The links do not prove your claims. That it is "exceedingly difficult without it to raise healthy, well-adjusted, successful children" without marriage, or that men and women need each other in a one to one ratio.
Nor are the fact that men comes out better than non-married men proves that this type of marriage is the best for men, polygamy has been practiced in a majority of the world: Asia, Middle East, Africa, American Indians - only in Western Europe, with the emergence of Rome and Catholicism was marriage made to be a one-man-one-woman thing.
it was about social stability, and property was in there too - however, fundamentally you are incorrect, the primary purpose has been and remains today provision of and for the next generation. that whole, darwinian, seeking-the-best-model-to-pass-on-ones-genes-thing.
Well, you have to provide the history to prove your claim that its "primary purpose has been and remains today provision of and for the next generation". In some cultures, such as Chinese, and even the English, children are a mean to continue family prestige, not an end in and of themselves. That's why the English aristocrats wanted "an heir and a spare", the older son can die, so long as there's another one to take on the family title. That's why in China, parents would kill their own daughters in hope for a son who can then pass on the family name.
You are taking a very rosy, short-term view of marriage and parenthood.
actually
only Hillary Clinton says this. She claimed it was an "old African saying" for her book.... but said saying has yet to actually
surface from Africa.
in reality, it takes parents. emphasis on the plural. children with single parents are more likely to
drop out of school (and become single parents),
get addicted to drugs, commit suicide, and
become violent criminals
Actually it's science. Just because Clinton said it doesn't mean none other has said it or that I heard it from her. And just because two-parents household is better than single-parent household, doesn't mean nuclear family is the best type of family for raising children.
Children benefits from a larger and varied social groups. In place of extended family, we now have playgroups and kindergarten to give children the environment for social interaction to aid their development. In cultures where extended family is still the norm, such as Asia, you don't see the children lacking behind in their academics, and in fact, Asians tend to have less crimes than other groups.
And it doesn't take parents, plural or otherwise,
it just takes adults that the child can be attached to and feel secure around, who fully interact with the child. Grandparents and older siblings can raise children successfully, adoptive parents were strange adults before they became "parents". The problem with single-parent household is that the single parent often doesn't have time and resources to look after the children properly, it doesn't mean not having two "parents" is detrimental by itself, even if the single-parent can provide adequate time and resources as well as the social environment where the child can interact with a variety of people. That's a logical jump you made that has no prove.