What is the purpose of marriage?

Little-Acorn

Gold Member
Jun 20, 2006
10,025
2,410
290
San Diego, CA
To examine the purpose of marriage, you'ds have to go back to when it was first invented. And that was a long time ago. Maybe as far back as cave-man days?

Before marriage became a societal norm, there were three major problems:

1.) Males would often fight over females, sometimes injuring or killing each other. And fights might be repeated over and over - it was never really "won". Extensive carnage and lasting hostility was often the result. Females might also fight over males, but that was less common.

2.) When children were born, often the mother was left to care for and raise the child, sometimes with help from other women, less often from men, and sometimes with no help at all.

3.) As adults reached older ages and physical attractiveness waned, older people were being neglected and abandoned, sometimes starving and/or dying alone with no one to help when they needed help.

Marriage was likely developed to deal with all three of these problems at once. It was made to be permanent, for the rest of the spouses' lives, to eliminate the blody competitions, guarantee multiple participants in the raising of children and support of the family even when the support was a lot less fun than the sex that led to the production of children; and to provide multiple participants in caring for members when they were older and physical attractiveness and usefulness had diminished.

Technically marriage had nothing to do with love. To be more precise, you could have all the love you wanted, whether you were married or not- marriage wasn't necessary for you to love someone, care for them, etc. It was only necessary to KEEP you caring for them, possibly long after you didn't feel like doing it any more.

And that was the difference between societites that had marriage, and those that didn't. Both kinds had loving and caring. But the society with a strongly held marriage custom, had far more caring, namely when one partner maybe didn't feel in love any more.

If we could guarantee that we would ALWAYS feel like loving and caring for a certain partner (and/or children), then marriage would be unnecessary in ANY society - it would add nothing. But millenia of hard experience has shown that more IS needed - and so marriage was designed, to add guarantees where they were clearly needed but, unhappily, often did not exist.

Marriage is not there to help you love each other. For those who love each other, marriage can certainly be more enjoyable and even beautiful. But even in the pre-marriage days (long ago), there were some couples who stayed together all their lives without any legal or societal mandate. Those couples didn't need marriage - they had lots of love and caring without it. And if all couples had been like that, then marriage would never have been invented, or needed. But marriage was invented for the couples whose loving and caring might later disappear, but whose needs and obligations would not.

Marriage is not there to help you love your partner. You can do that fine without it. It's there to keep you together with your partner even if your love later disappears - something that people found over the ages, was grimly necessary.

Keep the real purposes for marriage in mind, when you enter into debates over what it is and what it should be.

If you want to get married in order to show love and dedication to your partner... remember that you don't need marriage to do that. You only need marriage to keep your partner with you - or to keep you with your partner - even if you don't feel you want to be with them any more. THAT is the reason you are getting married. It's the only thing you will have, that you don't have without marriage. It's the only reason marriage is needed at all. And if that reason didn't exist, there probably wouldn't be any such thing as marriage, thousands of years ago or today.
 
That is for the people who are getting married to say I suppose.

I still think that "marriage" should be determined by your faith or just be a titile you give yourself.

The government should only issue certificates of "civil union" for purposes of satisfying the legalities that currently are companion to the term "marriage. At no point should the government be in a position to bless your relationships and deem it legitimate or illegitimate.
 
That is for the people who are getting married to say I suppose.

I still think that "marriage" should be determined by your faith or just be a titile you give yourself.

The government should only issue certificates of "civil union" for purposes of satisfying the legalities that currently are companion to the term "marriage. At no point should the government be in a position to bless your relationships and deem it legitimate or illegitimate.

Only Churches should be able to declare "marriage." Civil unions should be solely for tax benefits and issues relating to the state.
 
Actually, I think there are other reasons then you gave.

1. The state dictates whom you can marry. For example, because of genetics you can't marry your sister.

2. They used to blood test people getting married, not sure what happened if one failed or what even was the test STDs I believe.

3. Being as there are more men then women, usually, it was meant so that the one really good looking guy didn't get all the girls.

4. It is a contract between a man and a woman. Back then a woman was expected to be the homemaker. The marriage license guaranteed that after 20 years of raising kids the husband just didn't bail on her. That is why you see a lot of pre-nubs trying to get around splitting of the estate in times of divorce.

5. It also outlines the reasons one can divorce.
 
Last edited:
Marriage is a tax shelter, legal obligation and loophole for several laws. That's about it.

It started as the legal obligation you mentioned. Later government injected the tax shelter status, loopholes etc. Govt usually screws up things it gets involved in, and marriage is no exception.

But it was first designed for the purposes I mentioned.
 
Last edited:
That is for the people who are getting married to say I suppose.

I still think that "marriage" should be determined by your faith or just be a titile you give yourself.

The government should only issue certificates of "civil union" for purposes of satisfying the legalities that currently are companion to the term "marriage. At no point should the government be in a position to bless your relationships and deem it legitimate or illegitimate.

Only Churches should be able to declare "marriage." Civil unions should be solely for tax benefits and issues relating to the state.

I disagree with the first part. I'm a United Methodist myself but I don't think a church is qualified to bless my union as a marriage. I hesitate to give them that sort of authority...partly because some of the Methdist teachings are not in congruance with my philosophies now and, going forward, may stray even further afield of them.

And what if you don't recognize God or a deity? Should you not be able to call yourself "married" just because you think that mankind is a product of biology and not some sort of celestial plan?

You're 100% right on the 2nd part...Civil unions should be the certification the state recognizeds for legalities.
 
That is for the people who are getting married to say I suppose.

I still think that "marriage" should be determined by your faith or just be a titile you give yourself.

The government should only issue certificates of "civil union" for purposes of satisfying the legalities that currently are companion to the term "marriage. At no point should the government be in a position to bless your relationships and deem it legitimate or illegitimate.

Only Churches should be able to declare "marriage." Civil unions should be solely for tax benefits and issues relating to the state.

I disagree with the first part. I'm a United Methodist myself but I don't think a church is qualified to bless my union as a marriage. I hesitate to give them that sort of authority...partly because some of the Methdist teachings are not in congruance with my philosophies now and, going forward, may stray even further afield of them.

And what if you don't recognize God or a deity? Should you not be able to call yourself "married" just because you think that mankind is a product of biology and not some sort of celestial plan?

You're 100% right on the 2nd part...Civil unions should be the certification the state recognizeds for legalities.

Isn't the argument against gay marriage religious in nature? And I have no problem with people calling themselves married if that's what they feel in their hearts and have decided it for themselves. But I've never viewed marriage as something that isn't religious. I've always viewed getting the license from the state as a technicality. Maybe other people see it differently.

The state shouldn't have such a dumb power. Marriage licenses are for tax purposes and to tie yourselves together financially and socially. I don't see anything very profound about that. Just a piece of paper.
 
The purpose of marriage is for those too insecure to exist without it.

After hundreds of years of being stoned to death for infidelity the women finall got their revenge ;)
 
Last edited:
In a practical sense, marriage was instituted to protect women and children. It also cleared up matters of inheritance.
 
Tax deductions, rights of inheritance, and other "benefits" for the gay couples.


Gays should have the right to experience the joys of divorce just like hetros.
 
Only Churches should be able to declare "marriage." Civil unions should be solely for tax benefits and issues relating to the state.

I disagree with the first part. I'm a United Methodist myself but I don't think a church is qualified to bless my union as a marriage. I hesitate to give them that sort of authority...partly because some of the Methdist teachings are not in congruance with my philosophies now and, going forward, may stray even further afield of them.

And what if you don't recognize God or a deity? Should you not be able to call yourself "married" just because you think that mankind is a product of biology and not some sort of celestial plan?

You're 100% right on the 2nd part...Civil unions should be the certification the state recognizeds for legalities.

Isn't the argument against gay marriage religious in nature? And I have no problem with people calling themselves married if that's what they feel in their hearts and have decided it for themselves. But I've never viewed marriage as something that isn't religious. I've always viewed getting the license from the state as a technicality. Maybe other people see it differently.

The state shouldn't have such a dumb power. Marriage licenses are for tax purposes and to tie yourselves together financially and socially. I don't see anything very profound about that. Just a piece of paper.

You'd have to ask someone who is against #SSM what their reasoning is. Make sure you grunt alot; you're talking to cavemen.
 
Why is gay marriage so important? A child develops into a adult that is caring, hard working and respectable with a two sex marriage. right?

They do so in same sex marriages as well. There are also many children in need of adoption that could use parents; and I'm sure they'd love for their biggest parent problem to be putting up with them because they are gay :cool:
 
Marriage is less about love today and more about the benefits you get from being married.

I don't believe that for a second. People, with or without the "cash and prizes" would still be getting married. The gays don't get the cash and prizes and still we marry.

Yes, we are fighting for equal "cash and prizes", but even without them we would still be fighting for civil marriage because "the piece of paper" does mean something.

I've been with my partner for 17 years, but we've only been married for four. It feels different.
 

Forum List

Back
Top