Ten months ago, I published the second installment in the ‘Advice to My Sons’ series, titled “Marry a Zealot“, in which I exhort them and others to become fervent Believers–and seek out other Believers as mates–to best insure them against the ravages of divorce should they marry.
The point of that post was to highlight the additional protection that serious religious conviction, as indicated by active religious attendance, provides them against divorce, an important consideration for men in the post-Christian West nowadays. By way of contrast, a secondary point of that post was to show that mere self-identification or occasional participation in religious services exposed a fellow of the marrying kind to greater risk of marital disruption than if he and/or his wife had no religious affiliation at all.
Since the link to the pdf that supported that post has since disappeared, I did some spadework to recover the data that supports this advice. I was able to locate it here, on page 9 of the scholarly article Bad News about the Good News–The Construction of the Christian-Failure Narrative, Journal of Religion & Society, volume 14. The article drew the data shown in the following tables from the General Social Survey, 1980-2009.
His main concern is how religious belief correlates with divorce.
Here shows the evidence then says this:
When one takes one’s faith seriously enough to put it into action, as measured in this case by attending church at least once per week, this behavior appears to yield anti-divorce benefits. Yet I am thoroughly unimpressed with a 38% divorce rate for Evangelicals, a group whose noisy claims to family values are belied by their itchy dissolutive trigger fingers. Moreover, the picture for active black Protestants remains dark and grim; their marriages garner no protection whatsoever from church attendance. The data for Roman Catholics is much more encouraging, and it seems that the RCC has been more effective than Protestant denominations at countering the scourge of divorce. Perhaps the theological rigidity and hierarchical structure associated with Marianism makes it less vulnerable to socio-political contagions like feminism and divorce, while the, ahem, diversity, of Protestantism makes it more prone to worldly influences.
I think that it is a good idea in general for young men to not leave marriage at the level of feelings. I have posted before a list of questions to find out if a woman is a zealot. I think that young Christian men should read Wapiti’s post and then my post and then act accordingly.
John Ford’s The Quiet Man celebrates one of Hollywood’s most romantic and enduring epics. The first American feature to be filmed in Ireland’s picturesque countryside, Ford richly imbued this masterpiece with his love of Ireland and its people. Sean Thornton is an American who swears off boxing after accidentally killing an opponent. Returning to the Irish town of his birth, he finds happiness when he falls in love with the fiery Mary Kate. Though he is sorely tempted to pick up the gloves against her brother, the town bully, Sean is determined not to use his fists. Mary Kate and Sean wed but her brother refuses to pay the dowry. Sean would rather walk away than accept this challenge. Even when his new wife accuses him of cowardice, Sean stands firm. But when she boards a train to leave, he is finally ready to take matters into his own hands.
This is a must-see debate! (And you can buy Michael Brown’s new book here if you like it – I bought two copies)
About the debate:
On April 21, 2011 at 7:30pm at UCF’s Health and Public Affairs Building (Room 119), Rollins College professor, Dr. Eric Smaw and author and seminary professor Dr. Michael L. Brown will debate the question “Should same sex marriage be legalized in America?” The event will be held at 4000 Central Florida Blvd and is open to the public. After the formal portion of the debate, Brown and Smaw will field questions from the audience.
About the speakers:
Dr. Smaw will be responding in the affirmative. He earned his Ph.D. in Philosophy of Law from the University of Kentucky in 2005. His areas of expertise are philosophy of law, international law, human rights, ethics, and modern philosophy. He has published articles on human rights, terrorism, and cosmopolitanism. His most recent publication is “Swaying in the Balance: Civil Liberties, National Security, and Justice in Times of Emergency”.
Dr. Brown will be responding in the negative. He earned his Ph.D. in Near Eastern Languages and Literatures from New York University and is a nationally known evangelical lecturer and radio host. He is the author of numerous scholarly articles and twenty books, including the recently published study “A Queer Thing Happened to America”, which is quickly being recognized as the definitive work on the history and effects of gay activism on American culture.
There is no compelling reasons by the state should change the definition of marriage
The reason the state conveys benefits for marriage is because marriage is beneficial for the state
Traditional marriage is recognized by the state for several reasons:
– it domesticates men
– it protects women
– it provides a stable, nurturing environment for children
Marriage has three public purposes:
– to bind men and women together for RESPONSIBLE procreation
– to get the benefit
– to provide children with two parents who are bonded to them biologically
– to create the next generation of people to keep the society going
Normally, opposite sex couples create children
Homosexual couples can NEVER create children together
Men and women are differences that are complementary
Monogamy is the norm for opposite sex couples.
For gay men, open relationships / cheating is the norm.
This is because women have a tempering effect on sexuality.
There is no evidence that recognizing same-sex civil unions and marriages have changed this trend.
Same-sex marriage guarantees that children will either not have a father or a mother
So which of the sexes is dispensable when raising children?
For example, consider Dawn Stefanowicz, who grew up with a gay father and no mother
She never got a chance to see a man model love and protect a women within a marriage
That makes an enormous difference in a woman’s life – in the way she relates to men
Even with scientific advancements, every baby has a mother and a father
If we change the definition of marriage so that it is based on consent, then why limit it to just two people
If marriage is not the union of male and female, then why have only TWO people
In Canada, you have civil liberties lawyers arguing for for polygamy
In the United States, Professor David Epstein was in a consensual relationship with his daughter
Should incestuous relationships also be celebrated as marriage? Why not?
Should polyamorous relationships also be celebrated as marriage? Why not?
Sexual orientation is not the same as race
Men are women are different in significant ways, but different races are not
You need separate bathrooms for men and women, but not for people of different races
Summary of Dr. Smaw’s opening speech: (He ended his speech after only 10 minutes)
You can redefine marriage so that it no longer based on the public purposes he mentioned (controlling procreation, fusing complementary male and female natures, providing children with mothers and fathers who are biologically linked to them, providing children with a comparatively stable development environment that offers comparatively less instability, promiscuity and domestic violence rates compared to cohabitation, etc.), but is instead based on consent and feelings, and that redefinition of marriage won’t open marriage up to polygamy, polyamory, etc.
If you like feminism, then you should allow same-sex marriage
If you like abortion rights, then you should allow same-sex marriage
Homosexuals participate in society by working at various jobs, so they are participating in society
Homosexuals should be given the same tax breaks as married people because they work at various jobs for money
Working at a job for money achieves the same public purpose as procreating and staying together to raise children in a stable environment
You can listen to the rest for the rebuttals, and cross-examination. Oh yes – there was cross-examination! It starts two thirds of the way through Part 5, if you want to jump to it. And sparks were flying! There is also Q&A from the audience of students.
This is such a great debate – I love to hear two passionate guys disagreeing about something. I love to hear both sides of the issues. There is always something to learn by listening to the other side. It makes me more effective and more tolerant when I stand up to defend my side of the argument.
WINTERY KNIGHT 