Blog 10: If Only Marriage had a Manual.

"If only life had a manual," is a phrase I've heard a few times throughout my life, typically from a person who's facing a difficult decision or the like. If only marriage or a relationship had a manual probably is a lesser said phrase, but I've found myself wondering a variation of that before. Certainly in my past relationships there have been times where I wish someone could say, "Hey kid, the answer is simple. All you have to do is tell him that it's over and you want to literally never speak again," or another helpful statement that would bring me from the depths of my ignorance and naivety. My article this week named itself as "The Marriage Guide", which was really just a lot of answers to questions that perhaps a young girl might ask her very much older sister. The questions were asked of those who worked for the United Families organization, which then took massive polls across the globe of people who were widows, married, single, homosexual, parents of adopted children, and others. This article focused mainly on the parents of the family, and occasionally the effect on the children. Since married couples are seen as families technically though even without children, it would make sense to research those as well. 

Everything you read usually is laced with some bias, and while this presents nothing but facts, all of them tended to support the same idea: that married, sexually attractive (at least to each other) couples that are compose of one man and one female are the best, safest, and most beneficial relationships to ever be in for everyone involved. This includes the man, woman, children or child, and society as well. 

From a benefits perspective, it's easy to see why a heterosexual couple that is married would receive the most. With tax breaks, subsidies, and more, they certainly make it worth your while to get married. The article states that every year the government spends "between $150 and $200 billion in subsidies to single parents," and that "much of this expense could be avoided if the mothers were married to the fathers of their children."

So what does that all mean? This article discusses everything from what is statistically best for the child, what is best for the woman, what is best for society, who experiences the most sexual pleasure, and so forth. Society benefits from females and males getting married and increasing the population. While this article in no way slams gay marriage, it does state that increasing the population with children is much more valuable in the eyes of the government than those who adopt. 

This article definitely seems one sided, but I can say that with our government and many other governments only recognizing heterosexual marriages, I can see how all of the information would be true. Perhaps if gay marriages were legalized and the governments were offering more benefits to them, this information would change, even if only slightly. 

The article/guide I used for this blog post can be found here.