Today they tell us will mark the point the world’s human population passes the 7 billion mark, and estimates for the rest of this century range from 6 to 16 billion – that’s a lot of people! The major reason for the wide variation is uncertainty about how we will react, and what will happen to fertility numbers (ie the number of children born to each mother). A few decades back the global average was 5, but currently it has fallen to 2.5, and the lower population estimates are based on it falling further.
Traditionally societies and civilisations have always sought to regulate sexual behaviour, and generally this has been achieved through designating special status to the core component for reproduction – a man and a woman. In order to create stability for families most societies have accorded the unit special status – marriage. It’s not special because of the romantic attachment for the two people involved, or because of the economic status of women, or any other reason – it is accorded special status because of its uniquely beneficial role in regulating sexual behaviour and the bearing and nurture of children.
The twentieth century saw us start a set of social experiments globally playing with the natural balance. In China, India and several far eastern cultures the female numbers were artificially suppressed by measures which valued male babies more highly. In the west we both deregulated sexual behaviour, largely disconnected it from reproduction, and sought a variety of economic and medical means to control population, both incentivising the bearing of children economically, and suppressing it by means of contraception and abortion.
The fact that a number of sociologists and anthropologists are using the passing of the 7 billion mark to make some fairly dark predictions as to the potential consequences of gender imbalance and over population should be a wake up call to all to recognise that we are dealing with matters of national and global significance.
And what is our government doing? Talking about “Gay Marriage” as a matter of “rights” instead of recognising that marriage is not a “right” at all, but a fundamental regulatory mechanism for the control of reproductive urges, and the orderly raising of the next generation! Ignoring this fundamental aspect of marriage, and seeking instead to enshrine some romantic notion of “couple relationships” as being beneficial to society will do nothing for our children. Instead we shall confine them to a world of gross numerical gender inequalities, and a shortage of basic resources – a world that almost inevitably turns to conflict.
Ignoring the “natural law” function of marriage is not just “fiddling while Rome burns”, it is a gross dereliction of duty to children and future generations.
Dave Percival www.2-in-2-1.co.uk
