In today's culture, getting married is often not perceived as a positive course of action. Young people today are frequently advised by collective culture to postpone getting married for as long as possible. In fact, marriage at any age is becoming less of a conventional practice. Overall, it's becoming less encouraged by old and less desired by young. In this article, I'm going to address why marriage as a standard choice should be reprioritized and give several reasons that it should be the standard choice for humanity. In the first section, I will debunk several religious arguments which have been used to justify the decline of marriage. In the second section, I will detail the plethora of scientific, medical, physical, emotional, and statistical benefits marriage entails.
The Correct Conventional Choice
As a member of Generation Z, the independent, self-sufficiency freaks, I will likely be in treacherous territory by suggesting that marriage should be the standard choice for all people across the board as opposed to singleness or cohabitation. However, I am going to argue for marriage, nonetheless. Today, I submit to you the idea that, with the exception of supernatural gifting, marriage is the correct choice for every person born on God's green earth. In other words, marriage should be the conventional option for everyone, and it should be chosen by most.
For believers, there are two common counterarguments to the idea that marriage should be standard practice:
1. Paul's pro-singleness writings in 1st Corinthians chapter 7
2. The incorrect statement that "Jesus never married."
While it is true that Paul discusses singleness as a gift in his letters, as I will address shortly, it is not true that our Lord and Savior is unmarried.
According to the same Harvard Health publication, "married men have a lower risk of depression and a higher likelihood of satisfaction with life in retirement than their unmarried peers. Being married has also been linked to better cognitive function, a reduced risk of Alzheimer's disease, improved blood sugar levels, and better outcomes for hospitalized patients." (https://www.health.harvard.edu/mens-health/marriage-and-mens-health#:~:text=Men%20who%20have%20marital%20partners,advantage%20over%20his%20unmarried%20peers.). According to Robert H. Shmerling, Senior Faculty Editor for Harvard Health Publishing, "there is fascinating — and compelling — research suggesting that married people enjoy better health than single people." (https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/the-health-advantages-of-marriage-2016113010667#:~:text=That%20may%20be%20important%20because,average%2C%20compared%20with%20single%20people.). Shmerling argues that, compared to singles, married people: "live longer, have fewer strokes and heart attacks, have a lower chance of becoming depressed, [are] less likely to have advanced cancer at the time of diagnosis and more likely to survive cancer for a longer period of time, [and] survive a major operation more often." To quote another source, married women "are generally happier and less stressed than the unmarried." (https://www.jstor.org/stable/585665?seq=1).
Jesus is married to you.
For a believer, as the Bride of Christ, to argue that marriage should not be standard on the basis that Jesus is a bachelor would be highly illogical. Just as a wife cannot argue that her husband is single, the believer cannot argue that Jesus is unmarried. And while it is true that Jesus did not get married during His physical time on this earth, through his proposal on the cross, He painted a very important spiritual principle that should not be perceived as a mere "option" for us to recreate and illustrate in our lives if we wish (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kg0UfweQOyc&list=PLhZejCzDImAd-zTnkqUmec0x8QGd_OfIT&index=5). Marriage and family are the most accurate pictures of our relationship with God that we have, and they should not be presented as a mere possibility for the individual to choose if he or she so desires.
As for the second counterargument, Paul does indeed discuss the benefit of remaining unmarried and concerned with only the affairs of God (1st Corinthians 7:29-35 NIV). He even goes on to say, "He who marries the virgin does right, but he who does not marry her does better" (1Cor 7:38 NIV). However, before either of these statements have been made, Paul makes it clear that he has "no command from the Lord" regarding this issue, and, as Paul had previously alluded, he had a special gift to remain unmarried. According to the passion translation, these are his words: "I would wish that all of you could live unmarried, as I do. Yet I understand that we are all decidedly different, with each having a special grace for one thing or another" (1Cor 7:7).
Paul's gift was clearly the ability to remain unmarried without harmful consequence. I am not arguing that every single person should get married. I do not believe that dictation is mine to make. It is absolutely possible for a believer to be called to singleness, as Paul was. However, I am arguing that marriage is the providential standard for believers, and that, as the conventional choice, it should be embraced by most of them. When Paul said that he had a "gift" to remain unmarried, I believe he was saying just that. He was the unconventional exception to a providential standard. If a person has a gift, he has something that isn't common. When Paul implied that he had a "gift" to remain unmarried, this naturally suggests that marriage is--and should be--the standard option. Today, culture does not portray marriage as the set standard or norm. My problem is not with individuals who are called by God to remain unmarried, but rather with a system which seeks to perpetuate the idea that marriage is not the natural inclination of humankind, but rather a morally neutral matter of individual preference.
Marriage is not an inconsequential option. It's a fundamental standard that should be pursued by most of humanity. And to reject it should require a special gift (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RG-unY84V-c).
And yet many people today are declining marriage out of individual preference. But the choice between marriage and singleness should not be left to preference. Why? Because preferences can be shaped by abuses, distortions, and false perceptions. Marriage is a matter of purpose. Marriage is a fundamental piece of what it means to be truly human, and for an individual to reject it should require more than whim. Declining marriage, the providential standard for humanity established on the sixth day of the world, should require what Paul would call a special grace; a charismatic impartation; a spiritual calling of God. Yet we live in a world where nothing is asked of a person who wishes to remain unmarried other than, "Is that what you want?"
To quote one author and speaker, "Paul said, [being called not to marry] is a gift from God, which means you need a gift to not marry" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RG-unY84V-c). In stark contrast, today's culture says, "Marriage is an option, which means you need no reason to remain single."
Far too many individuals today are declining a providential standard out of whim; not calling.
According to one source, in Greek culture, marriage was so universally accepted and pursued that the Greek words for "Husband" and "Man" are the same, and the Greek words for "Woman" and "Wife" are the same. Greeks were so strongly in favor of marriage that they had no word to describe a woman other than "wife," and they had no word to describe a man other than "husband" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RG-unY84V-c) (https://biblehub.com/str/greek/435.htm) (https://biblehub.com/str/greek/1135.htm). To quote one source, the Greeks believed that, "a woman was made to be a wife, and a man was made to be a husband." (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RG-unY84V-c).
I would argue that the Greeks had a healthier view of marriage in this respect than many modern-day Americans.
The Decline of a Providential Standard
Unlike the Greeks, in modern day America, we teach our children that marriage is an option, not a norm. We say things like, "Only get married if you want to." Because of this, more and more people are choosing to bypass marriage and embrace the consequences of that decision. Let's explore where the "marriage is optional" philosophy began.
How Did We Get Here?
Marriages between 1870 and 1980 tended to hover around a pretty stable number per thousand per year. (https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/third-rail/episodes/episode-7-is-marriage-dead/why-are-fewer-people-getting-married/#:~:text=The%20range%20of%20culprits%20is,choosier%20about%20whom%20to%20marry.) However, in the years since 1980, the number of marriages per thousand people have been declining steadily. In other words, people are getting married less. In fact, today, we're seeing the lowest marriage rates we've seen in the last 150 years. (https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/third-rail/episodes/episode-7-is-marriage-dead/why-are-fewer-people-getting-married/#:~:text=The%20range%20of%20culprits%20is,choosier%20about%20whom%20to%20marry.). In 2011, the USA hit a record low in the number of adults married (https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2011/12/14/barely-half-of-u-s-adults-are-married-a-record-low/), and it's even lower nine years later. According to Brad Wilcox, Associate Professor of Sociology at the University of Virginia, in 1960, 72% of adults ages eighteen and older were married. Today, only 49% of adults ages eighteen and older are married--less than half. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EtvfHnZMcOY). According to the same source, in 1960, the average age of marriage for men was 23; today, it's 29 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EtvfHnZMcOY). The average age of marriage for women in 1960 was 20; today, it's 27 (https://www.bentley.edu/news/nowuknow-why-millennials-refuse-get-married). According to Jay L. Zagorsky, Economist and Research Scientist for Ohio University, there are several reasons for this decline in marriage: "Some blame widening U.S. income and wealth inequality. Others point the finger at the fall in religious adhereance (https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/decline-catholic-marriages) or cite the increase in education and income of women." (https://link.springer.com/article/10.2307/2060761)
In truth, the decline of marriage numbers in recent years is probably due to a combination of factors, not least the steady absolution of necessity for men and women to marry. Before the Industrial Revolution, men were more incentivized to marry because it was more difficult to economically and emotionally make one's way through life solo. Many hands were useful, necessary even, in the running of farms and agricultural livelihoods. Emotional support pets were not a thing pre-Industrial Rev, and counterfeit intimacies, such as pornography and prostitution, were not readily available. If a man was lonely, marriage was the solution. But today, a committed relationship with a woman is seen as optional; it's completely possible for a man to live a financially and emotionally livable life working for an institution to support only himself and his new best friend--dog.
Fast forward a few decades and the same thing happened to women. Today, women constitute about half of the labor force (46.9% to be exact) (https://www.catalyst.org/research/women-in-the-workforce-united-states/#:~:text=Women%20Are%20Nearly%20Half%20the,of%20the%20total%20labor%20force.&text=57.1%25%20of%20women%20participate%20in,compared%20to%2069.1%25%20of%20men.) Pre-1960s, before women began working away from the home, women largely relied on marriage to live economically and emotionally comfortable lives. With the entrance of women into the workplace, females had less financial need for marriage, and, with the rise of feminism, they were steadily conditioned to have less emotional need for marriage. (https://medium.com/@charles_1463/is-marriage-dead-if-so-feminism-killed-it-73fa141a7e0e) It's no coincidence that, according to one source, "by the 1960s, 40 percent of marriages were ending in divorce." (https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/political-commentary/covid-19-end-of-american-era-wade-davis-1038206/). While the Women's Rights movement accomplished many good things for women, it had the unfortunate side-effect of removing female need for matrimony. In other words, regarding the decline of marriage, the Women's Rights movement was to woman what the Industrial Revolution was to man.
In recent years, humanity has created a culture in which it is easy (and fast becoming easier) for individuals--both men and women--to live life without marriage. Because of this, many have chosen to do without it--not out of providential calling, but individual convenience. According to one speaker, we live in a world where it is very easy to "live alone." (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5FNq0rI99V4). After all, who needs a family when you have a job? Who needs a wife when you have porn? Who needs a penis when you have a vibrator? Who needs grandchildren when you have an emotional support labra-chiwawa-doodle? Who needs a goodnight kiss when you have the dopamine hit supplied by scrolling social media on an iPhone? Who needs a covenant centered around service to another when you have yoga? So the logic of culture goes. You see, we've slowly built a world where reliance on anything, especially human connections (such as marriage), is no longer necessary in order to get our needs met.
...Or so we think.
But, in truth, substitutes cannot take the place of originals with any great degree of efficacy. Living alone will simply never replace the benefits that marriage offers to humanity.
4 Reasons Marriage Should Be the Natural Choice
1. Marriage Improves Health
Our belief that marriage is not necessary for supreme human fulfillment is not as grounded in reality as we think. Marriage is one of the most effective choices we have for creating a life of, not only stability, but also health, happiness, and contentment (https://www.city-journal.org/html/why-marriage-good-you-12002.html). Men, women, and especially children benefit from marriage in critical ways. (https://nypost.com/2018/07/07/feminism-has-destabilized-the-american-family/).
According to one Harvard Medical School article, some scientists have reported "that never-married men were three times more likely to die from cardiovascular disease than married men." In another study mentioned in the same article, 3,682 adults were observed and evaluated by scientists over the course of ten years. Even after taking various cardiovascular risk factors into account, married men of the study had a 46% lower death rate than the unmarried men. (https://www.health.harvard.edu/mens-health/marriage-and-mens-health#:~:text=Men%20who%20have%20marital%20partners,advantage%20over%20his%20unmarried%20peers.).
In addition to medical concerns, the decline of marriage has deprived men of what David Brooks calls, "the fortifying influences of female companionship," (https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2020/03/the-nuclear-family-was-a-mistake/605536/) and, as a result, there is a magnanimous toll being taken on single men. In his article, The Nuclear Family Was a Mistake, Brooks points out that many American males today "spend the first 20 years of their life without a father and the next 15 without a spouse." Pointing to research done by Kay Hymowitz, he argues that, "unmarried men are less healthy—alcohol and drug abuse are common—earn less, and die sooner than married men." (https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2020/03/the-nuclear-family-was-a-mistake/605536/) (https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-nuclear-family-was-a-mistake-with-jeff-jeremy/id1447781641?i=1000474623491)
I say this, once again, not to argue that singleness has no place, but to make clear the undeniable reality that most people are made for marriage, and marriage has never been more needed than it is now. Bypassing it without a special ticket from God is a sprint for trouble. Those who wish to decline marriage out of individual interest rather than supernatural calling are perpetuating a cycle of brokenness which drastically affects humanity in general, and men in particular.
To quote George Akerlof, Nobel Prize-winning economist, men "settle down when they get married; if they fail to get married, they fail to settle down." (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EtvfHnZMcOY). Marriage provides men with the best target for masculine energy and passion, and this is reflected by the better overall health of men who choose to devote their energy to matrimony rather than some other goal. (https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-nuclear-family-was-a-mistake-with-jeff-jeremy/id1447781641?i=1000474623491).
2. Healthy Sexuality Necessitates Marriage
Sexuality itself is yet another reason for marriage. Men and women with a sex drive who choose to remain unmarried, opting for one-night stands, no-strings flings, and casual sex to satisfy their passions, make themselves vulnerable to STDs, emotional turmoil, and broken family units.
Those who think pornography and masturbation are valid substitutions for healthy, married sex are deceiving themselves. In addition to being linked to health conditions which adversely affect sexual performance, such as erectile dysfunction and premature ejaculation, pornography has been shown to desensitize the male brain from reality, make people more critical of appearances, tamper with the pleasure centers of the brain, and foster unrealistic expectations about sexuality. (https://fightthenewdrug.org/overview/) (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAK3dpFMm6c) (The Porn Myth, Fradd) (https://www.memphismensclinic.com/common-causes-of-premature-ejaculation/).
Even if pornography didn't detrimentally affect health, from a moral standpoint, it's a questionable practice. It's not a stretch to argue that getting off to images and videos of what could be human trafficking or rape victims is morally questionable at best, and sadistic at worst; not to mention the fact that pornography users tend to view more and more deviant, twisted forms of pornography as time goes on. (https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/56-5-is-porn-harmful-matt-fradd-vs-charlottee-rose/id1097862282?i=1000385449990). And even if all pornography is consensual--which it is not--this does not make it okay. Just because a man or a woman consents to violent, degrading, unhealthy behavior does not make it okay for us to label that behavior as acceptable. To quote one author concerning women in the porn industry, "It's a manful thing to treat a woman who has forgotten her dignity with dignity nonetheless." (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dsv-UMulZ0w).
And so, many Christians don't seem to realize that there are only two options for living a sexually healthy life. Either you are--like Paul--created with a supernatural gift to live without sex, or you are--like the vast majority of humans--designed to operate in this life within the bond of marriage. The presence of a sex drive within humans indicates both the intention of Heaven for them to marry, and the moral necessity for them to do so.
When humans with a drive for sexual intimacy attempt to go through life without embracing marriage, they either settle for immorality and disrespectful behavior, harming themselves and others, or they spend their entire life on the struggle bus, trying to restrain their providential design as sexual beings. This, being a fool's errand, rarely works, and they end up causing themselves and others a great deal of pain anyway.
In 1st Corinthians chapter 7, Paul puts it this way, "If they cannot control themselves, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion."
In other words, individuals have two options to live a life of sexual wholeness and morality. They can either live a life without sex entirely, or they can marry. It's pretty simple really. Those who cannot live without sex are not made to live without marriage. People who try to live a sexual life outside the context of marriage not only settle for a less-than-the-best sexual experience, but they also often reap negative consequences. This is reinforced by science, stat, and study (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILUkWyGfuJA&list=WL&index=8&t=0s) (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4105603/#:~:text=found%20that%2098.8%25%20of%20married,their%20sexual%20relationships%20(13).) (https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/stronger-the-broken-places/201509/6-reasons-why-married-people-should-have-better-sex-lives).
Once again, am I saying that all humans should marry? No. I am saying that, if you have a sex drive, you should. In order to live a life of respect and fullness without being married, a person must either not have a sex drive, or have control over it.
3. Healthy Children and Family Demand Marriage
The rearing of children and the building of healthy families are other reasons which strongly stand in support of marriage. Those with sincere concern for the wellbeing of the next generation have no choice but to endorse marriage as standard practice. It has been shown in study after study that children who spring from a healthy marriage live healthier lives than those who are raised by single parents or in cohabiting relationships. (https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1079374.pdf) (https://www.brookings.edu/research/cohabiting-parents-differ-from-married-ones-in-three-big-ways/) Children who grow up with married parents present in their life are, to quote one source, "20 to 35 percent more physically healthy than children from broken homes," and enjoy healthier emotional lives as well. (https://gillespieshields.com/40-facts-two-parent-families/#:~:text=Being%20raised%20in%20a%20married,20.) Children from married homes are also much less likely to battle impoverishment. To quote one source, "Only one in 10 children with married parents lives in poverty." (https://firstthings.org/marriage-benefits-children/). Take away the factor of married parents from the home and suddenly children reap devastating consequences. Children who are raised by unmarried, cohabiting parents are 6 times more likely to struggle with emotional and behavior issues. (https://firstthings.org/marriage-benefits-children/). Children who have gone through divorce are 50 percent more likely to develop health problems. (https://www.owenbylaw.com/blog/2018/october/statistics-children-divorce/#:~:text=Physical%20Effects,are%2020%25%20less%20physically%20healthy.) And the list goes on, and on, and on,
And on.
4. Cohabitation Plays Second Fiddle
Some argue that cohabitation is the more desirable alternative to marriage. However, any amount of research clearly reveals cohabitation to be secondary to marriage. While cohabitation certainly produces better results than single parent homes (https://ifstudies.org/blog/for-kids-parental-cohabitation-and-marriage-are-not-interchangeable#:~:text=In%20fact%2C%20cohabiting%20parents%20are,terms%20of%20child%20poverty%20rates.&text=Also%2C%20because%20cohabiting%20unions%20are,significantly%20increases%20their%20poverty%20risk.), study after study indicates that cohabitation plays second fiddle to marriage in area after area of importance. Cohabitation does not produce healthier results than marriage, especially in areas involving trust, such as faithfulness, financial wisdom, and the ability to act in the best interest of one's partner (https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2019/11/06/marriage-and-cohabitation-in-the-u-s/) (https://ifstudies.org/blog/cohabitation-is-pervasive). An arrangement where individuals leave themselves a back door out of the relationship can never produce the atmosphere of complete trust that a healthy, committed marriage offers.
Restoring the Nuptial Narrative
So, if married people are healthier than singles; if most humans have a sex drive which cannot be healthily satisfied without marriage; if children and families are healthier in the context of marriage; and if cohabitation doesn't measure up to marriage, why are marriage numbers declining? Why are many people staying single, distorting healthy sexuality, operating in broken homes, and shacking up?
One answer to that question is that, out of perception fractured in childhood or adulthood, many have either come to consider a healthy marriage unattainable or come to believe marriage itself is a broken entity.
Children who are products of broken romance have grown up to think that romance is broken. Those who are products of a broken marriage have set an example for watching eyes that marriage is broken. A cycle of brokenness has cascaded down the recent decades of American History, perpetuating a flawed view of the beautiful idea that is marriage. The number of people who wish to remain unmarried because of a flawed perception of marriage is far higher than the number of people who choose to remain unmarried out of a genuine calling of God. We should be seeing less singleness in the world today than we are.
How can we change this?
We can overcome our stigmas and tie the knot tight. We can restore the perception of marriage as a beautiful creation. We can pull the original, wonderous idea of matrimony out of the mud, adopt it, polish it, and protect it. We can pour our hearts and souls into our marriages, surrounding them with community and mentors who will reinforce them with a hedge of wellbeing, good intention, experience, and advice. And when, out of its brokenness, culture suggests that marriage should be an option rather than a norm, we can stand up, holding aloft the shining treasure for which we daily give our lives, look across the fields of bachelors and bachelorettes swaying in the wind of weighty indecision, and say,
"Marriage should be endorsed by all and embraced by most."
Sources:
24. The Porn Myth (Fradd, Matt)
33. https://www.brookings.edu/research/cohabiting-parents-differ-from-married-ones-in-three-big-ways/
Comments
Post a Comment