What IS marriage?

[FoxDemonSoavi]

I was reading over at this blog and saw what I thoguth was a good definition of what marriage really is. I wanted people's opinions on it and marriage in general. This is not about homosexuality perse, even though it is refrenced in the quote, but rather what marriage is and is not.


"Marriage is centered around a choice. Two individuals meet, court, and decide to wed. The actual marriage, whether it is religiously based or civilly based requires the willingness of each individual. In a civil marriage, the two individuals consent to the marriage by signing a contract. In a religious marriage (Roman Catholic is used in this example) the individuals are each asked if they consent to the marriage. If both individuals do not consent, marriage cannot occur. The choice of marriage is whether or not each individual is willing to marry the other individual and it is in this choice that marriage is constructed.

The individual has the ability to choose who his or her marriage partner is if the partner also consents. In fact, an individual can choose not to enter into any marriage at all. This does not preclude the possibility of that individual's marriage, but recognizes that the individual has no one who he or she would consent to marrying and would also consent to marrying the individual. All people have the ability to make the choice of to marry another individual or not.

This in turn leads to the question of how can marriage be considered a right if it is centered on choice. A right is "legal or moral entitlement to do or refrain from doing something or to obtain or refrain from obtaining an action, thing or recognition in civil society" (Wikipedia). Marriage can only be a right if it is not a duty or a privilege. Because someone can choose never to marry, marriage is not a duty because it is not all individuals enter into it. It might appear that marriage could be considered a privilege as individuals are limited in who they can marry.

Marriage is commonly not allowed when one or both of the individuals is under the age of consent. The reason is that they are deemed to be incapable of consenting properly to the union of the two individuals because they lack the maturity and understanding to enter into such an agreement. In fact, the younger individual may be more easily coerced into marriage. Not allowing such a marriage to take place, is not a prescription against these two individuals ever from marrying, but from the individuals marrying when at least one of them is under aged. Both individuals may choose to marry each other at some point in the future. The older individual may even consent to marriage with another of age individual. So society is seen as revoking marriage when it is not able to receive the valid consent of both parties.

It would appear now that for marriage to be a privilege, it is based on the consent of each individual. The marriage in that example was not allowed because of the age and subsequently the inability of one of the individuals to consent to the union. However, the idea behind marriage is that each party consents. In the example, the under aged individual was unable to consent so the marriage could not occur. Indeed, if it had occurred it would not be marriage as it is intended because of the lack of proper consent. We find that society here is enforcing the importance of consent in a marriage and not restricting marriages as they are meant to be.

Another example of a time when marriage is not allowed is same sex marriage cannot. Here, the ability for two individuals to marry is revoked because each is of the same sex. Each of the individuals can validly consent to marrying the other, but the marriage is still refused because of the restriction of sex. What made a marriage valid is present but the marriage is not allowed. The reason for the prohibition is that the two individuals are of the same gender. If one individual was to change genders legally, then the marriage could occur. The same individuals would have consented as the only difference is the gender of one individual.

This analysis presents two possibilities. Marriage could be a privilege only offered to heterosexual couples or it could be a right denied to homosexual couples. Homosexuals exist as a class of citizens as they share a common orientation. This class of citizens is singled out without regard to the individuals. It is seen through the fact that the consent of each individual in a same sex couple may consent to marriage, but would be denied that possibility because of only their gender. The important facts surrounding each individual’s decision to get married is not considered. It would be little different form saying that individuals with a height difference of 6 inches, tattoos, or blue eyes could not marry. The individual is lost in the class making it discrimination.

In the United States, privileges do not legally exist through discriminating against a group. Privileges exist through earning them and are lost by abuse or misuse. One has the privilege to get a driver’s license, but will loss this privilege upon repeated DWI offenses. In removing a privilege, the individual is considered. To say that anyone who drinks is not allowed to have a driver’s license would be viewed as unjust. In denying the ability for two consenting same sex individuals from marrying because they are of the same gender, the right of marriage is doing exactly that. Not allowing same sex marriage is denying homosexuals their civil rights because of the class of citizens that they belong to.

Marriage is constituted of the conscious and valid consent of two individuals forming a union. What lies at the heart of marriage is consent as is shown by what marriages are and are not allowed. One problematic marriage that is not allowed is that between homosexuals. Valid and conscious consent is present here, but the marriage is not allowed because the individuals are of the same gender. The question of whether marriage is a right or a privilege is present in this prohibition. Marriage is denied to homosexual couples not because of the individuals they are and the quality of their consent, but the class of citizens to which they belong. Because the class is being singled out and not the individual this is considered discrimination and is not considered a revocation of a right to marriage. This claim is strengthened by the fact that each individual could marry a person with a different gender immediately after their marriage refusal and assuming shared consent would be allowed to. As such, marriage exists as a right present to all individuals who can consent valid and it is denied to homosexuals because of the homosexual nature of their relationship."

Posted by: Christopher Robert | July 11, 2006 at 11:53 PM

 

[ryanwh]

Commitment set in stone, and insurance. Back in the day, women didnt work, and they needed insurance on their lifesake, hence marriage. Now, many people choose not to work cus they suck, hence marriage still exists. For the breadwinner, marriage insures steady casual sex. For the other person, marriage insures a roof over their head and money. If they're both working at high paying high hour jobs, well...they're probably cheating on each other. They're just married cus they have kids probably.

 

[cos]

The problem when fiding stuff like you did on the net is that it's often very tricky,you can sometimes find desinformation,or like here an incomplete and subjectiv information.

I don't agree with Ryanwh who apparently never heard about the matriarchal societies,marriage is indeed for protection but not for women protection.

Marriage is the concept found in every society where the State give help and protection to a couple so that they can reproduce and by the same way assure the State survival.
It's a part of what we wall the "social contract"(I ain't sure it's the same name in english,Hobbes call it the Leviathan).

I ain't against giving marriage to homosexual,the only problem is that marriage becomes then something totaly different from his first goal: reproduction.
And to finish I'd like to quote a french deputy who was kind of funny but so true:"Homosexual have the right to marry,they just need to find a woman for it".

 

[ryanwh]

I dont really see what matriarchtical societies has to do with anything, marriage(not the equivelents throughout the world, but the marriage one thinks of when using the word) came from patriarch societies, and it was for a woman's lifesake. She's go from her father to her husband. Sorry if it bothers you to hear that, but that's what it was for. Kids came after marriage, marriage wasnt invented for kids, it was invented for families in a time where each member of the family had a very specific role to play which the other half couldnt or simply refused to. Marriage set in stone that family ecosystem, each dependant on the other for certain areas of speciality. Divorce and equality make the foundations marriage was built upon null and void, so I really dont see how the "sanctity" could be ruined any more than it is, so I dont get why people are being refused the rights gained through marriage in leu of a substandard "equal" that possesses hardly the same legal benifits as marriage.

 

[cos]

I think you're misunderstanding marriage and what we could call a religious-inspired marriage.Marriage is indeed for protecting the whole family,but marriage is something that has clearly a goal:to make childrens.I mean there is no sense in marriage if it isn't for children and survival of the species.

What I meaned with matriarchal societies is that even matriarchal societies where women hold the power and don't need to be protected have marriage.

The father to husband link is something that is typical for our western civilazsations but as said above,mariage aren't build on woman "trading".Plus these kind of link aren't really family related,they are mostly based on interest.

As for the "sanctify",I don't like the term,let's call it the principle I never said it wasn't outdated,of course it is something completly different nowadays then in the mesopotamian era.
And I'm even for giving marriage to homosexuals,nowadays it's just a symbol after all.
I'm just saying that in a way it's like negating the society,I mean what happens to a society that is totaly homosexual?I doesn't live more then a generation.Let's sum up,people founded a society in order to survive but the society doesn't let them survive,isn't it kind of absurd?Of course this kind of exemple isn't bound to ever happen,it's just that giving marriage to homosexual is a way to neglect our world fundation.
It's something that ever the past gay-friendly civilization like antic-greeks for exemple who often lived more with their male lover then with their wife never did,there must be a reason behind it don't you think?

The problem nowadays is because all this religious shit,marriage has become something like "the summit of love" but love isn't marriage.

 

[Roman Candle]

Curiously enough once people settled down into fixed societies, and men realised that they played a role in the mystery of birth, matriarchal societies almost vanished. By the time of the golden age of Greece, men had decided that they 'spread the seed' and that women were simply the 'earth' that nourished the child. The idea that all inheritance came down the male line persisted with some people right to the Victorian ages.

The point is, in those 'gay-friendly' societies, men were still expected to settle down with women and raise families. The whole gay thing went hand in hand with a general dismissal of women. The Greeks were simply obssessed with the beauty of the male form - even more so than we are with women. If we lived in a greek society now, every busty woman rubbing herself on this powerdrill or that pack of ciggarettes on a billboard would be replaced by a naked oiled man with biceps to put Mr.Schwarzenegger to shame (sigh). And, you know, if men are so much better than women, than sex with a man has got to be much better than with a woman.

Anyway, I'm getting off topic again (you can tell I'm a classicist :lol. Athenian women in particular were treaded as commodeties. There was no such thing as gay or straight to the Greeks: just about everyone had sex with men; everybody was excepted to start a familiy, to ensure the prosperity of the state. Remember, these were the days when underpopulation, not overpopulation, was the problem. Rome was similar - homosexuality was not uncommon; but it was nothing like in Greece. Even more so, men in power were expected to have large families. Augustus introduced tax cuts for men with more than ten children :lol: At a certain point, marriage was sepparated into 'sine manu' and 'cum manu'. 'sine manu' (without hands) meant that the women retained some independance; that is, she still lived with her father. 'cum manu' (with hands) meant that all the woman's dowry became property of her husband, and her herself as well.

ryanwh is right about security. Even recently that's been the case in many places. Victorian women that didn't marry relied entirely on their famillies to support them. If you've read Of Mice And Men, Curley's Wife is a perfect example, (I know it's fiction, but it's a nice representation of a cultural paradigm). It's not nice; but then it's only recently that people have started trying to be nice. Sad, but true.

I view a marriage as a religious ritual, incorperated into almost all major religions. In most countries, it is also endorsed by the state and give a bond of legislation. I believe that through the separation of Church and State, people should be able to have one without the other. That is, any two adults should be able to have a legislational marriage; but if the Church wants to deny someone a ceremony, that's entirely their own affair.

 

[King Moogle]

I also think it's worth noting that there are various legal aspects as well. Marriage totally revamps many aspects of one's life in a legal sense, and it's important to take them into consideration. For example, the protection of children and their rights is highly taken into account when considering marriages; the importance of FICO scores and etcetera are important as well.

To quote meriam-webster.com's first definition, marriage is "...the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law". This is in no way a slant against , and I don't know whether this topic was designed to get into that. However, to my knowledge, most world religions don't approve of (this is an observation, not a judgement), and as s are unable to reproduce, the need for their children to be protected under marriage laws is just as valid as ...

I'm dropping that ball right now, 'cause I think that's not where this topic is meant to go. Nevertheless, that is my personal opinion on what I believe the most rational definition of marriage is.

 

[ryanwh]

"That is, any two adults should be able to have a legislational marriage; but if the Church wants to deny someone a ceremony, that's entirely their own affair."
That sums it up nicely.

 

[Jstreet]

Imo, marriage is a trap and another capitalist gain. A lot of shit has changed from what it used to be. Marriage was once something sacred according to the religion it was placed in, but now hell it's more of a show to let people know "We're bangin, and there's nothing you can do about it. =3" or "I'm not really pregnant, but this was the only way he'd do this..."

 

[TofuMatt]

To me it's just a legal thing. I would consider legally becoming married to someone I would spent a long time (possibly the rest of my life) with.

 

[Sion]

Marriage doesnt mean anything anymore unless your religous, its just a tradition thing.

 

[TofuMatt]

Well actually that's incorrect; marriage is a legal institution as well as a (notably seperate) religious one. My parents are legally wed, but never had a religious ceremony; they were wed by a judge.