Marriage was to protect mother and child and to assign responsibility.
And to inculcate the same values into children, who will one day be parents, too. These values are grounded in sociobiology and economics, not natural law nor a sense of right and wrong. Not many people understand this.
Mq, the whole thing relates to the time that humans have to nurture children, 18 years or more, a serious economic burden on parents. If children do not see the example of faithful parents diligently discharging their parental reponsibilities, they won't discharge them like they should when their time to do so comes because broken homes, promiscuity, and neglect is all they know, all they've experienced.
Children raised in broken homes have a statistically-proven record of increased criminality, pathology, etc., for which we taxpayers eventually pay.
The reason we expect our public figures to act in a certain "moral" manner is because they are role models. If they, as leaders, suggest that it is OK to act like a chimp in heat, they are in effect endorsing the notion that broken homes, etc., are the norm and that as a consequence the Nanny State, i.e., you and me as taxpayers, should foot the increased social cost.
Ever wonder why the upper-middle and upper classes are populated with persons who have had stable marriages and the lower classes are not?
I'm not interested in paying the social and financial costs inherent in someone else's promiscuity. This is one of the pillars of conservatism--pay for your own foolishness.
That's why leaders should strive to be "morally" pristine. I put the word "morally" in inverted commas because morals are relative. Sociobiology is not. |
