The Australian Institute of Family Studies recently held its biennial conference, celebrating 30 years of “advancing understanding of Australian families”. The conference recognised key statistics that illustrate some of the dramatic changes in the landscape of families, including declining marriage rates and the increase in cohabitation and ex-nuptial births.
One only has to glance at the 500-plus comments expressing outrage at Bettina Ardnt’s “backward opinions” (which suggested that Prime Minister Julia Gillard’s de facto relationship might not be setting the best example for young female onlookers) or, more recently, the response to the article by Chris Meney to conclude that we seem to have reached consensus: cohabitation is another stage on the pathway to a family.
When it comes to children’s wellbeing, AIFS director Professor Alan Hayes recognises that the function of the family unit is what matters, rather than the form. What is crucial is that children have an example of a loving relationship that doesn’t disappear before their eyes; that they’re brought up in an environment of love.
Please take special note of that line: “the function…is what matters, rather than the form.” A better statement of modern gnosticism you will rarely see. Read it all–KSH.
The “loving relationship” requires commitment. And, son of a gun, commitment means standing up, declaring it, and then taking the step.
Marriage is commitment. Shacking up is opportunism. The piece above is simply dishonest, a rationale for avoiding commitment. Larry
Elves,
There is no link so that we can “read it all.” Please fix it.
Kendall is right, of course. Divorcing form from function is indeed a Gnostic tendency, and it’s absolutely vital that churches strongly resist the amoral cultural drift toward cohabitation by making sure that at least its own members don’t do it with impunity. As Heb. 13:4 admonishes, “[i]Let marriage be held in honor by all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled, for God will judge the sexually immoral.[/i]”
David Handy+
[i] Added now.[/i]
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/shacking-up-for-the-future-20100721-10khn.html
Thanks!
David Handy+
Larry Morse – #1 – while I agree completely with what you’ve said, the reality is that we’ve let marriage become non-commitment with roughly half going to divorce. Therefore, it only makes sense people would then say, “the form is a sham, so let’s just accomodate the function”. However, the consequences (rarely acknowledged) are the feminization and pediatrization (a new word maybe) of poverty, as children born “ex-nuptial” and their mothers have a much higher rate of living in poverty (as do those where divorce ensues) than those living in households with married parents.