Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 55 views

    Sociology

    Uploaded by

    Maxwell C Jay Kafwani
    Marriage between a man and woman benefits society across five major institutions: 1. School - Students from intact married families have higher GPAs and are more likely to graduate than those from non-intact families. 2. Church - Direct marriage has a positive effect on religious participation, which leads to reduced crime and substance abuse. 3. Family - Families with both biological parents have the highest quality relationships. Married couples also report more enjoyable sex. 4. Market - Married couples pay most income taxes while children from married families are less likely to live in poverty. 5. Government - Married individuals are less likely to commit crimes or acts of violence. The conclusion is that intact married families naturally

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Sociology

    Uploaded by

    Maxwell C Jay Kafwani
    55 views2 pages
    Marriage between a man and woman benefits society across five major institutions: 1. School - Students from intact married families have higher GPAs and are more likely to graduate than those from non-intact families. 2. Church - Direct marriage has a positive effect on religious participation, which leads to reduced crime and substance abuse. 3. Family - Families with both biological parents have the highest quality relationships. Married couples also report more enjoyable sex. 4. Market - Married couples pay most income taxes while children from married families are less likely to live in poverty. 5. Government - Married individuals are less likely to commit crimes or acts of violence. The conclusion is that intact married families naturally

    Original Description:

    sociology

    Original Title

    sociology

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Marriage between a man and woman benefits society across five major institutions: 1. School - Students from intact married families have higher GPAs and are more likely to graduate than those from non-intact families. 2. Church - Direct marriage has a positive effect on religious participation, which leads to reduced crime and substance abuse. 3. Family - Families with both biological parents have the highest quality relationships. Married couples also report more enjoyable sex. 4. Market - Married couples pay most income taxes while children from married families are less likely to live in poverty. 5. Government - Married individuals are less likely to commit crimes or acts of violence. The conclusion is that intact married families naturally

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    55 views2 pages

    Sociology

    Uploaded by

    Maxwell C Jay Kafwani
    Marriage between a man and woman benefits society across five major institutions: 1. School - Students from intact married families have higher GPAs and are more likely to graduate than those from non-intact families. 2. Church - Direct marriage has a positive effect on religious participation, which leads to reduced crime and substance abuse. 3. Family - Families with both biological parents have the highest quality relationships. Married couples also report more enjoyable sex. 4. Market - Married couples pay most income taxes while children from married families are less likely to live in poverty. 5. Government - Married individuals are less likely to commit crimes or acts of violence. The conclusion is that intact married families naturally

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 2

    Marriage Benefits Society

    Issue: The family is the building block of society, and marriage is its foundation. Marriage
    between a man and woman1 improves each of the five major institutions of society: school,
    church, family, government, and market.

    School
    Individuals from intact families completed, on average, more years of schooling and
    were more likely to graduate from high school and college than were their peers raised
    in non-intact families.2
    High school students in intact families have GPAs 11 percent higher than those from
    divorced families.3

    Church
    Direct marriage (rather than cohabitation prior to marriage) has a positive effect on
    religious participation in young adults.4
    Religious practice leads to a reduced incidence of domestic abuse, crime, substance
    abuse and addiction, and an increase in health, longevity, and education attainment.5

    Family
    Families with both biological or adoptive parents present have the highest quality of
    parent-child relationships.6
    Married men and women report having more enjoyable sexual intercourse more
    often.7

    Market
    Married couples file less than half of all income-tax returns, but pay nearly three-quarters of
    all income taxes.8
    A child’s likelihood of living in poverty is reduced by 82 percent if he is raised in a
    married two-parent family with a mother and father.9

    Government
    Married men are less likely to commit crimes10 and acts of domestic violence. 11
    Adolescents from intact families commit fewer violent acts of delinquency.12
    Parental divorce contributes to “externalizing behaviors,” including weapon carrying,
    fighting, substance abuse, and binge drinking.13
    Married people are least likely to have mental disorders, 14 and have higher levels of
    emotional and psychological well-being than those who are single, divorced, or
    cohabiting.15

    Conclusion: The intact, married family naturally delivers fundamental benefits to society.
    MARRI research available online16 shows the many ways that marriage contributes to societal
    well-being.
    1 “Married two-parent families,” “married-couple families,” and similar terms within this document all refer to families in which there is a
    married mother and father present. Note, according to the US Census Bureau, “Family households and married-couple families do not include
    same-sex married couples even if the marriage was performed in a state issuing marriage certificates for same-sex couples.”
    2 Ginther, Donna K., “Family Structure and Children’s Educational Outcomes: Blended Families, Stylized Facts, and Descriptive Regressions.”

    Demography Vol. 41(4) (2004) pp. 671-696. As cited in Patrick F. Fagan and Scott Talkington,” Ever Received a Bachelor’s Degree by Current
    Religious Attendance and Structure of Family Origin,” Mapping America: Marriage, Religion, and the Common Good No. 105 available at
    http://downloads.frc.org/EF/EF11G27.pdf
    3 Barry D. Ham, “The Effects of Divorce on the Academic Achievement of High School Seniors,”

    Journal of Divorce and Remarriage 38, no. 3 (2003): 176.


    4 Arland Thornton, William G. Axinn, and Daniel H. Hill, “Reciprocal Effects of Religiosity, Cohabitation, and Marriage,” The American Journal

    of Sociology 98, no. 3 (1992): 643. As cited in Patrick F. Fagan, Anne Dougherty, and Miriam McElvain,” 164 Reasons to Marry,” at
    http://downloads.frc.org/EF/EF12A85.pdf
    5 Patrick F. Fagan, “Why Religion Matters Even More: The Impact of Religious Practice on Social Stability,” (Washington, D.C.: The Heritage

    Foundation, 2006), at http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2006/12/why-religion-matters-even-more-the-impact-of-religious-


    practice-on-social-stability
    6 Nicholas Zill, “Quality of Parent-Child Relationship and Family Structure.” Available at http://www.frc.org/mappingamerica/mapping-
    america-47-quality-of-parent-child-relationship-and-family-structure. Accessed 19 August 2014 as cited in Patrick F. Fagan, Anne Dougherty,
    and Miriam McElvain,” 164 Reasons to Marry,” at http://downloads.frc.org/EF/EF12A85.pdf
    7 Linda J. Waite and Maggie Gallagher, “The Case for Marriage: Why Married People are Happier, Healthier, and Better off

    Financially.” As cited by Richard Niolon. Available at


    http://successfulsingles.com/media_articles_files/The%20Case%20for%20Marriage:%20Why%20Married%20People%20Are%20Happ
    ier,%20Healthier,%20and%20Better%20off%20Financially.pdf
    8 Scott A. Hodge, “Married Couples File Less Than Half of All Tax Returns, But Pay 74 percent of All Income Taxes,” Tax Foundation Fiscal Fact

    No. 4, March 25, 2003.


    9 Robert E. Rector, “Marriage: America’s Greatest Weapon Against Child Poverty,” Special Report No. 117, The Heritage Foundation:

    Washington, D.C. (5 September 2012). Accessed 30 July 2014.


    According to the ACS, a married-couple family consists of “A family in which the householder and his or her spouse are listed as members of
    the same household.” Note, “Family households and married-couple families do not include same-sex married couples even if the marriage
    was performed in a state issuing marriage certificates for same-sex couples.”
    10 Ryan D. King, Michael Massoglia, and Ross McMillan, “The Context of Marriage and Crime: Gender, the Propensity to Marry, and Offending

    in Early Adulthood,” Criminology, 445 (2007): 33-65. As cited by The Heritage Foundation: Family Facts. Available at
    http://www.familyfacts.org/briefs/26/marriage-and-family-as-deterrents-from-delinquency-violence-and-crime. Accessed 22 September
    2011.
    Robert J. Sampson and John H. Laub, “Crime and deviance over the life course: The salience of adult social bonds,” American Sociology
    Review 55 (1990): 609-627.
    11 Catherine T. Kenney and Sara S. McLanahan, “Why Are Cohabiting Relationships More Violent than Marriages?” Demography 43 (2006):

    133.
    Jan Stets, “Cohabiting and Marital Aggression: The Role of Social Isolation,” Journal of Marriage and the Family 53, no. 3 (1991): 674 Galena
    Kline, et al., “Timing Is Everything: Pre-Engagement Cohabitation and Increased Risk for Poor Marital Outcomes,” Journal of Family
    Psychology 18, no. 2 (2004): 315.
    12 Stephen Demuth and Susan L. Brown, “Family Structure, Family Processes, and Adolescent Delinquency: The Significance of Parental

    Absence Versus Parental Gender,” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 41, no. 1 (February 2004): 58-81. As cited on The
    Heritage Foundation: Family Facts. Available at http://www.familyfacts.org/briefs/26/marriage-and-family-as-deterrents-from-
    delinquency-violence-and-crime. Accessed 20 July 2011.
    13 Kathleen Boyce Rodgers and Hilary A. Rose, “Risk and Resiliency Factors among Adolescents Who Experience Marital Transitions,” Journal

    of Marriage and Family 64 (2002): 1028-1029.


    14 David Williams, et al., “Marital Status and Psychiatric Disorders Among Blacks and Whites,” Journal of Health and Social Behavior 33

    (1992): 140-157. As cited in Glenn T. Stanton, “Why Marriage Matters.” Available at


    http://www.ampartnership.org/resourcecenter/news/89-why-marriage-matters.html. Accessed 27 July 2011.
    James Coyne, M.J. Rohrbaugh, Varda Shoham, John S. Sonnega, John M. Nicklas, and James A. Cranford, “Prognostic Importance of Marital
    Quality for Survival of Congestive Heart Failure”American Journal of Cardiology 88, no. 5 (2001): 526-529. As cited in California Healthy
    Marriages Coalition, “Healthy Marriages, Mental Health. Research on the Alignment of Marital Outcomes and Mental Health.” Available at
    http://camarriage.com/content/resources/7b8690b0-784f-46e7-af7d-438a9b064557.pdf. Accessed 25 August 2011.
    15 Susan L. Brown, “Relationship Quality Dynamics of Cohabiting Unions,” Journal of Family Issues 24, no. 5 (2003): 583-601; Susan L. Brown,

    “The Effect of Union Type on Psychological Well-being: Depression among Cohabitors versus Marrieds,” Journal of Health and Social Behavior
    41, no. 3 (2000): 241-255; J.K. Kiecolt-Glaser and T.L. Newton, “Marriage and Health: His and Hers,” Psychological Bulletin 127, no. 4 (2001):
    472-503; Lee A. Lillard and Constantijn W.A. Panis, “Marital Status and Mortality: The Role of Health,” Demography 33, no. 3 (1996): 313-
    327; Lee A. Lillard and Linda J. Waite, “’Til Death Do us Part: Marital Disruption and Mortality,” The American Journal of Sociology 100, no. 5
    (1995): 1131-1156; Kristen Marcussen, “Explaining Differences in Mental Health Between Married and Cohabiting Individuals,” Social
    Psychology Quarterly 68, no. 3 (1999): 239-257; Steven Stack and J. Ross Eshleman, “Marital Status and Happiness: A 17-Nation Study,”
    Journal of Marriage and the Family 60 (1998): 527-536; K.A.S. Wickrama, et al., “Marital Quality and Physical Illness: A Latent Growth Curve
    Analysis,” Journal of Marriage and the Family 59, no. 1 (1997): 143-155. All as cited in Daniel Lees, “The Psychological Benefits of Marriage,”
    Research Note (April 2007): 1-4. Available at http://www.maxim.org.nz/files/pdf/psychological_benefits_of_marriage.pdf. Accessed 27 July
    2011
    16 www.marri.us

    You might also like