Senior Thesis | Monogamous Heterosexual Marriage is Best
Why Normative Marriage both Functionally Works and is Metaphysically Correct
A few weeks ago I got done with my Senior Thesis project and last week I had my defense in front of a panel of judges. This post serves to give my thesis out and also give the video of the defense. I want to thank everyone who gave me feedback, edits, and support during this process.
I will probably be recording a reading of the essay and posting it on my YouTube and podcast feed this next Tuesday. So keep an eye out for that if that’s something you’re interested in. (This can now be accessed here.)
First, here is the video of the defense. Note that the device which was filming the presentation began to run low on battery halfway through, and thus the video cut out with only the audio being recorded.
Here is the paper itself in PDF:
You can read the paper on Google docs here: Kirby_Colton_Senior_Thesis - Google Docs
And if you want to read the paper here, then it is below. The biggest disadvantage to reading it on this blog post is that no footnotes are included. Yet, I thought I would provide it here in case someone would find it easier for them to read here.
INTRODUCTION
It is commonly claimed that marriage is in a state of crisis. Almost all known cultures in human history have believed that marriage, as they saw it, was in crisis (Coontz 2). This trend has not ceased to embed itself in modern-day attitudes. People in the current culture have varying ideas on marriage, how it should look, and its importance. Some of this turmoil is caused by actual changes occurring in marriage customs, while other concerns stem from a basic human insecurity about one of the culture’s most fundamental institutions.
Despite the many changes which have occurred in how marriage works throughout human history, nothing has brought about more change than Christianity (Hunter 1; Pagels xvii; Theroux). Since the reforms which early Christians made to marriage, there have been minor controversies, but the people’s ideas and posture toward marriage have stayed relatively stable (Coontz 4). However, major changes have recently occurred: since the late nineteenth century until early twenty-first century (the time of this writing) there have been radical moves to remake and revolutionize marriage. These structural changes are not the little crises of past generations, but they are fundamentally different. By way of the disintegration of the home, the push for individuality, and the new sexual revolution, Western society is facing a reshaping of marriage not seen since the coming of Christianity.,
The changes made can be said to culminate in the phenomena of dating apps and hook-up culture. Dating apps afford a relative ease to modern romantic relationships while hookup culture makes such relationships hyper-sexualized. This causes a situation where modern society is facing a crisis of pseudo-polygamy (Ingraham; Ueda et al.). Along with this is the rise in attention to homosexual attraction. Before Christianity, there was certainly widespread homosexuality, but it was never marital (Gies and Gies 29). However, because of the Christian insistence and idealization of marriage and because of the increasing rise of overt expressions of homosexual attraction, Western culture is now faced with the spectacle of gay marriage (Jones). At the same time, there is a new-found insistence on devaluing marriage through such things as no-fault divorce, live-in relationships, and “free-flowing” sexuality.
Despite all these controversies, there is an underlying question: Why care about marriage to begin with? The answer to such a question is far from self-evident. On top of this question is another, similar in nature: Why or why not is one form of marriage better than another? Most people have an idea of what they think marriage ought to be. But can one type of marriage really be said to be better than another? This essay will argue that the health of a society is largely determined by the individual constituents’ active embodiment of heterosexual, monogamous marriage.
This essay will follow a simple outline: first, it will be shown why heterosexual monogamous marriage is the only type of marriage that functionally works in society; second, it will be shown that heterosexual monogamous marriage is the right type of marriage on a metaphysical level; third, there will be a section of refutation where counterclaims to the above thesis are addressed. Note that throughout this essay heterosexual monogamous marriage will also be referred to as “normative” marriage. This is for stylistic ease.
FUNCTIONAL REASONS WHY NORMATIVE MARRIAGE IS BEST
The first reason why the health of a society is largely determined by the individual constituents’ active embodiment of heterosexual, monogamous marriage is that marriage must properly deal with the raising of children. One of the most empirically proven concepts of developmental psychology is that childhood experiences shape a person to an incalculable degree (Cano et al. 164).
The environment a child is raised in affects their adulthood (Buss 217; Collins et al. 218; Murray 168). The ruling class is adults. Children will one day be adults and thus a part of the ruling class. Because children are heavily influenced by their upbringing, and because it is the children who will one day form the new society, it only follows that the way children are raised will greatly affect society.
Because of the centrality of children’s upbringing to marriage, it is then appropriate to seek to know the right way for children to be raised. In other words, which home environments most likely result in children who will become adults who positively contribute to and change the present society? Such a question of betterment is, indeed, difficult to answer. However, a general answer can be given to this through academic research and study. A place where such evidence was competently presented was in Charles Murray’s book Coming Apart:
No matter what the outcome being examined--the quality of the mother-infant relationship, externalizing behavior in childhood (aggression, delinquency, and hyperactivity), delinquency in adolescence, criminality as adults, illness and injury in childhood, early mortality, sexual decision making in adolescence, school problems and dropping out, or any other measure of how well or poorly children do in life--the family structure which produces the best outcomes for children, on average, are two biological parents who remain married.” (italics added) (Murray 158)
Moreover, Murray goes on to assert, “I know of no other set of important findings as broadly accepted by social scientists who follow the technical literature, liberal as well as conservative, and yet are so resolutely ignored by network news programs, editorial writers for major newspapers, and politicians of both major political parties” (Murray 158). As Murray says, such evidence for the effects parents have on children are undeniable. Additionally, the evidence is more than clear that two parents in a normative marriage are best for children (Alexander; Coontz 293; Buss 217; DeSanctis; Murray 164-165, 174). Single parents, gay parents, step-parents, or parents in non-committed relationships perform worse in the raising of healthy children (Buss 93; Murray 158-59; Regnerus 752; Sawhill; White 953). This does not mean, of course, that there are not some very stellar single parents, gay parents, step-parents, or even parents in non-committed relationships. Nor does it mean that all children who grow up under normative marriage are going to do well as adults (or, for that matter, that all normative marriages have good parents). Yet, there is evidence that it is generally best for children to be raised in a normative marriage and parenting setting.
To conclude this point, then, the evidence shows that the upbringing of children greatly affects how children are as adults. The most healthy manner and setting to raise children in is that of normative marriage. If children are not being raised in the context of normative marriage, then those children will likely become less healthy individuals, and those unhealthy individuals will likely lead to a less healthy society.
The second reason why the health of a society is largely determined by the individual constituents’ active embodiment of heterosexual, monogamous marriage is because marriage manages and controls human sexuality. Human beings are sexual creatures. Given this, one can also recognize that male-to-female relationships shape human interaction, and these interactions and relationships of men and women are of great importance (Buss 286). Societies have thus found ways to attempt to manage human sexuality (Coontz 6-7; Gies and Gies 3). After all, there is nothing more complex one will ever encounter than another human being; and, furthermore, there is no more complex human being than one of the opposite sex. The historical way societies have tried to address this complexity is through marriage (Buss 20, 50; Coontz 44, 212). So then, marriage is central to human interaction because it serves to manage human sexuality (Buss 139, 187). Though there are differences between the way marriage is constructed in different times and places, a common denominator is the management of the sexuality of those in the marriage.
This is for an obvious reason, both historical and biological: namely, human sexual jealousy (Buss 10-11). All people of all cultures of all times have been sexually jealous (Buss 129-131, 139). Both the Christian and secular person can have very competent explanations for this (Buss 2; Gen. 1:27-28). Furthermore, even those in modern “open relationships” cannot in practice deny the fact of sexual jealousy; the people involved in such a relationship may think it is open, but they are still unlikely to want their “partner” to be flirtatious or intimate with someone else in front of them.
The issues of human sexuality are generally concerned with the nature of such relationships (i.e. monogamy). Although homosexuality can play a role in human sexual jealousy, this is often small. The management of sex for both heterosexuals and homosexuals has to do with the monogamy or non-monogamy of those relationships. Thus, this proof will largely deal only with the monogamous aspect of relationships, and not the sexual orientation of such relationships. First, it will be shown why non-monogamous marriage does not work to manage human sexuality, and then positive reasons why monogamous marriage works best to manage human sexuality will be given.
There are two reasons why non-monogamous marriage does not work to manage human sexuality: first, such relationships have no solution for those without partners, and second, such relationships are unstable. First among these is that non-monogamous relationships have no solution for those without partners. As noted above, human beings are sexually jealous. It is obvious that if a society is composed of non-monogamous relationships, then that society will have some without partners. Such disenfranchised individuals (almost always men since polygamy is the most prevalent form of non-monogamy) can easily become resentful and violent due to their lack of a partner and their inherent sexual jealousy (Coontz 4; Buss 201-206). This destabilizes a society (Buss 200). Secondly, non-monogamous relationships are unstable (Buss 221). Human beings need a degree of continuity across time. Because male-to-female relationships are central to human interaction, such relationships need to have a stable outline. If this is lacking, then psychological withdrawal is common (Moore; Whisman 712). Additionally, non-monogamous relationships are not manageable across time. In the present culture, the largest subpopulations practicing non-monogamy are those from twenty to thirty years old (Mathes et al. 949). This is because non-monogamy cannot sustain a family or medium to long-term lifestyle (Buss 50; Coontz 212). It is far too volatile and unpredictable. The supposed “sexual utopia” of non-monogamy may be workable, but only for those with limited responsibilities and whose personal lives have limited bearings on the rest of society. Therefore, non-monogamy does not work to manage human sexuality because such relationships have no solution for those without partners and such relationships are unstable.
In addition to this, it is useful to show not only why non-monogamous relationships fail to manage human sexuality, but also why monogamous marriage sufficiently manages it. The first reason for this is that monogamous marriage is, almost by definition, committed. Commitment is necessary for any complex and difficult relationship to work and produce benefits for those involved. In other words, one cannot see the benefits and usefulness of marriage if they have no commitment to stay with the marriage. Moreover, commitment implies stability. As noted above, human beings need stability in their lives (and especially in sexual relationships) in order to have psychological health. Monogamy is also stable across time, not only for the raising of children but for individuals as individuals (Chapais 52). Secondly, monogamy sufficiently manages human sexuality because it defines the relationship. If one is in a non-monogamous union (especially a polyamorous one), the relationship is fluid and ever-changing. As stated above, human sexual jealousy is a deeply rooted phenomenon. Because of this, one must find a way of making sense of their own jealousy in light of the desires of those around them. It is in monogamy where a relationship is simplified to such a degree that two people can manage their own jealousies and make sense of the accompanying complexities by outlawing all other sexual relationships. To conclude, monogamy sufficiently manages human sexuality because it is committal and because it reduces the complexity of the relationship.
Monogamous marriage is necessary because human beings are sexual creatures in their nature, and marriage has been used as a tool to manage human sexual jealousy. Non-monogamous marriage fails to manage human sexuality because it has no solution for those without partners and such relationships are unstable. Additionally, monogamy has been shown to be a sufficient management method because it is committed and reduces the complexity of the relationship. Society must find a way to manage human sexuality and human sexual jealousy; monogamy solves this difficulty.
The third reason why the health of a society is largely determined by the individual constituents’ active embodiment of heterosexual, monogamous marriage is because marriage is inherent to what society is as such. When one thinks of a culture, they think of families, communities, art, and expressed attitudes. All these things rely on normative marriage: society is dependent on marriage (Coontz 111, 289; Gies and Gies 3, 9; Murray 282). One cannot have a society if one does not have heterosexual marriage, children, and families. Although people sometimes use the word “society” to indicate something fringe (i.e. a “secret society” or a “society of monks”), it is usually meant to indicate something public, explicit, and center.
The thing central to all society and culture is humanity; the thing central to all humanity is family (Coontz 9). Moreover, at the center of a family is marriage. Because of this, it is not only difficult or unusual, but it is impossible to have a society without marriage (Gies and Gies 3, 36; Harrington; Murray 165). Marriage is the very grounding of society itself. Even the “secret society” is grounded on marriage and family, for the people in such an organization were born into the world and into a family at one point.
Additionally, it is of great importance to recognize that almost all successful societies have been monogamous and heterosexual to some large degree (Gies and Gies 25, 33-34; Theroux). This is not to take away from the comments made above about the radical reorientation that Christianity gave to marriage. Christian marriage is indeed different and these differences ought not to be disregarded. At the same time, most societies have striven for monogamy and heterosexuality among the common people (Gies 51-53). Societies survive because they embody heterosexual monogamy in marriage, not only because of the child-rearing and sexual issues discussed above, but also because no other form of marriage is sustainable for culture as culture.
In concluding this point, it has been shown that marriage is central to what society itself is as such. In addition to this, almost all societies have to an extent held to a standard of monogamy and heterosexual marriage. Without marriage, society cannot exist. And without a prevalent degree of normative marriage, society cannot be strong. Marriage is at the center of human civilization and ought to be taken seriously.
METAPHYSICAL REASONS WHY NORMATIVE MARRIAGE IS RIGHT
It is now important not only to prove why normative marriage is best because it works, but also why it is best because it is metaphysically correct. To do this, metaphysical claims must be made. Due to the length and scope of this essay, it is impossible to establish from the ground up why a certain metaphysical view is correct or incorrect and it is thus necessary to presuppose certain metaphysics; the presupposition in this essay will be a Christian metaphysical framework.
Having established this, the fourth reason why the health of a society is largely determined by the individual constituents’ embodiment of heterosexual, monogamous marriage is because such normative marriage aligns with the eternal story of marriage. The first thing which must be known about such a claim is what the eternal story of marriage is. As stated above, this argument presupposes a Christian understanding of metaphysical reality. So then, in Christianity, the story of the world could be framed as the story of a broken relationship made into a marriage. In this story, God is the husband and His people are the bride (Isa. 54:5). At the beginning of time, God made humanity to be in a relationship with Him (2 Pet. 3:9). Humanity, however, broke off this relationship (Gen 3:1-24). Later on, God selected a group of people (the Israelites) to be His people (His bride) for a time until He would offer the prospect of marriage to the rest of the world (Genesis 12:2-3). The Israelites were not a faithful spouse (Isa. 1:3-5). God then came to earth in the form of a man (Phil. 2:6-7). He made atonement and restoration with all of humanity (Rom. 5:9). Now, all people could be made right with God and be His bride for the eventual wedding (Rev. 19:7-10). This wedding will happen at the end of time.
This is the story of history and the world. It is also the story of a marriage. In it, God constantly pursues His unfaithful bride. He sacrifices for her in order that she may be right with Him and so that justice may be served. Because this story is at the center of reality, it then makes sense why human beings are often obsessed with romance and love stories. Even adventure stories are a different form of this romantic and marital one. Human beings cannot escape the reality, presence, and call to embody such a story (Jahosky 21-22, 50).
It is important to note that this story is one of normative marriage. This is first shown in the inherently heterosexual nature of the relationship. God is always referred to as the groom and His people are always the bride. Moreover, He is masculine while she is feminine. This is embedded in the story. It is a union of opposites, just as heterosexual marriage is; not a union of likenesses, as homosexual marriage is. The story presented above is metaphysically true and right. Thus, if a marriage fails to conform to the structure of this eternal marriage, then it is thereby metaphysically false and incorrect. It is in this way that heterosexuality is right and homosexuality is wrong.
As for monogamy, the eternal story of marriage is inherently monogamous. Of course, God’s people are unfaithful to Him on a continual and constant basis. This does not, however, disprove the fact that monogamy is idealized in the story. After all, one way to categorize the Christian understanding of sin is to understand that it is when humanity is unfaithful to God (1 Jn. 3:4-6). The unfaithfulness of God’s people is not at all positive. On the other end, God’s faithfulness is the reason why humanity can be redeemed and it is one of the most common reasons given for why humanity ought to worship God. Thus, although the relationship between God and His people is not directly monogamous, it proposes monogamy as the goal. Moreover, it must be recognized that there is no question of the monogamy of the eventual marriage between God and His people at the end of time. After this marriage, there will be no unfaithfulness on the part of the people, but they will be fully committed to God. So then, the eternal marriage is also monogamous, meaning that all the correct marriages between people will be monogamous as well.
The importance of the truthfulness of this metaphysical reality must be stressed. Namely, it is crucial that normative marriage is not only functionally workable but that it is also true and right at an immaterial level. Both of these things are not as disconnected as one might imagine. What is true is what one should do. Perhaps it is not always what is most pleasurable at the moment (staying married to another flawed person is not always “fun”), but it is what works and what is best long term. It is because of this that it is of great importance that one attempts to live out the ideal in their own life. Human beings already have some desire for this, but we can be perverted. Nonetheless, whether one feels like it or not, it is essential to strive to live out the eternal marriage ideal in one’s own marriage. This not only functionally works for society (as shown above) but it is also metaphysically true and correct.
REFUTATION OF SOME ANTICIPATED OBJECTIONS
Having now shown both why normative marriage works functionally and is metaphysically true, it has been found useful to present some arguments that may be made in opposition to the aforesaid points. Three such objections will be brought forward: first, that society is not dependent on marriage but on basic trust and decency, second, that societal well-being is dependent on economics and not marriage, and third, that although marriage is a human universal, heterosexual monogamy is not. Each of these will be refuted by either showing evidence to the contrary or the inadequacy of the objection.
The first point, that society is not dependent on marriage but on basic trust and decency, is not wholly false. People who offer up this objection are likely to argue that marriage is not central to societal well-being, but that societal well-being is more dependent on people treating each other with basic trust and decency. It should be acknowledged that there is a lot of truth in this objection; for if everyone in society is mistrustful and indecent to one another, then that society is certain to suffer. However, this objection fails to properly understand the orientation of the heretofore made arguments: that society is largely (not solely) dependent on marriage. In fact, there could easily be other singular and important things that affect society to a greater degree than marriage. The points made above are merely trying to prove that normative marriage is a factor, albeit a large factor, in societal health. Additionally, as was shown earlier in the paper, relations between men and women affect trust and decency more than any other relations between individuals do (Buss 286). Therefore, although there is some weight to this objection, it misses the point of this essay and it also fails to recognize that marriage itself affects basic human trust and decency.
The second point, that societal well-being is dependent on economics and not marriage, is trapped inside a physicalist framework and does not include enough details of betterment and reality. People who argue this point are likely to think that if one can merely be economically satisfied, then they and their society will be healthy. It must be acknowledged that economic sufficiency is an important factor of health, yet it is not the only factor. This is shown by the fact that many people in modern, Western countries who have more than they could want (and more than people of past centuries could dream of having) in material wealth and economic prosperity still suffer from meaninglessness, nihilism, and depression, among other things (HORWITZ 112). Economic prosperity, in other words, does not fully satisfy people; human well-being is dependent on more than wealth. It is because of this that economics cannot bring about the health of a civilization like marriage can, for marriage brings both physical and non-physical health. To add to this, as was shown above, the presence of normative marriages tends to greatly affect economics as well: if one wishes to worry about economics they should worry about marriage. Marriage, in large part, affects how an economy functions (Coontz 1-12). To conclude this point, then, this objection does not take into account a proper understanding of health; a civilization is not healthy just because of its economics.
The third and last objection which will be addressed is that although marriage is a human universal, heterosexual monogamy is not. The objector here is mostly right when they say that not every culture of every time was beholden to heterosexual monogamy. It is also the case, nonetheless, that such societies were not as successful or healthy as heterosexual and monogamous ones. It is no accident that Christian marriage undergirded the most powerful civilization in human history. Not all aspects of such a civilization are good and desirable, but it is certainly the case that such a civilization, flawed though it may be, is much more desirable than almost all (if not all) other societies in history. Additionally, although there were such non-normative societies, they are not as widespread as some may think. For example, some hunter-gatherer societies that were first thought to be deeply non-monogamous were later shown, by way of further study, to be monogamous, but just not in a way that researchers first realized. So then, even though some societies have been non-normative, they are few and far between (Theroux). Moreover, it is those societies that are more normative that have been more healthy than the non-normative ones.
To conclude this section on foreseeable objections, the combined evidence has shown that many of these objections either misunderstand the thesis of this essay or fail to account for the fact that normative marriage is indeed the grounding of many of the good things one observes in society.
CONCLUSION
This paper has shown that the health of a society is largely dependent on the individual constituents’ active embodiment of heterosexual, monogamous marriage. This has been proven by showing that this type of marriage works functionally for a society as well as being metaphysically correct. People are complex. Cultures, societies, and civilizations are complex. In the midst of such complexity, there is a need to make sense of what is going on, to find a way forward, to have an orientation toward something higher. Modern Western civilization is beginning to feel the effects of the real marriage crisis it has created.
There is a great push to return to pre-Christian norms. Although such a change would not be as catastrophic as some might fear, it would still fundamentally shift the ground on which human relationships, and thereby the entire society, stand. Not only that, it would produce functional issues in society. Marriage is central to how a society is run. Furthermore, normative marriage produces healthy societies while non-normative marriage produces non-healthy societies. On top of all this, there is a metaphysical story about marriage. This story is not something that only exists abstractly, for it also comes down and dwells in the lives and hearts of men. It shows us that heterosexual, monogamous marriage is true at more than a utilitarian level.
Many well-meaning and ambitious people wish to “save the world.” And yet, none of us can save the world. The world is too big to save. Despite the impossibility of fixing the world, each person can fix themselves. One can live as an example to others--not by shoving ideas, beliefs, or practices down their neighbor’s throat, but by living with a bold humility of what one believes to be right. Marriage may indeed be in crisis, but the crisis will not be solved by governmental policy changes, economic shifts, or telling others what they ought to do. What will fix the crisis, what will ensure peace, is to live according to that which both works and is true, hoping, all the while, that perhaps one’s own active embodiment of such principles will embolden others to do the same.
Works Cited
Alexander. “40 Facts About Two Parent Families.” GillespieShields, 28 Feb. 2020, gillespieshields.com/40-facts-two-parent-families/#:%7E:text=In%20summary%2C%20children%20living%20with,from%20broken%20homes%20(Dawson).
Anderssen, Norman, et al. “Outcomes for Children with Lesbian or Gay Parents. A Review of Studies from 1978 to 2000.” Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, vol. 43, no. 4, 2002, pp. 335–51. Crossref, https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9450.00302.
Buss, David. The Evolution of Desire: Strategies of Human Mating. 2nd ed., New York, New York, Basic Books, 2003.
Cano, Tomás, et al. “A Matter of Time: Father Involvement and Child Cognitive Outcomes.” Journal of Marriage and Family, vol. 81, no. 1, 2018, pp. 164–84. Crossref, https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12532.
Chapais, Bernard. “Monogamy, Strongly Bonded Groups, and the Evolution of Human Social Structure.” Evolutionary Anthropology: Issues, News, and Reviews, vol. 22, no. 2, 2013, pp. 52–65. Crossref, https://doi.org/10.1002/evan.21345.
Collins, W. Andrew, et al. “Contemporary Research on Parenting: The Case for Nature and Nurture.” American Psychologist, vol. 55, no. 2, 2000, pp. 218–32. Crossref, https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066x.55.2.218.
Coontz, Stephanie. Marriage, a History: From Obedience to Intimacy or How Love Conquered Marriage. New York, Viking Books, 2005.
DeSanctis, Alexandra. “Children Do Better When Raised in Intact, Two-Parent Homes.” National Review, 17 June 2021, www.nationalreview.com/corner/children-do-better-when-raised-in-intact-two-parent-homes.
Gies, Frances, and Joseph Gies. Marriage and the Family in the Middle Ages. Reprint, New York City, New York, Harper Perennial, 1989.
Harrington, Mary. “The Sexual Revolution Killed Feminism.” UnHerd, 1 Nov. 2021, unherd.com/2021/11/the-sexual-revolution-killed-feminism.
HORWITZ, ALLAN V. “How an Age of Anxiety Became an Age of Depression.” Milbank Quarterly, vol. 88, no. 1, 2010, pp. 112–38. Crossref, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0009.2010.00591.x.
Hunter, David. Marriage and Sexuality in Early Christianity (Ad Fontes: Early Christian Sources, 5). Minneapolis, Fortress Press, 2018.
Ingraham, Christopher. “The Share of Americans Not Having Sex Has Reached a Record High.” Washington Post, 29 Mar. 2019, www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/03/29/share-americans-not-having-sex-has-reached-record-high.
Jahosky, Michael. The Good News of the Return of the King: The Gospel in Middle-Earth. Wipf and Stock, 2020.
Jaslow, Ryan. “Kids of Gay Parents Fare Worse, Study Finds, but Research Draws Fire from Experts.” CBS News, 16 Jan. 2014, www.cbsnews.com/news/kids-of-gay-parents-fare-worse-study-finds-but-draws-fire-from-experts.
Jones, By Jeffrey. “LGBT Americans Married to Same-Sex Spouse Steady at 10%.” Gallup.Com, 18 Feb. 2022, news.gallup.com/poll/389555/lgbt-americans-married-same-sex-spouse-steady.aspx.
Mathes, Eugene W., et al. “An Evolutionary Perspective on the Interaction of Age and Sex Differences in Short-Term Sexual Strategies.” Psychological Reports, vol. 90, no. 3, 2002, pp. 949–56. Crossref, https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.2002.90.3.949.
Moore, Marissa. “Long-Term Psychological Effects of Infidelity.” Psych Central, 29 Oct. 2021, psychcentral.com/health/long-term-psychological-effects-of-infidelity.
Murray, Charles. Coming Apart: The State of White America, 1960–2010. Hard Cover, New York, Crown Forum, 2013.
Pagels, Elaine. Adam, Eve, and the Serpent: Sex and Politics in Early Christianity. Vintage Books ed, New York, Vintage, 2011.
Regnerus, Mark. “How Different Are the Adult Children of Parents Who Have Same-Sex Relationships? Findings from the New Family Structures Study.” Social Science Research, vol. 41, no. 4, 2012, pp. 752–70. Crossref, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2012.03.009.
Sawhill, Isabel. “Are Children Raised With Absent Fathers Worse Off?” Brookings, 29 July 2016, www.brookings.edu/opinions/are-children-raised-with-absent-fathers-worse-off/#:%7E:text=Children%20raised%20by%20single%20mothers,success%20in%20the%20labor%20market.
Theroux, David. “The Historical and Christian Roots of Marriage ~.” The Imaginative Conservative, 15 Aug. 2019, theimaginativeconservative.org/2016/04/the-historical-and-christian-roots-of-marriage.html.
Ueda, Peter, et al. “Trends in Frequency of Sexual Activity and Number of Sexual Partners Among Adults Aged 18 to 44 Years in the US, 2000–2018.” JAMA Network Open, vol. 3, no. 6, 2020, p. e203833. Crossref, https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.3833.
Whisman, Mark A. “Discovery of a Partner Affair and Major Depressive Episode in a Probability Sample of Married or Cohabiting Adults.” Family Process, vol. 55, no. 4, 2015, pp. 713–23. Crossref, https://doi.org/10.1111/famp.12185.
White, Lynn. “Growing Up with Single Parents and Stepparents: Long-Term Effects on Family Solidarity.” Journal of Marriage and the Family, vol. 56, no. 4, 1994, p. 935. Crossref, https://doi.org/10.2307/353604.