described. Loyalty begets sacrifice, and sacrifice begets more loyalty, which strengthens trust and creates a safer space for love.
As I said, I have seen it all in real life, in my own family.
Motivation
Whether a bride and groom begin life together asking, “What’s in it for me?” or place each others’ needs above their own, if their relationship is to continue for very long the primary question they must soon begin to ask is, “How can I help my spouse and kids?” The best thing for children is to be raised by the woman and man who physically begot them. Even with a selfish start, longevity in marriage and family comes from a willingness to put others first.
What happens when we base our definitions of marriage and family on less altruistic motives? What happens when marriage licenses (de facto adoption/parenting licenses) are distributed on the basis of selfish concerns rather than asking what will be most beneficial for the next generation?
Though traditional male-female marriages may or may not begin with self-serving attitudes, they tend to serve the next generation far better than contrived substitutes.
To declare that male-male, or female-female relationships are an adequate replacement for two biological parents is to officially detach sex from its family context, and from accountability for the use of procreative powers. Why be wise or unselfish when deploying the power to procreate? Why expect biological parents to be actual parents? A handful of people in America’s highest court have overturned the will of the majority, and answered those questions with a resounding (if inadvertent) “It Doesn’t Matter.” The demand that biological mothers and fathers assume responsibilities and roles of parenthood has been officially curtailed.
The opposite of the altruistic attitude necessary for keeping families stable is a self-serving, what’s-in-it-for-me mentality. Those who are possessed with this mindset are unprepared and unwilling to step into those inconvenient, even embarrassing roles. In the absence of real biological parents, whom do we assign? If we want to mimic nature, we would assign another loving male and female to assume responsibility of orphaned kids.
Instead, some want a man and a man, or a woman and a woman, to take over that role originally filled by a man and a woman together. What was the leading question that prompted this change? Was it, “what is best for the kids?” No, it was, “what will make the adults feel good about themselves?” It may make homosexual partners feel good to be given parenting licenses by the government, but it will not be as good for their children (by extension, all of society) as to have both biological parents present, married, and loving each other in front of the next generation. Whenever guardians are male-male, or female-female, necessarily one or both biological parents are missing from a child’s life. (Or the child has different groups of guardians sharing confusing custody arrangements, which is selfishness unfurled.) The argument is for equality, but equality really does not exist as far as procreation and parenthood are concerned.
Now the desires of adults take precedence over the needs of children.
Misapplying labels, calling any group a “family,” may cover it with cuddly, warm feelings, but it will not endow it with the same strength that a traditional nuclear family has. People have many rights, but the instant “reproductive rights” and parenting enter the picture, we are talking about creating a new person who has rights as well. Children have the right to be raised by their biological mother and father.
Marriage between a man and a woman is still the best source for healthy, well-adjusted, law-abiding citizens. No institution contrived by governments or science can adequately replace it (though there have been a few failed attempts—separating children from parents makes them more susceptible to government brainwashing. A subservient populace is the stock ambition of wicked and perverse political leaders in all generations).
Modern prophets and Apostles have given this caution: “…we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets” (The Family: A Proclamation to the World, 1995). You might think of this as a threat that fires and earthquakes and other natural disasters will destroy us if we tamper with God’s definition of family. This may be true, but it is also likely that self destruction will be the main “calamity” we face initially. Deliberately depriving children of one or both biological parents is asking for trouble.
“We call upon responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family (married couples begetting kids) as the fundamental unit of society” (The Family: A Proclamation). The rights and entitlements of adults end where the needs of children, of the next generation, begin. We are now conducting a massive social experiment at their expense, to serve relatively few adults who want to enjoy the label of “equal,” whether or not what they have to offer as parents actually is equal. Dead-beat dads and mothers who want to put children up for adoption have been given tacit approval to neglect their parenting responsibilities.
An unwillingness to ask tough questions about the future, shortsightedness, is also a characteristic of selfishness. Does it matter whether biological parents raise the next generation? Does it matter what we call a “family?” Is any group of people qualified to replace a traditional nuclear family and raise other people’s children? What will be the impact and long-term ramifications of redefining marriage and family this way? In all the war of words about legalizing homosexual versions of marriage, few (if any) bothered to ask these pertinent, legitimate questions. We will all be forced to deal with the answers to these questions, the consequences, whether or not we are prepared, and whether or not the answers are pleasant or convenient. We do not live in a vacuum; I feel the right to express myself on this subject because everyone, even the unborn of the next generation, will ultimately be affected by it.
“Truth will cut its own way” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 313), meaning that we need not shove the truth in other people’s faces—inevitable consequences will force everyone to acknowledge truth eventually. But I would rather not get in the way when it starts cutting.
“The devil has great power to deceive; he will so transform things as to make one gape at those who are doing the will of God” (Teachings, p. 227). It is in the misapplication of virtues that we find the greatest support for gay marriage. Virtues such as open-mindedness, willingness to try new things, generosity, kindness, and empathy are all likely motivators for its acceptance. But there is a hierarchy of virtues, and concern for what is best for the next generation should trump concern for the immediate desires of adults.
If we see the primary purpose of marriage as serving adults, then denying marriage licenses to anyone will seem cruel. If we see the primary purpose of legally recognizing marriage as assigning guardianship for the next generation, as creating a safe landing place for kids before they are even born, and ultimately serving society at large, then limiting the legal definition of marriage to one man and one woman will not seem strange or bigoted at all.
