The principles of sexual morality are so simple that the newest Christian and the most erudite theologian alike can grasp them within a few moments.
Flee from sexual immorality. (1 Corinthians 6:18)
Your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit. (1 Corinthians 6:19)
Thou shalt not commit adultery. (Exodus 20:14)
God hates divorce. (Malachi 2:16)
For decades, scientists and cultural leaders have flaunted these obvious rules as archaic, bigoted, backwards, and even immoral. Nonetheless, God will not be mocked. Heretical ideas and sinful actions result in painful, miserable consequences.
The same people and institutions who created today’s filthy, miserable era of degeneracy often cover up the mess they’ve made. Sometimes, though, they let slip a few inconvenient facts. Recently Foreign Affairs magazine published a study led by University of Virginia sociologist W. Bradford Wilcox. Its findings revealed that around the world, couples who live together and bear children out of wedlock end up with children who are less happy, healthy, and successful than children born into married households.
Significantly, this finding held up even for unmarried couples who had higher levels of education than their married counterparts. Or to put it another way: your unmarried Swedish mom’s PhD won’t save you.
This is a significant finding with respect to white, unmarried couples in Europe and North America. White liberals have led the charge to weaken and even abandon marriage. However, as with all the social experiments that began in the 1960s, the results are in, and they are not good.
Wilcox wrote in Foreign Affairs,
There is a problem with the view that cohabitation is as stable as marriage in much of Europe, especially when it comes to children. It doesn’t fit the facts. In our new report from the Social Trends Institute and the Institute for Family Studies, The Cohabitation-Go-Round: Cohabitation and Family Instability Across the Globe, we find that children across Europe are about 90 percent more likely to see their parents break up by age 12 if they were born to cohabiting parents compared to married parents. Indeed, across Europe, family instability tends to be higher for families formed by cohabitation, even for the kind of highly educated couples a professional like Grant is likely to encounter in his work. …
Family instability is important, even in Europe, because children are more likely to flounder socially and emotionally there when they are not raised in a stable, two-parent home. One study of parental breakups across 14 European countries—including France, Italy, and Norway—found that children whose parents broke up have a “probability of achieving a university degree that is on average seven percentage points lower than that of children from intact families.” Another study of such breakups in Norway found that boys and girls were more likely to engage in violent behavior, be sanctioned by teachers for misbehavior, and struggle with substance abuse if their parents broke up, compared to children from intact families.
Generally speaking, the least educated married families in Europe enjoy more stability than the most educated cohabiting families….marriage was a more powerful predictor of family stability in Europe than parental education.
His research partner, Georgetown University sociologist Laurie DeRose, claimed that the study debunked three common myths about cohabitation.
The first myth she writes about is that “cohabitation is less stable just because poorer people are more likely to choose it. In fact, cohabitation is less stable than marriage regardless of the mother’s educational background….
The second myth is that “cohabitation becomes more similar to marriage as it becomes more widespread,” that in places where cohabitation becomes legally and culturally accepted, it will be just as stable as marriage. But that is not the case for children.
The final myth, she writes, “is that where cohabitation has been a long-standing alternative to marriage (scholars writing on Latin America and the Caribbean refer to a ‘dual nuptiality’ system), further growth of the institution will not affect children’s lives.” Again, that’s not the case.
Wilcox has testified at the United Nations and for the U.S. House of Representatives about the impact of poverty on families worldwide. The finding that cohabitation leads to unstable, unhappy children, who are then more likely to end up poor, led Wilcox to recommend that cohabitation be pushed out of the mainstream in much the same way as smoking has been in Western countries.
If we could have something like the campaigns we’ve had against smoking, we could make a lot of progress on this front. But we haven’t yet generated enough elite consensus on the importance of marriage for 2017 or 2018, for that matter, to get people behind a consensual cultural message around marriage as the best way to start families and keep kids and parents together….Having something like a “put the baby carriage after marriage” campaign, done in a winsome way, would be helpful and important.
As a social scientist writing in a secular environment, Wilcox’s concern is with practical results and not with morality. His argument boils down to: lasting marriages are good for kids.
We need to make it very clear that kids who are born and raised by married parents are much more likely to flourish. There’s a kind of intergenerational obligation we have, to really try to have our kids within marriage, to give them the gift of two married parents who are committed to one another and to them for the long term.
It’s better than nothing, to be sure, and much better than the Salon-style insanity that our societies have been blindly following for decades. However, as he himself probably knows, the real answer is — as usual — Jesus. Until and unless our unbelieving neighbors and countrymen acknowledge their guilt before God, repent of their sins, and believe the Gospel, at best well-intentioned secular work will end up influencing a minority of people, or altogether memory-holed.
To those brave individuals who hazard intellectual and creative fields dominated by the Left in order to make an impact for God and our people: we salute you. Their unbelieving and degeneracy-promoting peers who may someday arrive at the same findings are like Jastrow’s scientist.
“For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance, he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.”
We who advocate for the survival and prosperity of white nations should not neglect this important aspect of our work. We must hold the line at marriage, for life, between one man and one woman. Not only is it God’s design for creating godly offspring (see Malachi 2:13-16 again) but it is something that even the pagans are having an increasingly hard time opposing with any objectivity.