This is the final part in the series on the values requisite
for civilization. For the first seven parts, here are the links.
·
Part VII: FamilyPerpetuates Civilization
If we start with the values of honoring God,
life, truth, and property ownership, family is how we teach and pass along
those values. So we need to value family as well. The term “family values” has
been tossed around for several decades, but for our purposes we need a more
specific definition of what it means to value family. What is family?
As we’ve said, family is the basic unit of
civilization. An individual is a unit even smaller, but it isn’t a unit of
civilization—because society by definition requires at least two people to
associate with one another. And civilization is a particular—good—kind of
society. The fundamental relationship leading to civilization and its
perpetuation, then, is family. We talked in Part VII about how well family does
that.
Today we’ll talk about the relationship that
founds a family.
This is not to say that individuals, unmarried
people, grandparents helping raise children, foster care situations, and various
other-than-the-ideal family structures don’t contribute. If the individuals in
these other situations lead intentionally civilized lives, they do contribute
to civilization. But the essential relationship—because it means a mother and a
father raising their children to be civilized for the next generation—is a
married man and woman. And what is essential for this relationship is complete
fidelity and permanence.
There’s huge societal upheaval today trying to
declare that other relationships are as deserving. But if any other relationship
is designed not to produce children, does not require complete fidelity, and is
not permanent, it does not offer society what marriage provides.
The section on marriage and fidelity in the Spherical Model website article “Family Is the Basic Unit of Civilization” is long. There’s
a large section on why sex outside of marriage is always uncivilized. If there’s
something our current society needs to learn, it is that. So here’s a portion
of that.
______________
Sex Outside of Marriage Is Always Wrong
This is such a simple concept, and so many problems would be
settled if people would believe it. It’s an essential of civilization. Every time
a society attempts to “progress” or “evolve” beyond the old-fashioned notion of
virtue, it slides into decay. Every time. This decay happens so frequently and
is currently so widespread that the need for virtue must not still be self-evident.
So we might as well spell out the reasons.
Human Children Take Time and Consistency to
Bring to Adulthood
 |
| image from here |
Human children grow slowly. It takes close upon two decades to
get them from birth to functioning on their own, capable of supporting
themselves, reproducing, and raising a civilized next generation. It requires
consistency and care from someone with a stake in the child’s success. It takes
a pair of parents, providing both male and female role models and ways of
nurturing.
The best (really, the only) way to plan for children to be
raised by the same two (one male, one female) parents throughout their growing
up life is for those two parents to be permanently bonded to each other. To be
married. (See Why Marriage Matters.[i]) Marriage isn’t as
ephemeral as just a declaration of love between two lovers; it is a commitment
to each other and to the entire society that they will stay together for life.
This commitment establishes a family, the most basic unit of civilization.
There isn’t any way to break up a family that doesn’t harm civilization. Therefore,
there isn’t any possible way for sex outside of marriage to be acceptable
behavior without harming civilization. Without the attitude of its sacredness,
it is impossible to maintain virtue (chastity). And without virtue, families
are always harmed.
Look, for instance, at what happens when two young people,
believing they are in love, give in to sex. They have just admitted to each
other that they value their own desires over the needs of the society they live
in. They are both lessened for that selfishness. But what if they recognize
that, though what they did was wrong, they could marry and move on? Yes, they
could alter their course—what religious societies call repentance, change their
thoughts and actions for the future. And if it is true that they love each
other, they could go forward making a happy home, with very little harm to
society. So, while society wouldn’t condone the mistake, it can easily forgive.
What if the couple decides not to marry? What if they realize
they were just young and foolish, and gave in to selfish desires? They could
stop, and go their separate ways. Again, it would be possible to repent—change
their thoughts and actions for the future—without society being very much
degraded for their temporary lapse. Because society never approved. Nor did
they require society to grant approval. They realigned themselves with
civilization’s requirements following their lapse.
What if a pregnancy resulted from their foolish episode? If they
have any hope that they actually can love each other, then they can marry
quickly, because forming a family in which to raise their offspring is the
highest priority (a much higher priority than the honor of a big wedding
celebrated by all their friends). Even if they’re too young to know how to
establish and maintain a healthy family, the society around them—their parents,
their church, their friends, counselors—can give them guidance and assistance
as they finish maturing. It makes the beginning of their family more difficult
than a more reasoned, more mature decision, but with effort and help they can
succeed in sustaining, rather than degrading, civilization. So, again, while
society doesn’t condone the sex outside of marriage, it can forgive without
being decayed.
If the couple find themselves in the very sad situation of being
pregnant while also realizing they are incompatible, then, again, the highest
priority is the need for a family for the child. There can be no civilized
focus other than that child whom their behavior brought to life. A child needs,
and is entitled to, a loving two-parent family. The two young people should do
everything within their power to make sure the child gets this entitlement.
This is a much greater concern than whether they themselves love the child and
want to be near him/her.
[Note: I am not advocating here that some distant government
entity step in and make these difficult decisions and insist that the child be
adopted out. I am advising that, for the sake of society, the child’s welfare
must be of greater importance than what the foolish accidental parents may
want. There should be pressure from society—again, from their family, their
church, their friends and mentors—to help these young people see society’s need
for them to value the child. Societal pressure and expectation, even shame,
coming from a truly civilized society, is much more likely to bring about the
best choices following mistakes than rigidly written laws could do. But laws
should make it possible for society to be supported in the pressure.]
Let’s assume that, if these two people are at all susceptible to
civilizing influence, then they want for their child what every child is
entitled to. If they themselves cannot provide the child’s family, then
adoption is the most likely way to provide it. The least that can be expected
from the young mother is to bring the child to term and then give the baby to a
loving two-parent family, being willing to grieve at her own loss of the child
because the child gains so much. That’s a lot to expect of an immature young
woman, but civilization requires that it be expected.
The young man absolutely should be held accountable. (This has
historically been a major failing of many attempts at civilization.) Society
should decide how. My personal belief is that, if marrying the young mother was
not what he could do, then he should, for the next 18 years at least, provide
support, possibly a trust for the child’s college or other needs, taken out of
everything he earns until that child is an adult. This should be done even
though the adopting family is expected to be able to provide; it is necessary
for the sake of civilization that the young man be held responsible. And the
young biological father should have no expectation of visitation; he gave up
that right by giving up the opportunity to be the father in a marriage with the
mother. Sexual indiscretion does not entitle a male to being honored as a
father; he has to actually be one, in partnership with the mother, to earn
that. Individual communities may find other solutions, but civilization
requires that the father be held accountable for his actions.
Adoption should never be seen as the mother not loving the child
enough. It should be seen as the positive, probable, expected course for such a
situation—without prolonged stigma to the mother, and certainly without stigma
to the child. As long as both biological parents provide for the child’s needs,
society can forgive without civilization being decayed.
 |
| Adoption family, image from here |
I believe that, in a truly civilized society, there will never
be insufficient families willing to adopt. Children are too highly valued, and
fertility problems come up frequently in nature. [Note: Undervaluing children
and celebrating or causing infertility to avoid inconveniencing adults who
choose to be sexually active without forming a family are two signs of a
decaying society. The documentary Demographic Winter is a good source.[ii]] But, hypothetically, if
the young mother were unable to place her baby in an adopting family, she
could, if her parents stepped in to assist, raise the child at home. This is,
self-evidently, less valuable to civilization. There’s a child without both
parents, and the mother’s choices caused that to happen. So her folly can never
be condoned. But it can be forgiven, because civilization, no matter how far
advanced, is made up of imperfect human beings. The way society sees the
situation is what affects whether society is decayed by it. And if this type of
situation were rare (which it would tend to be if there were serious stigma
against it), then society could absorb the difficulty for the individual child.
While maintaining that adoption should be the usual choice, I believe civilized
society can allow the young mother to get her own answer through prayer about
whether she should keep her child.
There’s more. I’ve written more about this
issue than just about any other. Refer to “Defense of Marriage Collection,”
from July 2013. http://sphericalmodel.blogspot.com/2013/07/defense-of-marriage-collection.html
I’ve now written six more years of
posts. Many of these appear to relate to LGBT issues, but to me this is always
about defending real marriage in an effort to build civilization and repair its
decay. Here are a few additional posts I believe are worth checking out:
·
Family Proclaiming,
April 9, 2015
·
Millennia of Marriage,
May 7, 2015
·
Another Nail, February
20, 2017
·
Surprise at Old News,
August 10, 2017
·
Family Isn’t Extinct,
October 12, 2017
·
Normalizing Has
Already Gone Too Far, August 2, 2018
·
Stop Throwing Out the
Baby, May 23, 2019
That’s it for this series on civilization values.
In summary, civilization requires that we value God, life, family, truth, and
property ownership—which, coincidentally, summarizes the Ten Commandments. It’s
been good guidance for a very long time, and it works every time it’s tried.
Simple, not easy, but worth trying from the family level on up.
[i] Why
Marriage Matters: Twenty-one Conclusions from the Social Sciences, © 2002
Institute for American Values.
[ii] Demographic
Winter, video available at www.demographicwinter.com.
See also the follow-up, Demographic Bomb.
