Intellectual Defenestration

Ya think?

Trend to live together, not marry, puts kids at risk

USA TODAY research this month showing that civil marriages are increasing while church weddings are declining raises questions about which type of marriage is better. The answer from family researchers: Whether couples tie the knot in a courthouse or a church is less important than that they are married while raising children...

While an unmarried mom and dad living together might look like the married couple down the block, unions lacking formal long-term commitments have been found more likely to create problems for kids. Sociologists cite evidence that children raised by live-in parents have a greater likelihood of emotional troubles and poor school performance. A major reason is that unmarried couples are more likely to break up.

One particularly interesting paragraph is this:

Certainly, adults have every right to choose their living arrangements and expect social tolerance of their choices. But when the choices have a negative impact on dependents in their care, the government and other institutions have sound reasons to promote marriage as a social good.

So the fundamental moral appears to this: do whatever you want and expect people to tolerate you, unless it affects people dependent upon you. Aside from this being a very tenuous standard (who counts as being dependent upon you?), what would USAToday say if research came out saying that children raised by homosexual parents suffered "a greater likelihood of emotional troubles and poor social performance"? Furthermore, does this now mean I can be socially intolerant of unmarried couples with children?

October 21, 2003 12:49 PM