Is Marriage Necessary?
April 19, 2008 by Bald Man
Filed under Relationships
It has been a busy week of evenings here at Breezemoor, so while skimming a few hundred RSS headlines I came across a question that struck me as interesting.
Is Marriage Necessary?
At the risk of waxing philosophic so late at night, I’ll pose a brief answer and then let you, Intrepid Reader, put your two cents in.
Marriage is necessary, because at its best, marriage provides a safe place for individuals to know themselves and be known by others. When a person is married, he expresses his intent to be a partner to their spouse for the rest of his natural live. Insofar as a spouse can trust that promise, she is able to live in light of the future reality expressed by that promise.
If my landlord tells me my rent will not be raised for the next ten years, I can make some budget decisions based on that commitment. A marriage expresses a far deeper commitment between two people, and the freedom offered to a spouse by that grand commitment is unmatched by any other arrangement.
While I am happy to be married, I do not think that marriage is necessary. I believe it to be a religious symbol and event, and the government has no place in the equation. You can be equally committed without the service and symbolism. If you can trust the person who makes the promise in the ceremony, why can you not have an equal level of trust without the ceremony. If you pledge to stay together, you pledge to stay together.
yes, marriage is necessary.
Maria,
Interestingly, marriage existed long before governments and religions started to get involved. If we made a clear distinction between the “wedding” and the “marriage,” would your answer still be the same?
Ashey,
‘Nuff said.
If you take away the government and religion, then marriage is what I described– a commitment to one another, so my answer would be yes. I do think that the commitment to one another is necessary. Your life long pledge has real life immediate and long term consequences. Now to make this REALLY controversial, if we go with that life-long commitment as being marriage, then I think that extends to all portions of the population– irregardless of gender, sex, class or any other status.
All of that being said, I assume you mean religion as “the church” and not that as described in the Old Testament.
If a person is a serial monogamist – marriage is absolutely NOT necessary. If the attitude going in is “as long as it works,” it is absolutely not necessary. But, for those who truly are commiting their LIFE to the other person and want to make it official, or final, or blessed in some way, yes marriage is necessary. It validates and seals the commitment. Would you engage in a business deal without a contract? Would you take a business associate seriously if they said “why don’t we just shake on it instead of signing papers”? Would that shaking of hands be considered real or valid by the world?
Although marriage is being mis-used in American society, I strongly believe it’s true purpose is necessary and functional.
I just realized I mispelled my own name the first time I posted here.. I am not, in fact, ‘Ashey’!
Ashley
I/you/anyone could make it just as “official” by stating your intentions in front of the TV on Friday night– so long as you both are serious. And what about civil unions? Why can that not be open to a man and woman as much as a same sex couples. It is an option available in much of Europe, where the legal/government and religious sides are separated. Why do should non-believers be left to only have a legally binding contract when a verbal contract/agreement could be equally as well? Verbal contracts can be legally binding.
Hmm… I’m going to try to get one of my gf’s over here to explain why she and her partner are not getting married.
So wait – are you saying you think marriage is necessary, or unecessary?
If a verbal contract will do – why won’t it do for same sex unions?
As the institution of marriage exists right now, I say no. Marriage is not necessary. (As I stated in my first reply.)
I was just throwing out additional questions for discussion.
Why won’t verbal do for same sex as the institution of marriage exists today? Because they do not have any other option. I think there should be equal options across the board, with the exception of religious reasons, which in my church wouldn’t be an issue, but in others it would. I.e. the catholic church is probably never going to marry a gay couple, whereas (perhaps) the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) might.
Basically it boils down to the idea that the government should have no hand in marriage, and stating ones intention for life shouldn’t require a ceremony and/or license to mean that you are committed to a life-long partnership.
I realize I just stated that all as fact, but it is only fact in so much as my opinion is fact. LOL! Was I clear as mud?
I guess so – but I still don’t agree that stating an intention is the same as following through with an action to prove intention.
I can easily state that I love someone – but if I don’t show loving actions towards that person does it really mean anything? Actions must follow up words and intentions..
The follow through (action) in all cases is staying together, not the ceremony.
The ceremony is the beginning of the follow-through (actions).
But does it have to be? Maybe someone believes the next step after declaration is … buying a house? or living together?
Not saying it can’t be the ceremony for those who believe in the ceremony– just that other people might have a different thought.
BTW– Thanks for the discussion. I think it is interesting and stimulating.
I think marriage is UNnecessary, but in order to really get a grasp on why, you first have to separate “marriage” out into its two distinct and separate components – the religious component (which is manifested in a religous ceremony), and the governmental component (which is manifested by applying for and paying a fee to the government in order to have a contract – or “license” – issued by the state).
My partner and I have decided to not get married because we believe that both of these two components are unnecessary for us to form a permanent bond. We’re happy with the permanent bond that we have with each other, the bond that we share through the promises that we make to each other every day, and the bond that we have through the child that we intentionally chose to have “out of wedlock,” as some would call it.
We are not religious people. We do not belong to a church. We believe in God, but for us, organized religion is not a part of that. Going into a church and making some kind church-approved “commitment” would be a meaningless farce for us. Not to mention that it would be insulting to those of my friends and family who ARE religious and who take churchgoing very seriously. I don’t want to go into their house of worship and degrade it by putting on some kind of dog-and-pony-show in a white dress when it’s not what I believe. That’s not fair to them.
Now, for the government side of things, I don’t think it’s any of the government’s business to be issuing “licenses” that “approve” or “finalize” our relationship. My love for him is none of the government’s business. I think it’s crazy that the government offers – for SALE – licenses – but only to certain people – that makes their love “official.”
The last time I checked, neither the religious component or the governmental component does ANYTHING toward ensuring that people stay together forever, or that the permanency of their relationship is set in stone. Divorce is at an all-time high, and I should know, because I’m a divorce attorney.
If anything, I think the whole religious ceremony and government license hullaballoo tricks people into complacency. “Oh, it’s OFFICIAL, I’m going to be with this person FOREVER.” And they begin to take that for granted over the years and the relationship disentigrates.
My partner and I are happy and secure in the knowledge that we’re together because we WANT to be together, because we CHOOSE to be together. I promise that if we ever decided to stop being together, no government license would prevent us from dissolving our relationship, and the same is true for the thousands of people who had big church weddings and file for divorce every day.
End of rant.
ditto
My friend said she posted a comment, but maybe because it is her first, they have to approve it?
First off,
Great discussion! I’ve got some other posts up my sleeve that will continue along this theme; but I do want to respond to some comments.
I’m going to leave the gay marriage equation alone for now. I’ve intentionally avoided it at MA so far. It’s as hot a topic as their is, and when (if) I venture into those waters, I want to give it proper consideration.
I do think it’s interesting that the conversation has centered more on the question of “Is a wedding necessary?” Perhaps that is indicative of how prominent the wedding is to our present idea of marriage. We are struggling to define our terms. When we say “marriage,” what exactly do we mean, and do we all mean the same thing?
Food for thought: For the majority of history marriage was not initiated with a public ceremony. In several cultures co-habitation was synonymous with marriage. In western Europe until the late middle ages all that was required to be married was the mutual consent of the two individuals (or their families, but that in another story). Marriage for most of history was much more like modern “common law” marriages.
Final comment. I think Ashley and Maria touch on an interesting side question above in their short exchange on intentions and actions. What, if any, is the value of marking the beginning of marriage with a ceremony?
Even if you don’t address gay marriage, I think you should also consider the governments role, right or wrong, in modern marriage. Also, the “other” benefits, such as insurance, that some companies only offer if you are legally married. My old company, URS, offered benefits to cohabitant couples who were not legally married, but committed. Anyway… just more food for thought.
“What, if any, is the value of marking the beginning of marriage with a ceremony?”
I know that since I have decided not to get married, certain of my friends and family are uncomfortable with the status of our relationship. By all outward appearances we’re married. We live together, we own a home together, we have cross-titled insurance, life insurance, wills, I am pregnant with our first child – you name it.
But we didn’t have the wedding ceremony, so people can’t wrap their heads around the concept that we do, in fact, intend to be together forever. The lack of a formal ceremony, to them, indicates some level of transience in our relationship, like we’re just temporarily “playing house.”
The best answer I can give to this is that permanent nonmarried relationships are such a new facet of our culture that they don’t fit neatly into the organizational boxes we like to create in our heads to categorize people. I’m not saying this is a bad thing – on the contrary, the way that the human brain works makes us put people into these categories. Married, engaged, single, dating, separated, divorced, widowed. These have been our boxes. The creation of a new “box” makes people uncomfortable. They don’t know what to think about it.
But it’s no different from the way the “divorced” box was viewed prior to the 1950s. Divorce was virtually unheard of, and as it became vastly more common, people had come to terms with lots of others being placed in that box. Now it’s a non-issue. So we can accept new ways to view relationships – it just takes time.
And as for Maria’s comment on the governmental sanctioning and related economic benefits of marriage, that’s an entirely different topic, and a huge one. I think it’s absolute trash that the government allows this to happen, discriminating against people who are otherwise fit to enter into a marriage just because of their sex. Since when did sex stop becoming a constitutionally protected class? Apparently it was when the government decided that the Christian Biblical standard of marriage would also serve as their governmental standard, separation of church and state be damned.
Each partner holds the other accountable for their actions. I’m accountable to my wife everytime I make a decision or take action affecting both of us. Trust is more important than a piece of paper in a relationship.
Maria & Melissa,
Consideration of the government’s proper role is an interesting topic indeed. I’ll have to give it some thought.
/me adds reminder to growing list of half-started posts.
Greg,
Thanks for joining in. Would your relationship be different if you and your wife didn’t have an official certificate from the government?
I think our relationship would be the same with or without a certificate, Bald Man. The reason being, we see marriage as a decision we both made 37 years ago. There are and were a number of reasons that we made that decision.
Both of us are HELD ACCOUNTABLE for the decision to be married. There are responsibilities that go along with accountability. Children, a home, food, clothing, and education for them. I am responsible and held accountable for providing.
There are plenty of good thoughts going on here! Maria and Melissa are good thinkers and you, Bald Man, seem to have brought together people here who have good, sound reasons to discuss both sides of this issue! Thanks for allowing me to join in!
My website is http://www.mywetplanet.com and on it I try to bring similar thoughts and subjects to discuss. See what you think.
Greg
Today’s marriage is not originally how it was intented to be.
Marriage, we are suppose to Love and honor
nurture the marriage, have dreams and goals submit to each other. Work on them implement them. As we grow in our lives have family. Be loving not only who love us but all not to the same degree but to the way we would want to be respected.
We was suppose to have the one spouse be fruitful and multiply, we was suppose to keep our innocense from when we was small and even while growing up understand the differences.
In marriage we are suppose to become as one
bringing unity together for the two and usually this came from our up bringing not only through
people who are keeping their vows and may not believe in GOD, or have as stated on prior notes religion. IF ONE BELIEVES IN GOD, WE ARE SUPPOSE TO DELIGENTLY SEEK HIM….Yes, we have rules and beliefs and disbeliefs of the world. But that still does not make it final authority;
God, said he is the Alpha and the Omega
the beginning and the end. No one has come before him.
Now with saying that to say if God is for us then are we suppose to be against him?
Could the reason be on how we feel of a person or situation?
Saidy, I respect your viewpoints. How we feel toward our partner is one reason we made the decision to be married. I love my wife and I have that decision as means of proof that I love her.
I’m not saying that feeling has no relationship to love. I love Jesus and God because I made the decision to do so. That decision is based on justifiable reasons. Therefore, I don’t have to examine my feelings everytime I’m asked “do you love your God?”.
If that sounds old fashion or out of sync with logic……it’s my justification for loving God and Jesus. It has nothing to do with a particular church or church doctrine.
God bless all of you!!
Greg
Greg,
I respect what you say, however it is not up to what we say to each other or any one else the final word come’s from our Heavenly Father, who is God.
I am just speaking what I understand from his word not of my own.
We love him and learn to love him unconditionally, this is 2nd that we also love others and ourselves.
God Bless you all
Saidy,
I see a lot of wisdom in your statements of 5/26/08. I agree that God’s word is ALWAYS final because He is perfect and His wisdom is beyond our comprehension.
You speak of an unconditional love as though you have it deep within your soul.
People are, on the other hand, imperfect. we can be misguided by language into thinking what we wish another person intends.
This is why we need God’s guidance and foregiveness to find love that is without conditions.
God bless you
We love him and learn to love him unconditionally, this is 2nd that we also love others and ourselves.
We do not have his same wisdom but the above statement is based on one of his commandments this is not the only for guidance and his forgiveness but in learning to live and turning away from an old way that maynot been positive or even knowing this type of love to growing and loving him 1st others 2nd and ourselves third.
This is a practice, and whether another person loves us or not we out of our relationship with GOD, and his word should be able to still walk in love. In time out of practice this becomes more unconditional.
Hope this is helpful
God Bless you all
Sorry 5/28/08 is what l last sent.
We love him and learn to love him unconditionally, this is 2nd that we also love others and ourselves.
We do not have his same wisdom but the above statement is based on one of his commandments this is not the only for guidance and his forgiveness but in learning to live and turning away from an old way that maynot been positive or even knowing this type of love to growing and loving him 1st others 2nd and ourselves third.
This is a practice, and whether another person loves us or not we out of our relationship with GOD, and his word should be able to still walk in love. In time out of practice this becomes more unconditional.
Hope this is helpful
God Bless you all
Saidy,
With God, all things are possible and that means even the most impossible of things. I do not know the depth of God’s love for me. I do know that God’s love is unconditional and my love for Him and Jesus is the same.
Marriage and love thru practice becomes unconditional too. We should not set too many conditions for marriage other than love for each other and a promise to be faithful and be at our best always.
God bless you
Greg
Yeah, well, about unconditional love… I was very unhappy in my marriage. I asked my pastor… he said God didn’t like divorce, even without asking if the guy hit me or anything… That was the first indication that something was wrong with this so called “people of God” who prefer beaten women to divorced women. God sets a condition for every blessing on the Bible. He loves us unconditionally, but that doesn’t mean he gives us his Spirit or his strenght without condition. Look at the Bible if you don’t believe me. You need to do your part, buddy, whether is trust, love, commitment, acceptance or repentance. Why should I bless someone with my body, youth and time unconditionally if even God doesn’t bless people unconditionally? Ever thought about that, you religious machines that do what you’re told by “perfect marriage even if you’re miserable” preachers?
So I divorced and five years later I live with the love of my life. I won’t go to church until I find one where people are not heartless dogmatic judgmental obeying machines that don’t ever think by themselves or read books written by non-believers. I feel less of a sinner living with my great agnostic boyfriend than with my ex-husband. I don’t think God is a bureaucrat. Marriage as a contract that didn’t even exist in biblical times, so why do preachers say the Bible asks us to sign that contract?
You, religious-but-totally-naive christians, I was one of you… I believed what you believe… but open your minds, read, go out more, understand people and different lifestyles more, and if you don’t want to just don’t ruin other peoples lives by telling them what you think God wants them to do. You don’t know God’s mind. That’s in the Bible too.