I was asked a few months ago, by the mother of my good companion, if I would ever marry her son. I recall asking her why she would want us to marry and she answered: “Well, you need to be blessed”. While I do not find her thoughts on the matter particularly puzzling (she is raised Catholic) I replied that I thought we were already quite blessed and if that would not be good enough? “Oh yes”, she said, “you are blessed to have met, but getting married is still the right thing to do”. While I may find her argument lacking a bit in the way of swaying me into marriage, her kind request did manage to get me wondering if humans, to some extent, have a duty to marry?
Why should we humans marry? Is there a right and a wrong definition of marriage? Are we expected to grow up and marry? Are we moral only if we marry? Are we less than optimal citizens if we elect not to get married? When are we the right age to marry? What do we do about those who do not want to marry? What do we do about those who want to marry but are not allowed to? Is marriage a vice, or a virtue? So why should we marry? Are there any good arguments for the case?
Well, looking back in time one can find that people have gotten married for thousands of years. It is largely believed that the concept of marriage sprung out of a need for survival of the species. Marriage ensured procreation in an environment that was otherwise insecure and disorganized. Couples could help each other find food, shelter, and water in an uncertain world. By sticking together they could protect themselves and each other from many dangers.
Later marriage appeared to evolve into a matter of convenience. Men married their daughters off for reasons such as fortune, to ensure their bloodlines, and to secure political power. Even poor people had arranged marriages, all in an effort to provide better circumstances for the greater family.
Only much later did people begin to talk about the concept of ‘marriage for love’. In year 866 Pope Nicolas declared that marriage would be considered valid only if it was consented to by both the bride and the groom. (US Catholic Magazine)
Regardless of this decree many marriages, across the world, still continue to be matters of convenient arrangements between the parents of the bride and groom.
It appears that historically marriage has been used for procreation. Marriage, according Wikipedia is “a governmentally, socially, or religiously recongnized interpersonal relationship, usually intimate and sexual and often created as a contract. The most frequently occurring form of marriage unites a man and a woman as husband and wife.” In many contries around the world, other types of marriages have been largely accepted. Same-sex marriages are rapidly being legalized throguhout the western world. Polygamy is still used by many cultures.
But is there a right way of defining marriage? Many would say that marriage MUST be something that is only beween a man and a woman. The argument for this appears to be driven by two things. One is that marriage is solely for the purpose of procration. Unless marriage is between an man and a woman, it is not for procrational pursposes. There are some problems with this argument. If people argue that marriage should be for procration then men and women who are too old for childbreaing should be banned from marrying. Also infertile couples should not be allowed to marry as there is no purpose for them uniting in the first place. The other argument that marriage should be a contact between a man and a woman is religious in form. The Abrahamic relgions, for instance, charge that marriage should be only between a man and a woman, a direct command from God. The Quran say that “The believers, males and females, are partners of one another; they shall jointly enjoin all that is good and counsel against all that is evil.” (At-Tawbah: 71). The Bible says that: “For this reason a man shall leave (his) father and (his) mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.”(Ephesians, Ch 5, Vs 31). In the religious perspective, it seems that marriage is largely something that is considered a pact between a male and a female.
Reality of marriage today seems to be that it is no longer a cultural necessity. It has become more common to grow up and not expect to get married. Women are quite capable of taking care of themselves and live comfortably without having husbands in their lives. Men generally seems to do well economically without having a wife and both men and women are able to raise children and families without marrying, It seems that marriage has become more of a matter of ‘romance’, at least in the western world, than a matter of convenience. Even in the much more tradition- bound countries of the East and Middle East, young couples have begun to halt the trends to marry early, and instead wait, or perhaps not marry at all. Long gone are the days where being a “spinster” was tantamount to death for women.
I charge that we are no longer bound to marriage by moral obligation. Society has shown that it can survive our reluctance to marry, and our skyrocketing divorce rates. Marriage is no longer necessary in order for our species to survive. We do not owe it ‘to the greater good’ of society to marry. I am also uncertain about whether we can really take religious ceremonies serious anymore. Divorce, while condemned by God (Jesus), is really quite common. People annul their marriages, and divorce those who only God was supposed to put asunder. Aren’t we really just making a mockery of marriage?
Jokingly, I posed this question to my companion, who is studying (and have years to go) to become a Methodist minister. “I bet”, I said, “that some silly rule about conducting a marriage ceremony is available out there and that someone such as myself, can marry people with relatively little effort”. Upon researching I did indeed have some luck finding a church, located in California, that would ordain me online. In less than 24 hours I had in my hands a certificate of ordination giving me all the rights necessary to perform any and all religious ceremonies in the state of Florida, approved and acknowledged by the state. I actually am officially Reverend Linda….
While I get the sad and comic reality of me being able to do this, online, of all places, I also think that we may need to consider if religious ceremonies are really truly religious anymore? Who is marrying people? It seems odd to me that someone who believes in a certain religious dogma can ever get away, morally, with acknowleding divorce? Divorce is more than ‘just’ a sin. It should, according to scriptures be only God that can part a couple (by death). Right?? Perhaps, we are really just making marriage a religious tradition rather than a religious necessity?
While we still punish those who do not marry quite severely (over 2000 federal and state-benefits are given to married couples), perhaps the time is coming where we can rid ourselves of this train of thought? There is no longer good argument for punishing people financially for not marrying, such as was the practice, for instance, in the Ancient Rome. In fact, it can be argued that it may be far greater for society if people do not marry. Many unmarried people have great incomes and better education. Is it possible that these people would contribute even more to the economy if they got the same tax breaks as married couples? Isn’t it immoral that we punish people who chose not to marry?
Last I pose the question: Is marriage a vice or a virtue? I see, here at my university, how many young ladies are talking about their impending (“as soon as I graduate”) weddings, their engagement rings, and the homes that their future husbands are going to build for them. There is not quite as much talk about how to raise children, how they plan to make their marriages last past the first few years, and how they are going to plan for their long term future with their spouse, or even who the lucky guy is going to be. Does this mean that they have not put any thought into how they are actually going to make their marriages hold for the long term? Does this mean that they do recognize that odds of divorce are far greater than the odds of a successful marriage? And if they know that they are likely eventually going to get divorced anyway, then isn’t the big wedding, the gown and all the ‘hoopla’ just a vice? An addiction of sorts to attention, voyeurism, greed, careless overspending, pride, and lust? Can we really argue that the intent to marry for life, alone is enough to make a marriage that ends in divorce virtuous? Aren’t people ‘supposed’ to stay together, at least if they have a religious marriage ceremony? And what do we do about those who don’t? Do religions have a vested interest in keeping couples together, and if they do, then to what extent should religions be used to resolve the divorce epidemic?
Or should it be resolved? Is divorce really ‘a blessing’ of our time?
Ah, yes….to marry or not to marry….that is the question….
All the best,
Linda Harris
I really enjoyed reading your entry on marriage. You raised a lot of views and present concerns dealing with this vocation. There is a lot to discuss on this matter but I wanted to give you a place to go so that you get a better idea of what the church teaches on Christian Marriage, maybe you can understand better your companion’s mom reasons for wanting you to get married. Wishing you the best.
http://www.ewtn.com/library/ENCYC/P11CASTI.HTM
This is a very intriguing, and hilarious, post. I found myself searching around google myself for an ordination program and will probably be ordained within a day or two. You bring up some interesting points and very tough questions on the virtue of marriage, it’s purpose today and what its original upose was.
Purpose – Not Procreation but Structure
I don’t know if you noticed linda but you were the one who proposed the idea that marriage was for procreation. This doesn’t make sense to me because there has been procreation without marriage for millions of years and would continue to be if marriage suddenly blinked out of existence. If anything i think more people are getting married BECAUSE of procreation, they get their girlfriends knocked up, than FOR procreation. However i do see your thoughts and concerns about your partner’s mom’s point of view. It does seem silly to just get married to make other people feel better about it. My brother did it and is now miserable. But i see all different kinds of reasons for marriage. Legally it does present benefits, not punishments, because it is not like the people who are not married are being treated any differently from when they were born. Some also choose to do it for love, a deeper connection for themselves. Others choose marriage because it’s like a deep expression of devotion and trust. THe way i see it you’re right Linda, if you don’t feel like getting married then don’t bother because it obviously doesn’t mean that much to you in the first place.
Virtue or vice?
I think marriage can be both. You certainly present many situations that show that to be true. Such as when old people decide to get married. Thats seems very obvious to me to be a positive because of some of the reasons you pointed out about the prupose for marriage. Old people usually have no inclinations for money or tax benefits, though some do, they usually will marry for companionship and love. Other times marriage can be a virtue because it it used to help those in need. In a short story from “America’s Best Short Stories of 2006″ in fact one man is prompted by a lawyer in a foreign country to marry his wife to help her and her son gain citizenship. While illegal one might also argue that immigration laws are rather strict, especially to force a lawyer into bending the obvious law. I agree that marriage can be viceful when considering all the marriage scams of young women to old men and the mockery that celebrities make of it.
Regardless of how marriage was and is viewed thru the cultural or historical lens I see its purpose as such:
1) Procreation (survival)
2) Stability of society
3) Personal fulfillment (i.e. love)
The ideal marriage accomplishes all 3. Old people marrying can accomplish 2 and 3. The least important would be 3. The heterosexual family structure is unmatched in creating strong and stable societies. Nothing even comes close.
It is a cultural necessity in my view. Humans just haven’t evolved yet to the point where marriage is not a necessity for the greater good.
Society can’t survive our reluctance to marry or skyrocketing divorce rates. Divorce tears at the fabric of a society. The tears are fine and they do the damage slowly. Effects are not determined in years but decades and centuries.
In the Catholic church one of the reasons that a marriage can be annulled is if one party in the marriage won’t or can’t have children. So I would disagree that in the religious sense marriage is just seen as a pact between male and female.
Currently there is more emphasis being put on self fulfillment in marriage. People are searching more and more for “soul-mates”. Is this a bad thing? Probably not, but it does tend to have people put marriage off until “just the right person comes along”.
You can see real effects of the changing views of marriage (especially in Western nations). Birth rates have been dropping and we hear how Western nations need immigration to counter the lack of population replacement.
We can see how important fulfilling purpose 1 is in marriage. If marriage was respected, if it was hard to divorce, and couples had 2.1+ children there would be no population crises in Western nations. Very real and powerful results.
And to answer your question, I believe marriage is a virtue.
Before talking about marriage, a few words about being single.
The foremost benefit of remaining single is the retention of complete autonomy over one’s own life. Any opportunity may immediately be taken advantage of without the consultation of others. Life may be lived as luxuriously as one’s budget will allow or as stoically as possible in order to save capital to realize future plans. Travel to anywhere in world is possible and one may leave at any time, on foot if desired. One may seek the company of others wishing to be social, or enjoy solitude indefinitely. Familial responsibilities are usually minimal requiring little more than the occasional card or letter. After satisfying the necessary economic requirements, one’s time is one’s own with much time for reflection, for study, for personal and economic enrichment, for sleep. One’s home and person may be kept meticulously clean and in order or as slovenly as a pig’s sty.
Cohabitate and the picture is dramatically different especially if marriage is the object of the relationship. Any change of plans must be discussed in detail even if it is a choice of which restaurant to frequent that night, let alone major decisions such as changes of career or living quarters. Connubial relationships, while rewarding, require constant emotional maintenance. Substantial blocks of time must be set aside for marital discourse; appropriate tokens of esteem must be acquired and presented at appropriate intervals, and of course there is the responsibility for maintaining a satisfactory level of sexual euphoria for one’s partner, at least in the early decades, a task which, while exceedingly gratifying, nevertheless requires a significant amount of time, effort and imagination. Various mutually agreed upon rules and regulation for the administration of the home must be negotiated and enumerated and accorded their due solemnity. All this and the additional complexity of children has yet to be discussed. To marry and have children causes an individual to bear the responsibility for providing and caring for those children that severely reduce one’s freedom to change careers at will. (Friedan, Pg 137) As for the economic cost, I have often said, “Without my wife I would have nothing – with my wife it seems I must have everything.” Benjamin Franklin quoted an old English proverb in his autobiography: “He that would thrive must ask his wife.”
Marriage
To what end would any individual male or female enter into such a relationship which so dramatically curtails one’s own autonomy? Sexual union and procreation must be the primary motivation for all other objectives may be accomplished outside of the bonds of matrimony. It would seem that friends or siblings could live an entire life together, own property, travel, go into business, care for one another, or embark upon any conceivable number of enterprises. Proponents of evolutionary theory, where changes in species are effected over hundreds of thousands of years, must logically give assent to the idea that nothing has changed the basic overwhelming drive to reproduce the species over a mere eight thousand years of recorded history . It is a universal desire of men and women to procreate their lineage, and further desire that their children should exist in an environment where they should live and prosper. This is the most basic realization of the greater good.
Sex is the lingua franca of youth. The idea of the sexual double standard is a much abused myth. It has never been acceptable in honorable circles for young men to go about sowing wild oats, deflower virgins, or consort with prostitutes. Neither is it appropriate for young men to transfer their affections from one young woman to another, and then to another. No parents who loved their young and inexperienced daughter would ever want to knowingly admit such a visitor into their home. Men who wink the eye and make light of such behavior are themselves equally debauched , not because of some esoteric theological pronouncement but because of the scant value they attach to this most powerful social mechanism. If it appears that women up to this time seem to be more socially stigmatized by engaging in promiscuous behavior it may be due to the fact that they suffer a significant loss of dignity by allowing their physical integrity to be breached merely for the purpose of a recreational activity. (Honneth, Pg 129) Sexual activity is part of the process whereby beautiful, creative, reasoning, human beings of supposedly limitless potential are brought forth upon the earth. This is a further reason why abortion is considered by many to be so heinous an act; it interrupts the process of creating individuals of purportedly immense intrinsic value and therefore is a process that should not be initiated or interrupted haphazardly. Famous prostitutes heralded for their blatant sexuality in the media are not lauded for being “great lovers”. Neither is this meant when the appellation is applied to some infamous Lothario. Rather people such as these, while known for being able to love ubiquitously, are pitied for not being able to love deeply. Sex used solely for the purpose of recreation is akin to writing a grocery list on a Rembrandt. Sexual activity outside of the bounds of marriage is an impediment to personal development in that once an individual has been initiated into its delights he spends considerable time or money in the procurement of same or remains distracted and frustrated at its regular absence. Sexual activity outside the bounds of marriage presents an obstacle to forming a happy and permanent relationship with the person one is having sexual relations with. The passions of the flesh obscure the rational reasoning process that might take place when people who differ on basic issues debate and therefore these issues may remain unresolved. In other scenarios, sexual favors are used as a bargaining chip because the one knows that the other cannot control their sexual appetites and will ultimately give in, a form of coercion counter to rules of discourse ethics.(Habermas, Pg 89) Finally, a casual attitude toward sexual activity presents the person who does eventually marry with an additional obstacle to remain faithful, as they wistfully recall the variety they once had rather than focusing on the task at hand.
Let us instead consider the alternative. Imagine two attractive young people who have reached their majority as virgins. Both are well equipped with all capabilities economic, physical, and intellectual necessary to function within their community as adults. Both are recognized as sovereign, autonomous, responsible, and honorable individuals. If they are not totally independent as well, they are certainly independent of each other. To be sure the great part of the knowledge that they possess is theoretical rather than experiential, including necessarily their own knowledge of carnal matters. Nevertheless, they are well supported by trusted counselors of their own age and older single and married individuals on both sides who support the idea of a chaste and celibate existence before marriage.
Whether thrown together by chance or by the determinate actions of others, the two individuals recognize a mutual attraction. They open negotiations, informally at first, on various fronts, romantic, political, intellectual, religious, and social as each determines if they are in agreement or compatible with the other on scores of issues obvious and subtle. If they arrive at some major philosophical impasse, they may “break off” for a time to consider matters, or may do so permanently and there is no harm done, no betrayal of honor, no personal debasement to be ashamed of. Because both have remained chaste they have respect for each other’s strength of character. They may, will little difficulty, remain friends and rejoin the social gathering of their young unmarried peers. Or, as the case often is, they may decide after a period of reflection to resume negotiation. It is perhaps easier here as in no other type of give and take to put oneself in the position of the “other”, to hear their opinions with an open mind and a true desire to understand. Marriage may be said to be the model of political compromise which is why the marriage of royals has served at times as the linchpin for alliances between sovereign nations. As the discourse proceeds it becomes apparent to the couple that no one has ever listened and considered their individual opinion in the manner that they have with each other, and being more or less agreed, they form an alliance, becoming a couple, leaving their parents and cleaving to each other , while declaring so to the community.
Much has been made of Engel’s comments that marriage was created to control women and children. (Engels) In contrast, Alan Keyes has said that “Marriage … exists in order to respect the responsibilities and obligations of procreation, and to signify society’s recognition of those responsibilities and obligations, and its support for their fulfillment by the parties to the marriage.” (Winn) It is the basic unit of community and of political power and as such may be reasoned to be an “honorable estate” . As our ideal couple consummates their marriage their relationship becomes practically ironclad. They alone are privy to the secret of their love and as it deepens they become better lovers, more familiar with each others idiosyncrasies both physical and psychological. The sex act itself influences the social relationship between the couple. The woman presents herself physically to the man encouraging and supporting his action. She must yield herself if he is to be successful and that happily and willingly if their lovemaking is to be mutually enjoyable. They must both be able to relax and express their desires frankly and honestly. Assuming that the process progresses normally, they become completely trusting of each other and confident in the emotional and practical support that each provides for the other. As such they are able to act more confidently individually in their respective social spheres and as a couple forcefully impacting the local community. As they are now bonafide members of the married society, to the extent that their peers conduct their marriages responsibly and honorably the new couple has access to the additional information and counsel on how they are to exist and progress as husband and wife.
The Family
In the neo-patriarchal system authority in the home is vested in the husband. The individual male may adopt this ideology for various reasons. While he may be willing to diminish his autonomy as described above in order to enjoy domesticity, he is unwilling to further abrogate his sovereignty. He desires to be in control of his immediate environment. He may have specific plans for his future and the future of his household that he desires to implement. His theology may dictate that he rule his own home. Whatever his reasons, he is sure to make his desire to rule his home clearly understood to women he may be considering as possible spouses. Women desirous of retaining their own sovereignty reject him as a suitor out of hand, wishing to find a partner who will in every situation compromise with them, or one who they can rule over. Nevertheless there seems to be no lack of women who seek a strong and assertive man to whom they are willing to subordinate themselves to, providing that he appears gentle and compassionate; capable of fidelity and love. While a man is expected to provide support for his family just as he would if he were an adult still living in his parent’s home, the fact of his authority does not depend upon his providing all or any of that support. His primary function is to provide leadership. All members of the family including children of a certain age are expected to do whatever they can to ensure that the family prospers. Feminist initiatives have been beneficial for the family in that they have provided women with additional economic opportunities to provide economic support giving them the ability to elect to pay for necessary goods and services that they themselves would have otherwise provided. However, in order that a “home” environment may be created where small children can be nurtured the man often does elect to provide the sole support. Up until the time they marry both individuals are autonomous and individually sovereign, notwithstanding their subordination to the legitimately established government. They mutually commit to a lifestyle that is family oriented. The man does not dictate or rule by force but relies upon the vows of marriage establishing his authority and agreed to by his wife before they marry. He in turn vows to make his wife and his family’s care and happiness his primary overriding concern. As these vows are binding for life, they are “not by any to be enterprised, nor taken in hand, unadvisedly,[or] lightly.” While a divorce has become easy to obtain and thereby discounting lifetime vows, some couples are making the decision to enter into “covenant marriage” a new form of contract that makes it considerably harder to divorce. (Corke) The life long nature of the marriage vows subject them to criticism by those who feel that they unfairly restrict the freedom of choice of the participants who are, if I may rephrase it, liable to “marry in haste and be forced to repent at leisure.” But the argument may still be made that children have a right to a mother and a father near at hand. Parents choose occupy these traditional roles in order to nurture and care for their and raise them up to be capable adults. (O’Beirne, Pg.2) An inviolate, cohesive, established marriage and home is the ideal environment for this activity. A further argument may be made that a man or a woman who devotes a substantial portion of his or her life and/or psyche to so intimate and all-inclusive a relationship should not be able to be so easily cast aside for frivolous reasons. Couples that take on these traditional roles and enter into this ancient form of marriage create a new family, a political entity that stands in opposition to the powerful influences of the state and the public sphere, providing a refuge for the relatively weak, immature, and inexperienced children who are to be born into it.
Citations
Corke, Kevin. “Some couples opt for covenant marriage: Signing on for more restrictions against divorce”. Weekend Today Magazine. MSNBC. Internet Website http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7249981. Updated: 4:17 p.m. ET March 25, 2005. Accessed November 19, 2006.
Engels, Fredrick. The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State. Hottingen-Zurich. 1884
Friedan, Betty. The Second Stage. Summit Books, 1981
Habermas, Jürgen. Moral consciousness and communicative action. Translated by Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen ; introduction by Thomas McCarthy. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, c1990.
Honneth, Axel, 1949- . The Struggle For Recognition: The Moral Grammar Of Social Conflicts. Translated by Joel Anderson. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1996
O’Beirne, Kate. Women Who Make the World Worse, Sentinal (Penguin Group) New York 2006.
Winn, Pete. “Dire Consequences”. Focus on the Family citizenlink.com online magazine. Internet Website. http://www.citizenlink.org/CLFeatures/A000000491.cfm. Accessed 11/16/06
Kant on marriage:
“marriage (matrimonium), … is the union of two persons of different sex for life-long reciprocal possession of their sexual faculties.”
Do readers here think non-religious, civil ceremonies are sufficient to be ‘married’?
Presumably the notions of equality and reciprocity as fundamental to marriage present no obstacle to gay marriage…
Dave, this is a great question!
In response, very briefly, it seems to me that the idea of a nation regulating ‘marriage’ is a badly outdated and unfortunate union between church and state. One’s state is, or at least should be, in the business of regulating contracts between various parties to prevent theft, fraud, and so forth. If two (or more?) parties desire the state to regulate such a contract, then let the state regulate that contract, as it would any other. One’s religious institution is, or at least should be, in the business of promoting virtues (i.e., “excellencies of soul”) that are essential to one’s ‘salvation’—i.e., one’s well-being, wholeness, etc., as the Latin root of the term suggests. If two (or more?) parties desire their religious institution(s) to regulate such a relationship, then let their religious institution(s) regulate the relationship as it sees fit. Thus, I’m inclined to think we’d benefit from confining the state’s interest to ‘civil unions’ and religious institutions interest to ‘marriage’. So, I’m inclined to answer your question negatively: civil ceremonies are not sufficient for to be ‘married’, but that’s because ‘marriage’ is a term that refers essentially to a religious, not a civil, relationship.
Linda, you started this intriguing discussion. What do you make of this?
“…civil ceremonies are not sufficient for to be ‘married’, but that’s because ‘marriage’ is a term that refers essentially to a religious, not a civil, relationship.”
Oh dear. I shall have to break this gently to my “wife”… Our “marriage” was a civil affiair – in a registry office – with no religious aspect whatsoever…
Yet…. I would like t0 think that when we did marry, it was more than a purely contractual arrangment – but that does not mean I feel the need to see it as ’spiritual’… Even a civil (especially a civil) ceremony can be an opportunity for the expression, in public, of the way in which a relationship is something profound and ‘completing’ for the parties….
Also – if not dictated by religious models, we can negotiate and adapt this model as we see fit – I fear the view of:
“The man does not dictate or rule by force but relies upon the vows of marriage establishing his authority and agreed to by his wife before they marry. He in turn vows to make his wife and his family’s care and happiness his primary overriding concern. ”
My and my wife’s vows were identical (none of this ‘obey’ nonsense) – and I think we would see marriage as a bond of emotion and equality – and that these two are mutually co-dependent…
[I am not sure religion has the best track record of regulating relations between men and women anyway]
While Rico may suspect otherwise, I think I am married without the religious aspect- and after 12 years – I sure feel married…..
Thanks, Dave. Your reply is very helpful and invites a clarification of my earlier (perhaps all too brief) comment.
Let me set the context from which I made it and see if that might help the discussion. In the U.S., there is a contentious debate about ‘gay marriage’. It seems to me that the best way to resolve the debate is by making the distinction in my previous comment between ‘civil unions’ and ‘marriages’. It seems to me that the state shouldn’t be in the business identifying which adults can and cannot enter into certain contractual relationships, with certain exceptions, of course — e.g., those who are mentally incapable of doing so. The state should merely regulate contracts to help maintain social order. Perhaps this will appease those with ‘liberal’ and ‘libertarian’ concerns in the U.S. Let those in the U.S. who have traditionally championed ‘marriage’ — churches, synagogues, etc. — be recognized as having their traditional place as helping develop the virtues requisite for a fulfilling ‘marriage’. (Given the plurality of perceived ‘goods’, it seems to me the state shouldn’t be in the business of regulating a couple’s conduct relative to the development of virtues necessary for a healthy relationship — e.g., one’s church, but not the state, may make pronouncements about what one can do in one’s bedroom.) Perhaps this will appease those with ‘conservative’ concerns in the U.S. So, the distinction I made above is an attempt to help appease (though likely not satisfy) those with competing concerns in the U.S.
Your concern remains, though: what about couples who are not religious? Don’t they have something more than a contractual agreement? I suspect so, in many (though not all) cases. Let’s find some wonderful, technical term to describe such a relationship. I can hear a possible reply already: “OK. Maybe we could find such a term, but why? Aren’t such couples REALLY ‘married’?” Is there an answer to that question? It seems to me that a contextualist response is probably best. Let’s use the term as necessary in certain contexts. For the purpose of trying to resolve the contentious political debate in the U.S., let’s say, “No.” Let’s recognize both the limited role of government in personal affairs and the value of one’s chosen religion at least for one’s self. For other purposes, let’s say, “Yes.” We need not quibble about the value of another’s relationship in personal social settings — just as we need not quibble about whether someone else ‘knows’ that there are other minds in such social settings even if we would debate the point when in the philosophy classroom.
I admit, it’s probably an imperfect solution to a contentious problem, but it strikes me as a reasonable one. It allows us to honor the commitments other individuals have made to one another as members of a nation and/or as members of their religion(s). Moreover, it allows us the freedom to honor others socially.
That said, I’m not staking my life on the distinction. I’m open to being persuaded otherwise.
The concept of marriage is quite interesting to me because it seems so hard to tease apart the sort of ‘emotional’ or ‘traditional’ attachment a lot of people have to marriage from the more logic reasoning behind marriage.
I have lectures with a young woman who attends an evangelical church. Her bishop’s rules about dating and marriage are quite strict. You are not ‘dateable material’ until such time that you can show that you live alone, can maintain your own bills, have good credit, and attend church services regularly. Only then are your able to begin looking for a mate. The mate would be found, of course, within the ranks of the church. After a proposal, marriage counseling takes a full year. During this time the couples, who all claim born-again-virgin status (many of whom are teenage mothers and fathers), stay chaste. The couples are taught such things as how to manage finances, how to deal with each other’s families, how to plan for their future, raising kids, etc. While I personally do not like the rigid stereotypical set-up to life that the bishop proposes, (women are prepared to be stay-at-home mothers, men are prepared to be providers), there is no question in my mind that this model works for the youth at this church. They are largely steering clear of problems that are otherwise ripping through much of American society. They are crime, STD, and pregnancy free. What has been so successful at this church, is that the Bishop has used the concept of religious marriage exactly as it was intended, to teach people in his community to lead a virtuous life.
I am writing this in response, and a with nod of agreement to the comment from Dr. Vitz. I do tend to think that two people coming together in marriage should be viewed in at least two different contexts. On one hand we have civil marriages, a contract of convenience signed by two consenting adults. On the other hand, if they come together in a religious union then they have come together in large part to be virtuous. In fact, I think that if a person proposes to follow a certain religious doctrine, he or she may even largely be considered immoral if he or she has an intimate sexual and emotional relationship with someone but fail to marry. [I am using the word ‘union’ intentionally when describing religious marriage, rather than using the word ‘contract’. A union is the coming together of two living beings who by coming together create a third being, ‘their marriage union’. This is a sacred place, where virtues are of the essence, a far different goal than that of a contractual marriage]. While it seems clear to me that the people from the church mentioned above are by no means perfect virtuous beings, their salvation lies in their desire to become better children of God. They are, just as Clary proposes in her comment, leading the ‘true’ life of (in this case) Christ. The Judeo-Christian God has decreed that man and woman were created, in God’s image, for each other and in order to go forth and make nations of men. (Am I close?). If one believes in this God, then it seems evident that one would follow God’s ‘gentle’ nudge and marry.
While I think that it can be easily argued that religious marriages are no different in form that contractual marriages (we are still just trying to keep the world neat and orderly, much as we humans like to do) the vast difference lies in the desire to be a better person.
Such may not necessarily be the purpose for contractual marriages. Such marriages, while under appearing to be spiritual union, are more often undertaken for practical reasons. Such marriages are useful for things such a drawing legal papers, saving money on investments, and getting tax-benefits. These marriages can also be useful to unify families and grant parental rights across biological lines.
For the purpose of understanding contractual marriages I will use myself as an example. I am a single mother of two children. In order for me to re-marry, a few things would have to be in order. For example, I would have to write out a new will and testament in order to ensure that the children would be financially cared for in the event of my death. My marriage would have to, for the same reason, include a prenuptial agreement. [For those already barking….I consider this important because my responsibility to secure the future of my children, goes before my responsibility to secure the future of a new husband]. Legal fees to covers such things would run about $1200-$1500. A wedding (small and without all the hoopla), incl rings, master of ceremony, reception, honeymoon and all that good stuff could probably be pulled of for about $5000.00. ($50.00 if you go to City Hall and get two $5 silver bands from a street vendor). On the loss side would be added my children’s grant for their school, which I would no longer be eligible for. I would likely loose my scholarships too. On the gain side, I would be able to deduct my spouse as a dependent (student) and I would be able to take advantage of such things as lover car-insurance, lower home-owner’s insurance, and multiple tax-benefits. Still this would not outweigh the cost of the wedding. Only in the event that I got pregnant would the tides for a contractual marriage turn. In the state of Florida a female cannot get individual insurance if she has had a c-section (That would include me). Therefore there would be compelling reason to marry in order to get on the spouses’s group-plan. Since another c-section would run anywhere from $18,000.00 – $30,000.00 there is overwhelmingly good financial reason to invest in marriage if one was pregnant.
While this idea of marriage does not sit well with many people (it is hardly romantic), I propose that this is what most marriages are. They are convenient! We have contractual marriages and when they do not work out, we get out of them by writing new contracts (divorce). At the end of the day, I think these marriages have mostly to do with ‘Dollars and Sence’…and less to do with virtue. I don’t really think that most people who marry consider the long-term moral consequences of their unions. (I say this because our divorce rate is a whopping 68%.)
What seems to happen, I think, is that many people merge the two types of marriages into the same paradigm, and I think that it is a bit of a travesty. Many people attend premarital counseling at their church only to never attend church again after their wedding ball. It is the idea of dress, church, and reception that seems to be compelling, not the idea of a life-long commitment to stay married and live virtuously in that union. Now, it is common to say “I love him/her so and want to spend the rest of my life with him/her.” It is the remote comprehension of what that can possible mean for ones life that seem to be absent.
While the common reaction to my ‘practical’ approach to contractual marriage has often been met with raised eyebrow (people think I am far to skeptic), I think that it is far more honest than ‘marrying for love’ or entering a religious marriage that I have not yet understood how to nurture.
As I am writing this, another question comes to mind. Can we justify religious marriages between two people of different faith? Or is it so that in order for marriages to be truly virtuous unions and in the best of God’s circumstances, both members should be of the same faith? Is falling in love with another enough of a compelling reason to convert to their faith? Is that a ‘true’ convert? Or just a fake?
Also, when one enters a religious marriage then can one ever leave it? I mean, if you enter the marriage knowing that you are marrying to protect and hone your virtues and those of your spouse, then will it ever be anything but sinful to divorce? And what is the deal about annulment? Are we to believe that people who have been married for years (and have children) have not yet consummated their unions? Are we okay with annulments?
And what in the cases of abuse? Two problems come to mind: If you marry for virtue and to be a true and good child of God, is it possible that you will endure abuse in a relationship far longer (or forever) rather than risking the sin of abandonment of the union? Isn’t it very possible that many (women) marry their entire beings and bodies away to the idea of Godlike behavior? Funny thing about matrimony seems to be that many women feel that they have to sacrifice their own body, and they are willing to do it for the church.
The other problem is that once you have had enough of the (abusive) relationship, can you overcome the sin of leaving the situation? It was God HIMself that brought the married couple together, how can that ever be changed by the decisions of a mere mortal? Can you ever truly divorce and be sinless? And aren’t you still married in Heaven at least?
More to ponder….
Best wishes for a great weekend! Linda.
Dear Dave,
I have to, in light of my other comment, leave a thought on your post. I like Dr. Vitz, do not want to make light of the fact that you and your wife have been married for 12 years. There is no question in my mind that this type of commitment requires far more than ‘just’ a contract. Other human virtues come into play. There are things such a patience, kindness, sacrifice, chastity, and fairness that comes into play (and I realize that his does not even begin to cover the list of virtues that you have to hone in order to sustain a 12-year marriage)
That being said, I still feel that you have entered into a marriage of contract, rather than religiosity and spirituality. Needless to say, I think I can rightly guess that the spirit moved you to marry your wife…you love her…but the major difference between the spiritual religious marriage and the contractual and secular marriage is that you and your wife do not have to be virtuous. (Although it clearly makes married life easier) You have made no such commitment in the light of a greater power. You have made no commitment to God. In essence, all you have done is agree to merge your estates and join legal forces.
While it is commendable that you have chosen to have a virtuous marriage, it is still not ‘the real deal’ exactly because you had a choice after you married. Decent behavior is unfortunately not enough to satisfy the criteria for virtue in the eyes of God, if I have understood correctly. For example: My companion was struggling the other day, puzzled by the challenge of explaining how a man such as Gandhi could not be Christian and why he is going to Hell. Why MUST it be all about Jesus, he wondered, until he soon found the logical (Christian) answer…because Jesus is God, and the only true way. Now, because he believes in Jesus as the Son of God, he also has to believe that those who do not know Jesus do not know a true God. Ghandi’s God is not the real deal, and that has moral consequences!
It is sort of the same thing with your marriage, I think. Because you have not committed to a religious marriage, you will never know the true essence of a virtuous union blessed by God. You know what I mean? I am not trying to be condescending, but I want to point out that there has to be a distinction. Doesn’t there?
That being said, I think you are totally right about religious marriage. With the skyrocketing divorce trends, it is clear that even the religious institutions are making a mockery of the seriousness and the solemness with which a person should go into marriage. It is horrendous to see religious heads (who have it well within their power to refuse marriage to people) marry people only to witness these same people divorce within a few years. Like I said in the original post: Who is marrying people? Does not the responsibility to ensure the success of a marriage lie, in part, with the person doing the marrying? Are they administering a sacred sacrament? Or a religious tradition?
All the best from Linda
” think I can rightly guess that the spirit moved you to marry your wife” – I think it may have been other factors (the shotgun at my back?). Actually I am very wary of the notion of ’spirit’ – and am not really sure what it might be, but that is nit the substantive point here…
I am more worried by the claim that “the major difference between the spiritual religious marriage and the contractual and secular marriage is that you and your wife do not have to be virtuous”: I think that the contractual aspect has certain behavioural implications – but our personal committment at marriage was, and still is, precisely one of virtue and mutual respect – I thought that was kind of the point…
I think I can go no further with you down this road, as it becomes theological, rather than philosophical: “Decent behavior is unfortunately not enough to satisfy the criteria for virtue in the eyes of God” (if I understand Paul right, decent behaviour is neither nor a necessary condition for salvation).
Minor quibbles: “Jesus is God, and the only true way. Now, because he believes in Jesus as the Son of God, he also has to believe that those who do not know Jesus do not know a true God. Ghandi’s God is not the real deal, and that has moral consequences!” – this seems quite a way from being a matter of consensus among Christians – I quite like the Islamic view that one can never be sure of who God will choose to save (and that this belief is predicated on the necessity of preserving God’s freedom and mercy – and as an acknowledgment of the incompleteness of human understanding of divine choices)
Finally: to respond to “I think. Because you have not committed to a religious marriage, you will never know the true essence of a virtuous union blessed by God” – I don’t, myself, think any such thing exists, so don’t feel so bad about missing out on it.
My main intent here was to suggest that ‘marriage’ can be seen as something that exceeds the (merely?) contractual, without the need for it to be religious. My marriage is a bond of yes, law, but also of love, respect, and more: I feel we made committments that are binding, and that the nature of the binding is not civil, but personal and mutual in a way that would not be enhanced by a religious elements (given my own views, it would – indeed – detract from it)…
All in all, here, I am fairly sure – by my own terms – that I am married! If it really has to be religious, well – then I am a fornicator, a hell-bound good for nothing whose children are illegitimate – but I would rather than the hypocricy of submitting myself to a ritual which I do not believe in…
whoops – typos galore: I meant that good behaviour is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition for salvation [justification by faith and all that stuff in Corinthians I think – but I am fairly ignorant of monotheisms generally, so may be wrong)
Linda,
I really enjoyed reading your post. As I was reading this it made me think about the nature of marriage. While marriage initially was the concern of religion it seems now that it has become a matter of state. People don’t even have to go to church to get married and a wedding through the church seems to means nothing unless the state has already “approved” the marriage application. To me it seems that marriage has become more concerned with pre-nuptial contracts, tax breaks, and ultimately divorce. Some states even require a blood test. I think this leads to the question, what does any of this have to do with deciding that you love someone enough to spend the rest of your life with him/her? It also seems like the decision to marry also comes down to how one feels about conforming to social norms rather then how one feels about their partner. Perhaps this supports your idea that it is unfair to punish people for not getting married, because essentially what you are punishing people for is a personal choice regarding their relationship. When did it become inadequate to simply deiced that one does not want to be with anyone else besides one’s partner? Why isn’t it good enough to just stay with the person you love? Apparently marriage doesn’t mean that the couple will stay together and its relationship to love has proven to be dubious.
I loved your virtue and vice sections as well. I think this is a really important thing to consider. People spend quite a bit of money on even the most average of weddings. It takes months to find the “right dress”. Also, I have seen more brides freak-out over nothing than I’d care to remember. People obsess over having the right dress, the right cake, the right photographer, the right shoes, the right location…etc. Again, I find the connection to love to be rather dubious in this situation as well.
This next section is in response to Cezary Hubert’s suggestions.
I do have to say that I have substantial problems with the third comment. He says, “The heterosexual family structure is unmatched in creating strong and stable societies. Nothing even comes close. It is a cultural necessity in my view.” I think this claim is strongly misleading. Firstly, of course the heterosexual family has been the standard of what a family should be; no other type of couple could have been a true family until relatively recently. I don’t see how you can argue that the heterosexual family unit is the optimal family structure because few other structures have been given a real chance in the western world. It isn’t like we even have legitimate data concerning what type of family is the best (much less on a scale that even comes close to being a representative sample size of the population). By that I mean no worldwide study has been done. More importantly who are we to say what even makes a good family (as long as it is abuse free)? Moreover what about all of those children who were raised by one parent? A significant amount of people in our society came form many sorts of families, and I think it would be a hard and vicious argument to claim that such people are detrimental to our society.
The divorce rate is about 1:2 these days, and I think that this implies that marriage isn’t totally necessary for a stable society. If what you say is true, then we would be living much less confortably. I can see why you would want to argue that our society is unstable, but I think that it would be a problematic because America seems to at least in part set the bar for standards of living.
Mr. Hubert also mentions a population crisis? I would have to ask exactly what population crisis he is referring to? Just because the birth rate has dropped dose not mean that we are in a crisis. It is probably more closely related to the fact that many woman are opting for a carrier outside of the home. Either way, since when have people waited to marry to have kids? As Sean Tompson mentioned in the previous post, it seems like people more often then not get married not to have kids, but rather because they are having kids. I would also like to say that obviously do not need immigration to make up for this because it has become more and more difficult to immigrate into the US over recent years. I don’t mean to completely attack your position, but you mention many things that I think have very problematic implications. What do you think?
-Amy Wuest
Dear Dave,
I gather from your reply that you agree with me on the point that there are two types of marriages, namely a religious marriage, and a civil marriage (what I would prefer to call a civil contract)?
In religious marriages the pursuit of a virtuous life is guided by the religious scriptures. While Islam might, in some aspects, sound like it is more tolerant than Chistianity (and I tend to agree with you on that point also), it is still expected that people know only one true God (Allah), which can never be exactly the same God as the one of Jesus [who although revered as a great prophet, could never ever be the Son of God (= God)] The very thought would be blashemic. In Islam, it is also expected, however, that man and women marry and uphold certain virtues to ensure a sound and sacred union blessed by God/Allah.
Anyways…that is not completely important to our current discussion, as you have asked to keep it secular.
My question for you would then be:
In a secular marriage such as yours, [which you have freely entered into (even if the ole shotgun compelled you)], who sets the ‘rules’ for morals? One one hand, it sounds like you are your wife are negotiating life events, and how you will deal with those, as they occur. It think that type of healthy partnership is great. On the other hand, it sounds as if you are saying that there are certain moral expectations that you each have of each other. Where do they come from in a secular union such as yours? Did you have those before you married? Or did the two of you learn your shared morals as the two of you went along in your partnership?
What I mean is, are secular couples supposed to ‘kind of know’ how to behave? Is moral behavior generally expected in a secular marriage (similar to a business contract) or can it only truly be expected because the couple has mutually agreed to it?
Where in secular marriage code does it say that your can’t cheat, lie, decieve and all that ugly stuff? Neither one of you have committed, as a part of your contract, to not do those things. Now it sounds like you and your spouse have a verbal agreement, one that has held for 12 years. But does that concept hold for everyone? What about those who are not as morally advanced as you and your wife? How do they know how not to break the marriage virtues? How do they know they are not supposed to?
I don’t, for example, think that we will be able to say that people can learn to be virtuous in their secular marraiges by learning from other’s example or even by tradition. We know from statistics that most marriages break, or spouses cheat, lie to each other, and/or bring each other into financial debt (if not distress). When the kids come into the picture, things can really get shaky. In religious unions there are moral guidelines to help a person/couple navigate those waters. What do we lean on in a secular marriage, to help us sort out what is right and what is wrong?
And so if we can’t learn by molding (copying other’s behavior)….how do we learn to behave in such a way that secular marriages can be successful?
And just to clarify: I am in no way saying or meaning to imply that religious marriages are more succesful than secular ones. In fact, it seems when the religious fall, gosh..they fall hard don’t they? Yikes!
My question is one about how we establish morals and virtues in secular marriages specifically.
That being said, (back to theology) I am a bit suspicious that religious marriages may have greater success, than secular ones, if the people who enter into such a union truly understand the repercussions and essential meaning of that commitment. Afterall, they have the Big Guy on their side.
As of now, I will contend that many of those who have a religous marriage do not really understand what they have gotten themselves into (A colossal failure on behalf of religious leaders across all faiths)!
This Monday in Florida promisses to have sunshine and clear skies. Best wishes for a great week.
Linda Harris
short comment, as tap-tapping on pda…
I think you struggle with the notion of non-religious moral consensus? religious consensus does also have difficulties?
all morality is a construction of humans – even if we believe it has a divine source…
what sort of marriage should atheists have?
Hi Linda,
You asked, “What do we lean on in a secular marriage, to help us sort out what is right and what is wrong?” I think this represents a somewhat narrow view of the possible sources of morality and virtue.
Any number of non-Christian, non-religious ethical systems offer secular couples guidelines for what is right and wrong in marriage.
There are secular marriage counselors, etc.
I can see how you might lean towards a claim that religious marriages have more force because of the inclusion of a higher power, but this fails to cross over when secular couples subscribe to ethics that they feel are beyond them: a categorical imperative, virtue ethics, utilitarianism, etc. I don’t intend to suggest that all systems of morality will offer a marriage a strong and reasonable source of indications for how to act in all the situations a couple might encounter. At the same time, I think it is unfair to make the distinction between religious and secular marriage so strong.
Note to Amy, question to Cezary: I wonder if Cezary is talking about population crisis in western Europe? Currently the population is in a dubious imbalance in many of those nations, with the number of non-reproductive adults significantly higher than children being born annually. This present the possibility of massive drops in population when these older generations die. Wester Europe has been tightening immigration, to the effect of possibly supporting/furthering this potential population crisis.
I am not familiar with the data in the U.S., though I doubt these same numbers are currently effecting North America.
Here is a link for some information on sub-replacement fertility levels, a growing issue for Europe as a whole.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sub-replacement_fertility
Sorry to double post. I didn’t mean for the last portion of my post to move away from the topic. I think a way to tie that in would be to research the marriage rates in Europe and compare them on a scale of about 20 years with the decline in children being born. This might allow us an insight into whether or not we can really correlate marriage as a child-rearing institution (in essence). If the marriage rate has not declined with the birth-rate then we might conclude the contrary, that marriage is no longer simply an institution of reproduction or, at least, it is not being used as such in the area studied.
Mi dispiace for the typos!
Holy crow.
After 12 years of Catholic schoool, Biblical studies and world religions, I find that my “civil” marriage is not a marriage at all but merely a contract. Well, not to be too glib, but thank God. Because if it really is a contract then possibly I can enter into some renegotiations about the terms. Namely, I’m about tired of being the only one who knows how to cook for and feed our vegan dog. My kids are too old to renegotiate the whole diapering fiasco of the mid 90’s but I’d like to get some upfront concessions for that time too. In fact, I think I’m going to form some sort of union. And I don’t just mean a civil one.
I know, I know, that sounds like I’m goofing and I am but some of my jokes are funny because they are true. Surely no one can seriously argue that I’m involved in some simple “contract” that is less or more than one handed to me by a priest.
Is the Big Guy “not on my side”? I hate to be the bearer of bad news but for Christians, the Big Guy is hardly on anyone’s side. The Catholics disagree with Baptists; the Baptists think the Protestants are off their nut. Then there are the Mormons, the Jehovah’s Witnesses and the like and those people REALLY have a different take. Somewhere in there all of them think the others have missed the boat and some of them are pretty sure the others are going to hell in a handbasket.
Marriage, between any two people (hetero, homo, religious, non-religious, alien, purple..) is simply a daily commitment to wake up and slug it out every day. I mean that in the kindest sense of the word. Everything else is a piece of paper. The make and model of the virtue seems hardly as important as the virtue itself. A car is a car if it gets you there.
I think some real social issues are being overlooked in the decline of marriage which have nothing at all to do with religious faith. Families are increasingly decentralized which is a serious destabilizing factor. Extended generations do not live in the home but are shipped off to nursing homes. More women are educated and working and no longer forced to stay in substandard maritial situations just to eat or feed their children. People are living longer giving rise to pressure on longer terms of marriage that were previously not there. The point is I suspect that pointing the finger at religious or non-religious frameworks is to misdirect the gaze.
And Louis, I just can’t let this stand: “The woman presents herself physically to the man encouraging and supporting his action. She must yield herself if he is to be successful and that happily and willingly if their lovemaking is to be mutually enjoyable. ”
Is that so? I’m feeling inclined to invoke the name of God in lament to the heavens, Louis. I feel like I’m reading a 1940’s housewifery manual
You’re killing me. I hope my husband doesn’t read this before our contract renegotiations!
Peace,
Cathleen
Cathleen – thanks for the input on this.
The big-’guy’ seems to have a pretty twisted sense of humour a lot of the time – not sure that would be someone I’d want on my ’side’ anyway…
Also – I think many of the pressures are social – BUt – might the rise in divorce actually be a sign of some moral progress? When people (often women) stayed in marriages more, as they did in the past – might that have meant tolerating behaviour that would not be put up with now? – Adultery, Domestic Violence, maltreatment of children, abusive relationshops that bring out the worst of both parties, etc – - would we really rather these marriages persisted?
I was going to abstain from commenting any more on this thread – but a meeting got pushed back a few minutes at the last moment – so got stuck in front of this computer for five minutes… I will try to stop now….
Here I sit needing to work on the my ethics of pandemic planning paper but tempted to distraction. But really, I’ve got a bad cold and heaps of work so a minute’s distraction is both needed and all I can afford.
I think you make a good point, Dave, that in part the rise in divorce rates is an extension of one moral good, that is a less oppressed minority of women. The social stigma, economic pressure and access to legal means have all shifted to favor women also seeking a good life in a way that they can define on their own terms. No doubt a moral good.
On the flipside I think there are plenty of social constructs that have eroded marriage. There is a strange movement of isolation afoot that wasn’t present when I was a tot. Yes, all the anti-femisists want to point to working women, but it’s more than that. In Robert Putnam’s Bowling Alone, he outlines the drop in all civic form of life in America from the VFW to Rotary to, yes, bowling leagues. Everywhere on every level, a new form of splendid isolation is wrapping up the American family. This form or aloneness in a world full of people can create an estranged lonliness that erodes marriage and asks too much of it at the same time.
Technology has helped us reach out across oceans but isolated us from tasks that used to bring famillies into cooperative harmony. Chopping wood, doing laundry, these kinds of communal tasks that did, literally, take a village. I’m not advocating going back to a scrub board or giving up central heat but I am saying that when we replace outdated modes of working, playing, interacting, we are failing to replace them with comparable connecting events.
Further, in an interview with journalist Richard Louv (February 2007/The Sun), he talks about the communal way we used to seek out nature as kids, exploring the woods, building makeshift rafts. He talks about our sense of connectedness to “our woods” and how we might not have known a single thing about rainforests but we knew nature was important and we forged great trusts and friendships with our friends and animals by being part of it. Now, in a strange reverse, our children know about clear cutting in South America but have never built a tree fort. The same is true of relationships. We know the people in our ‘net community but not the guy two houses over.
Have I lost you yet? I guess what I’m saying is the decline of marriage does reflect the liberation of a people and the exercising of rights in a positive way. But it also is a reminder that we are losing touch with some important stabilizing things that do matter.
What concerns me about the God-angle in this discussion is that it, by default, rules out huge segments of people and does more to draw out the margins on the issue than to really examine what good has come of the new world order (freedoms from oppression for women) and what needs to be added back in (real, tangible connections to our environments and our communities).
One minute. Ha! I never stay here for one minute!
Thanks for the nudge though. I think it’s an important discussion that should be had in the main.
Peace,
Cathleen
Cathleen,
You said
“Louis, I just can’t let this stand: “The woman presents herself physically to the man encouraging and supporting his action. She must yield herself if he is to be successful and that happily and willingly if their lovemaking is to be mutually enjoyable. ”
“Is that so? I’m feeling inclined to invoke the name of God in lament to the heavens, Louis. I feel like I’m reading a 1940’s housewifery manual You’re killing me. I hope my husband doesn’t read this before our contract renegotiations!”
So I ask you, if the women doesn’t do that when making love, wouldn’t the man then be raping her?
Also, it seems to me that a large portion of American society still conduct their marriages as men and women have for eons, not just since 1940. At lease in the community I am a part of…
I think Cathleen (though I am sure she will speak to this herself) sees a distinction between mutual consent and ‘yielding’ – which implies all kinds of things – such as the locus of desire being male, etc…
Marriage in the UK – in the detail – has changed hugely. When our kids were little, my wife worked, while I did much of the childcare – this is fairly common, but a few generations ago would have been unheard of – and I would have been seens as ’suspect’ in all kinds of ways…
I think we can make marriage mean whatever we deem it is best for it to mean, can’t we?
Linda,
Your post was hilarious but painfully true – and maybe it’s only so funny because it is so true…I don’t know. Either way, while reading your comments on marriage in today’s society I couldn’t help but think of one of the most popular sitcom’s of the last 10 years…Sex and the City. One of my favorite shows, as well as thousands of other women (and reluctant men), Sex and the City became everyone’s guilty pleasure because it realizes and satirizes today’s cultural views on the marriage market. For so long, we have been indoctrinated to believe that we, as women, are not complete unless we have someone to spend the rest of our lives with – that to not marry is simply unacceptable. And while it may hold true that companionship and security prove highly beneficial over a long period of time, the fact remains that marriages rarely last “over a long period of time” as they are presupposed to be.
Women today are more than ever becoming self-sufficient and independent. Just as the characters exemplified on HBO’s hit show, both males and females are learning that marriage isn’t for everyone and to be single isn’t such a bad thing. Similarly, the alarming divorce rate in proportion to those so called “stable” marriages are enough to make someone throw in the towel before they even walk down the aisle. Maybe that’s why we see such a trend nowadays for couples to date for many years and never actually tie the knot. Maybe they’ve realized a paramount key to true happiness…that is, don’t buy the cow when you can get the milk for free.
All jokes aside, I don’t think that there is any real way to define marriage in terms of what is acceptable and what is not. Our society is so ruled by convenience and instant gratification that there’s no wonder scarce relationships can survive. Maybe I should just throw a few thousand dollars down the drain and save myself the trouble of paying divorce lawyers down the road.
Marriage becomes a duty because it is a convienience. The world naturally breaks itself off into groups and from this we find our mates. We look to companionship from the opposite sex or the same sex because we attain something from this bond. While attraction plays a role what it really comes down to is compatability. Finding that one person who we relate to in that special way is how we come to acquire a mate. Now for humans this form of companionship becomes more complicated than the animal kingdom. We humans have this idea of marriage and the amount of weight we put on this idea all comes from our history that has been passed along generation to generation. In our time it is not so much against the norm to sleep with someone before marriage as it was a hundred years ago. Things change generation to generation. But the idea of marriage has always stood strong. This is mainly due to roots of the American society. America was founded by Puritans and we have adopted many of their policies and many of our current laws reflect this. Women in this time were married off and the women who stayed single passed a certain age were outcasts. From this type of mentality many women have a internal desire to become married at a certain age because of the stigma attached to being unwed. Also because of Puritan ideals we have the notion of the family unit. It is accepeted by virtually everyone that if you intend on having kids then the plan is to get married and then start a family. This way the duties of parenting are shared and the expenses are shared as well. In today’s society only the cynical look down on those who are married. Marriage is a bond that shares the lives of two people an is a wholly union. It is only because people today see marriage as a trend or as something they thing they need to do did marriage acquire a bad rap.. It is true that over half of all marriages end in divorce, which is disheartening, we should still do what we think is best whether it is to become married or remain single.
Cathleen,
I really enjoyed reading your post and I agree with you. It seems to me that our society keeps getting further and further away from the good reasons to be married. Although I have not done any kind of extensive research to “know” this, I do think that having a strong family background creates a very fun and good childhood, which then leads to a good and happy life. I know that is a very broad statement but I am going to take the chance. Coming from a big family myself and having been raised with many cousins, my childhood was the best time of my life. Not that I am the only person that feels that way but I truly believe that I am the person I am today because I was raised by many people and with many people.
There are many things that we go through in life, and to have close relations with the people that you have known your entire life is a very good feeling. To this day I hang out with my older cousins and our families still get together on a regular basis. When things happen we are there for each other. I think one common trend in our society is giving up on marriage. When people get divorced, most of the time people do not even try to make it work, because it is easier to get divorced. I don’d doubt that my parents went through tough times, and probably didn’t want to deal with the problems that can arise in marriage, but they never saw divorce as an option. The reason they never saw divorce as an option was not because of some religious reason becase that they are not, but because they felt like if they gave up on this they gave up on life. Having that mentality and living their life in that manner has helped me understand why it is important to understand life for what it is and not what other people say it is. It’s also picking in life what is and is not important. What is most important to them is family and their whole life they have felt this way, which is one of the biggest reasons why they have never thought about having a divorce. A good family, whether people are married by state or church or not married at all, is important only if you feel its important. Divorce rates are so high because now more than ever people are confused about how they should feel about marriage. It was easier on our parents because most people got married because that is what everyone else did. That obviously is not a good reason to get married.
I was born and raised in Albania. An eastern European country that does not have a high divorce rate. There are many if not all working mom’s, people still have successful careers and are able to enjoy every aspect of their life while being married. There are of course men that cheat and wives that cheat and bad marriages, but for the most part people choose to be married and it truly is what they want to do. It happens to be what their parents did, but I guess those parents have instilled in us the importance of family as well as the importance of healthy relationships.
Whether a person chooses to stay at home or have a career, woman or man, they have to have support from family in order to do all those things. The most important thing here seems to be the importance of family and the good things that come from marriage.
It seems to me that marriage is the way one decides to look at marriage too. Every person has different things that are important to them, in order for a person to make a decision regarding their happiness it shouldn’t have anything to do with what is meant by “marriage”. The point is to live the best life that you can live. If for some people that means never getting married, then don’t get married. Commiting yourself to something, being honest with yourself and other people, and being a content human being is more important than what we mean by marriage. Marriage and relationships have definitely changed over the years but the reason they have changed is because people have changed their mentality about living their life a certain way.
In my opinion, marriage is not a duty. Marriage is a intimate union between man and woman who has unconditional love for each other. How could it even be considered as a duty? True enough, marriage is not like it use to be in the old days. There are still some people in the world today that believes in the traditional marriage and I’m one of them. Marriage is not a duty. It more like the right thing to do. I don’t see how people can say they love someone, want to spend the rest of their life with a person, and not get married. I mean why not. The bible say it’s the correct way.
Ahhh… marriage. First, what does it mean? Well, this is essentially the problem. ‘Man’ is questioning the very thing it created, and that is ‘meaning’. Philosophy, “the passionate pursuit of insight”, or in similiar words “trying to decipher the true nature of something”, could be void of meaning in itself. The ideas developed in philosophy are ‘Man’s’ nature seeking meaning. ‘Man’s’ nature in itself has no specific ‘meaning’. Instead, ‘Man’ defines ‘meaning’ for himself; subjectively. LIFE does not ‘mean’ for it is only an ‘end’, and this is why ‘man’ created the word LIFE, precisely because he will end. If you find that ‘marriage’ ‘means’ something to you, then I HOPE that your own definition will fill you with LIFE; for this IS the true nature of ‘Man’.
I’ve been bothered by something as I read this thread (a few months late I may say). There’s all this talk about marriage being a pathway to virtue. Of course, I’m intrigued by the religious overtones, but I see a lot of Catholic ideas presented and the ties that that gives marriage to the recognition by the Church. And, yes it is a good point about the disagreements within different movements within Christianity or pseudo-christian cults, but what is the authority to which we can relate if we really want to understand what God says about marriage? Encyclicals? Good grief, no. Nor is it in any doctrinal statement or confession of faith or any man-made reproduction of where the truth of what God has to say lies, which is His Word the Bible.
Now I bring that up because I think from the outset of this discussion, we have had a serious misunderstanding of what Christian (or what has been labeled religious) marriage is to be. There was brought up in the original post about the invalidity of the argument of marriage being for the purpose of procreation. Fair invalidation. But this talk about what is the purpose of marriage has been severely blurred throughout, if it was even made at any point clear. There’s vague talk about the propagation of virtue and how that can figure into salvation. And then there’s the sealing of an intimate relationship and validation of what would otherwise only be a civil union.
I have been prompted by that idea brought up about the ridiculously high divorce rate mocks the institution of marriage. This is partly true, but it is more than that, and keep that in mind as I go.
Since we talk about justification by faith and not a matter of a summation of virtue as Dave pointed out (Romans, not Corinthians), I want to mention God’s redemptive plan. One of the most important passages in the Bible is in Revelation 19, where there is described what is called the marriage supper of the Lamb (the Lamb being Jesus). Because it is a high point in all of God’s plan for history, when it is overlooked as often as it is, it is of grave consequence, thus the lack of clarity much of this discussion has had on the purpose of marriage. It is not just another peak in the range, it is the entire point of it all!
I contend by this passage that salvation is the means by which God gathers up a bride for His Son, Jesus, and it is this marriage at which the body of believers, all Christians, are eternally bonded with Christ in that great marriage. And if we look at the entire context of the verse from Ephesians that Ms. Harris pointed out for us, we see what Paul means by this, looking at when he says, “for this reason.” That reason for the two becoming one in marriage and showing love one to another is that Jesus Himself loves the church (all Christians, not the institution) as His own flesh in the manner that the church is His body (Ephesians 5:29) of which He is head (Ephesians 1:22,23). Paul will continue on to say in verse 32 that this mystery (something that was once hidden and is now revealed) “refers to Christ and the church.” (Ephesians 5:32)
So the point of marriage as defined by the Bible, which is the only place we can find what God says about the issue, is not to attain to a higher virtue, to manage procreation or to create an institution wherein two people can most highly demonstrate their love for each other, but to display Christ’s love for the church. That is why marriage is important. Christ’s great love for the church eternally bonds that church to Him in the covenant (not contract) He made with the church. To deny the institution of marriage, from the Biblical, thus Christian, perspective, is to deny the declaration of the great love of Christ toward His bride the church; love which caused Christ to give His life on the cross for that bride.
So if that is the reason for entering into marriage, then there must be a reason to remain in marriage. Now I’ll start to get into answering why divorce does more than mock the institution of marriage.
Knowing now that the marriage was instituted by God to display Christ’s love for the church, and that that is the reason a husband and wife should love each other, which was Paul’s point there in Ephesians 5, we can look at why Jesus condemns divorce.
The Bible clearly teaches a doctrine called, “the perseverance of the saints,” which is that those who are entrusted to Christ as true Christians will never fall away from following Christ. To put it in marriage terms then, those who are the bride of Christ will never be divorced from Christ. Jesus will never divorce His bride. Though the bride is often commits adultery against Him (that is the point of the entire prophecy of Hosea), Jesus will never let them go and will eventually draw the bride back to Himself.
Condensed so that I don’t have to bore you with multiple paragraphs on it, the argument goes like this:
1)Christ loves and is in a permanent relationship with the church.
2)Marriage displays the love and permanent relationship of Christ and the church.
3)Christ will never abandon, leave, forsake or divorce the church. This is the characteristic of the permanence of that relationship.
Therefore:
4) Divorce in marriage fails to display the permanence of the relationship between Christ and the church.
If marriage is supposed to show what the love of Christ and the church is, then divorce would be displaying that Christ might also divorce the church. But because Christ never will divorce the church, then divorce in our marriages is not just an affront to the institution of marriage, but blasphemy against the nature of Jesus because it says that Christ might do something that he promises He would never do.
So we can look at how Kant, Wikipedia or pope Pius XI define marriage, or we can look at how the Bible defines it, especially considering a lot of this thread tended to focus on religious aspects of marriage and the consequences of it.
Again, I know I’m a bit late on the subject, but maybe this will spark some reinvestigation into the subject. Laters.
As a Muslim – an American convert to Islam, I’d like to address some of the comments made about marriage in Islam (albiet a bit after the fact : )
While ideas of marriage as sacred and religious in nature have gradually crept into Islam from contact with Christianity and Judaism, the way marriage is described and defined in the Qur’an and other classical Islamic texts is that it is a contractual agreement between parties for the purpose of social stability, legal procreation (i.e., certainty of paternity of children), and – a concept that seems missing from this discussion – physical and emotional companionship. The contract itself is a required part of a Muslim marriage ceremony – it is, in fact, the essence of the ceremony, fulfilling much of the function that vows do in Christian and other Western-style weddings. The contract can be as simple or as lengthy and detailed as the couple wishes, and can include things as mundane as who does what housework, how many children the couple wish to have and when, where the couple will reside, and so on. It can also specify that the contract is broken – that divorce is essentially automatic – if certain elements of the contract are broken. For instance, many women in countries that still allow polygyny include in their marriage contract a clause that the husband will not marry additional wives, and that if he does, his marriage to the original wife is immediately over (though there are Islamic guidelines for the financial support of the divorced woman, especially if there are children, that cannot legally be ignored – the divorced husband retains responsibility to pay what can be called alimony and child support for a specified period of time, whether this is written into the marriage contract or not).
There is generally far less stigma attached to divorce among Muslims, as the union is not spiritual in its essence (though it is, like everything else in life, a form of worship). That has changed somewhat, again due largely to contact with Christian traditions. But divorce is not a sin for a Muslim, nor should it be an event that debases the social standing of either party.
I stayed in my first marriage, when I was a Christian, far longer than I should have because of the advice of my pastor and religious counselors. Even though my husband at the time was openly adulterous, it was still my responsibility to be patient and pray for him – initiating a divorce from him was a major sin for me, even given the circumstances of the divorce. This kind of attitude, in my opinion, causes far more harm to society (and individuals) than can be justified by Christian doctrine.
Conversely, I’m currently facing a divorce from my second husband, a nonpracticing Buddhist. My local Muslim community, while wanting to make sure I do not divorce for purely petty reasons, does not think any less of me for the situation I find myself in, and in that way are acting far more supportive than my church did.
As a scholar I appreciate philosophical and hermeneutical discussion, but find that without practical application and the examination of real-world consequences the discussion lacks a depth it deserves to have.
“So we can look at how Kant, Wikipedia or pope Pius XI define marriage, or we can look at how the Bible defines it, especially considering a lot of this thread tended to focus on religious aspects of marriage and the consequences of it.”
Indeed we can, but we can also take the view that as a human institution, we can choose to make marriage into whatever kind of arrangement we find fitting to the world as we find it. And further, by doing so, we mould the world our children will grow into.
Dear Heather,
Much respect to you and to the religion to which you subscribe. I completely agree that discussion may have limited value without practical application. In light of that I am posing a few questions for you.
I have read the Quran a few times. I have since had some trouble finding a more compelling text. To me the essence of everything in the world that Allah represents is breathtakingly beautiful. If Islam, in real world application, would be as the book teaches, the world would be a better place for it.
I am also happy to read that you have found a Muslim community in America that supports you, and that allows you to grow and change within your faith. [I wish the same had been possible for you as a Christian.]
Keeping that in mind, I must ask: Life and liberty for a Muslim female living in the Middle East, Asia, and parts of Africa is not as yours. Whether the woman is Muslim or not, culturally she is bound to an existence that has no comparison to yours at all. Most women outside of the Western world are largely ruled by a male reality.
Realistically then, I would assume that you would likely agree with me that divorce, such as you have described, simply isn’t an option in many Middle Eastern theocracies/societies?
I wonder if Islam can ever be completely teased apart from the culture in which it grew?
If it cannot then Islam…in application…may never be as you [and I] philosophically feel it should be?
If a religion (philosophy) such as Islam is bound into cultural paradigms that prevent it from being universalized then how practical is it?
Also, while I have your ear: What are your thoughts on divorce when children are in the mix? Would Islam be ok with that? Can a woman ask freely for a divorce and still have claims to the children? Or are children part of the communal property and falls to the male? I know the rules in America and this link shows the rules in Saudi Arabia: http://travel.state.gov/family/abduction/country/country_517.html.
Very different approaches!!
What are your thoughts?
Sending best regards,
Linda
I don’t see the argument that marriage is a human symbol of the union between God and mankind. In fact, the next verse after the verse quoted in Ephesian 5:31 “For this reason shall a man leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife and the two are united into one… is Ephesians 5:32 “This is a great mystery but is an illustration of the way Christ and the church are one.”
Marriage was considered a sacrament for that reason.
The bible does not teach marriage is only for procreation, though it does say to be fruitful and multiply. There are several notable couples in the Bible where the wife was barren and would have remained so were it not for divine intervention, so I think it is clear that the Bible finds an intrinsic value in marriage beyond just procreation.
Again, my perspective is more theological than philosophical but I did think the view of marriage as sacrament was not addressed.
Lin(da) Harris
Not the author of this blog, obviously, another one