What is the purpose of marriage?

[CriticalThought]

I'm asking in the legal sense, not the religious sense. Notice this is the "Law and Order" forum. If you feel that your religious view plays into the law, then I would like to hear it, but if your point is simply "marriage is a union created by God" then this isn't the place for it.

I struggle with justifying why the government is even involved in marriage. I think converting all marriages to civil partnerships would accomplish the same things without involving the government in an institution with such religious connotations. However, that is incredibly unlikely given Supreme Court precedent which has established that marriage is a "fundamental right" as it is recognized under the Constitution as being protected by the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment.

But what I am really curious about is what purpose is marriage ultimately suppose to serve. The same sex marriage debate is based largely on differing opinions of the purpose of marriage. That purpose has also seemed to change numerous times through history. The amalgamation of rights and responsibilities inherent in marriage represents several centuries of that evolution.

Marriage deals with everything: entitlements (Social Security, Disability, and Medicare), property rights, inheritance, taxes, bankruptcy, parental rights, next of kin status, visitation rights, medical authority, adoption rights, etc.

So it is difficult to gather exactly what the purpose of marriage is suppose to serve when it serves so many different purposes. However, society continues to argue that marriage serves a state interest. I have heard many on this forum. The general religious right answer to this question is...

"Marriage serves the purpose of promoting procreation within a legally bound family so a child can be raised by a mother and a father. "

However, marriage has never been necessary for procreation, and science has found that as long as a child is raised in a home with two loving parents, it doesn't matter all that much who they are. Furthermore, the law is written in such a way that couples do not have to have kids to be married or even ever intend to raise children.

So then what would be the purpose of marriage? In our day of high divorce rates can it really be said that it serves any purpose at all beyond conferring special privileges and responsibilities to some relationships but not others?

 

[Paschendale]

Inheritance. It's all about inheritance. That's why bastards don't inherit anything. Only the legally sanctioned children of a marriage get the stuff when the parents die.

 

[Paschendale]

Inheritance. It's all about inheritance. That's why bastards don't inherit anything. Only the legally sanctioned children of a marriage get the stuff when the parents die.

I should expand on this. In modern times, this may not always be the case, but historically, this was true. Marriage was about property. Especially when women were considered property as well. It was about the movement of land, title (if you had one), and property from father to son.

 

[Goshin]

I should expand on this. In modern times, this may not always be the case, but historically, this was true. Marriage was about property. Especially when women were considered property as well. It was about the movement of land, title (if you had one), and property from father to son.

That, yes... but also about the woman/mother and children being taken care of well, and the well-documented positive influences of having a good father around to help with the upbringing.

Some people really diss marriage, historically, as a version of female slavery. Well, in a sense it was... but the alternative in primitive times was being without a protector, without a provider for your children, in other words being "any man in the tribe's whore for ten minutes whenever they feel like it" and otherwise free to starve along with your kids if you tried to take off on your own. Prior to the Renaissance, very few women had the personal clout or wealth and will to make their own way without a man to act as protector and provider. When weapons were all muscle-powered, women were at such a disadvantage that many of them were literally slaves with no rights... marriage was a huge step upward, historically and socially.

Now in modern times, I have to grant that the State-sponsored version of marriage is pretty screwed up. I often wonder why any man, unless he is quite religious, bothers to marry in modern times. What are the benefits? You're liable for any child she has, whether it is yours or not (in many states). Half of marriages end in divorce, and she gets half your property most times. You may have to pay alimony and child support, while at the same time being seriously restricted in how much you can see your own children.

In divorce, most men lose more property/capital and are much less likely to get custody of the children... and divorce is very common.

There's the modest tax benefits, and the theory that "two can live cheaper than one". Well, that is: two can live cheaper together than two apart, IF they both work and actually share the expenses equitably. The reality is that two often quickly becomes four or five (with kids), and that many women don't work full time while they have young children. The man often ends up carrying the greater financial burden. (Granted that the woman is often expected to do more with the kids and domestic chores, regardless.)

For a woman, the incentives are a little stronger. She gets a measure of security, in that her man will not be able to leave her too easily or cheaply, and that she'll probably get something out of it if he does. If she wants children, she has greater assurance of the father being around to help financially and in other ways, than if they are not married. If childcare issues keep her from rising to the top at work... well that's what husbands are for, apparently.

Religion, or a lotta love and a certain respect for tradition... the financial benefits are really pretty meager. I think it's no wonder many younger men are choosing not to marry, under the current legal version of marriage in modern America.

 

[Whovian]

 

[CriticalThought]

That, yes... but also about the woman/mother and children being taken care of well, and the well-documented positive influences of having a good father around to help with the upbringing.

Here is the problem. You can't argue that having a father around matters at all. What matters is having two parents. From what I have seen of the evidence, it doesn't really matter who the parents are assuming they raise the child from infancy as long as they are loving and can adequately care for the child.

After infancy, when a child has formed an attachment to both parents, if there is divorce or remarriage, then it could make a difference, but that is another matter entirely.

My point, you can't really argue anymore that the purpose of marriage is ensure that children have a parent of each sex. It isn't necessary by any measure. Nobody can articulate what a man can offer a child that a woman cannot or a woman can offer a child that a man cannot.

 

[Goshin]

Here is the problem. You can't argue that having a father around matters at all. What matters is having two parents. From what I have seen of the evidence, it doesn't really matter who the parents are assuming they raise the child from infancy as long as they are loving and can adequately care for the child.

After infancy, when a child has formed an attachment to both parents, if there is divorce or remarriage, then it could make a difference, but that is another matter entirely.

My point, you can't really argue anymore that the purpose of marriage is ensure that children have a parent of each sex. It isn't necessary by any measure. Nobody can articulate what a man can offer a child that a woman cannot or a woman can offer a child that a man cannot.

I'd have to disagree. I think having a mother and a father is a positive; the child has a role model for each gender.

I know some people think that doesn't matter. I do. Please, don't try to tell me that there's no differences between genders other than artificial cultural stereotypes... it is well established that that isn't so.

 

[Slartibartfast]

The purpose of marriage is whatever the people married to each other decide it is.

 

[CriticalThought]

I'd have to disagree. I think having a mother and a father is a positive; the child has a role model for each gender.

A child will have role models from both genders regardless of whether they have parents of both genders. Children aren't raised in a vacuum.

I know some people think that doesn't matter. I do. Please, don't try to tell me that there's no differences between genders other than artificial cultural stereotypes... it is well established that that isn't so.

There certainly are differences between genders. That is why those differences don't have to be learned. They are innate. The cultural stereotypes are the only thing that has to be learned.


Regardless of your personal opinion, the science overwhelmingly shows that two loving parents of the same sex can provide just as good a home as two parents of different sexes. Having both a mother and father is not necessary and therefore the purpose of marriage is not contingent upon it.

 

[CriticalThought]

The purpose of marriage is whatever the people married to each other decide it is.

That seems awfully relative, but perhaps it is the most honest answer.

 

[Paschendale]

I'd have to disagree. I think having a mother and a father is a positive; the child has a role model for each gender.

I know some people think that doesn't matter. I do. Please, don't try to tell me that there's no differences between genders other than artificial cultural stereotypes... it is well established that that isn't so.

Studies conducted over the last several decades (a few are discussed below) have determined that there is no measurable difference in the overall "goodness" of upbringing between heterosexual and homosexual parents. Two parent households do better than single parent households, especially single mother households. Those single mother households are more often the products of accidental pregnancies where the father did not elect to stick around, a situation that is physically impossible with gay and lesbian parents. There are most certainly differences between genders, but it seems that kids don't need a parent of each one to do okay. This is really not surprising. We have many influences in our lives, not just our parents. I suppose a child who had literally never met a person of one gender or the other would have problems, but in the world at large, we get enough exposure to each that having a parent of each gender is not necessary.

Lesbian & Gay Parenting: Theoretical & Conceptual Examinations Related to Lesbian & Gay Parenting
Study: Same-Sex Parents Raise Well-Adjusted Kids
What happens to kids raised by gay parents?

 

[Disputatious71]

Marriage is the commitment of two individuals to each other for life. They enter into a contract with each other to share their life, family and anything else current or future in their partnership. While religion and nature has provided the course of human compatibility of marriage, long established by ancient custom also, as being between a man and a women. High divorce rates just mean that people are choosing to break their commitments, which over time may lead to new customs which will bring changes to existing or create new laws as needed to maintain the social cohesion of communities and a nation.

 

[Slartibartfast]

That seems awfully relative, but perhaps it is the most honest answer.

Perhaps it is, but I have never been one to care much about what society's expectations or plans are. I tend to go with my own ideas and this sort of sentiment (it is what I want it to be, for me) is how I see most things in my life.

 

[Sig]

So then what would be the purpose of marriage?

The purpose of marriage is social structure. Once upon a time, in those wild and crazy Pleistocene days, when courtship consisted of the alpha male grabbing all the women for himself (whether they liked it not) at the expense of the beta males (whether they liked it or not), there was relative peace and harmony, however grudgingly.

Then a funny thing happened. Some of the beta males started inventing weapons, equalizers if you will. Suddenly, there was a very rapid paradigm shift in what constituted "alpha male status". Now, if a traditional alpha male grabbed a woman that a beta male was particularly sweet on, he might end up with a crushed skull by the end of the day. As you can imagine, this led to a great deal of bloodshed within the clan, so much so that the clan became vulnerable to rival clans as the number of able-bodied males diminished due to this continued in-fighting over females. This is the part where the clan shaman steps in and institutes a sacred ritual called marriage, which seals the deal between a man and his woman so that no other male in the clan can lay claim to her, or even attempt to have sex with her (nor her to have sex with him) without being severely punished by the rest of the clan for adultery.

As you can see, marriage became the cornerstone of human civilization, which it still is today, though we often fail to recognize it as such.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Marriage is unique among all human relationships.

It's the one relationship that provides for the creation of new human beings, which protects the right of each new child to be connected to the father and mother who created him and are responsible for him, and which forms the basis of a stable family, which is itself the basis of any stable and successful human society.

 

[stsburns]

Marriage is a social union or legal contract between people that creates kinship. It is an institution in which interpersonal relationships, usually intimate and sexual, are acknowledged in a variety of ways, depending on the culture or subculture in which it is found. Such a union, often formalized via a wedding ceremony, may also be called matrimony.
People marry for many reasons, including one or more of the following: legal, social, libidinal, emotional, economic, spiritual, and religious. These might include arranged marriages, family obligations, the legal establishment of a nuclear family unit, the legal protection of children and public declaration of commitment.[1][2] The act of marriage usually creates normative or legal obligations between the individuals involved. In some societies these obligations also extend to certain family members of the married persons. Some cultures allow the dissolution of marriage through divorce or annulment.
Marriage is usually recognized by the state, a religious authority, or both. It is often viewed as a contract. Civil marriage is the legal concept of marriage as a governmental institution irrespective of religious affiliation, in accordance with marriage laws of the jurisdiction.

Marriage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

My belief it was created by the church to control the population. People these days get married for sex and/or financial benefits. While others marry just to pass down their genes "legitimately." Then of course when one or both party's are unhappy in the relationship (for whatever reason they are in it for) their is divorce. I find some live the rest of their life in misery.

 

[Pinkie]

Today. marriage serves the legal purpose of creating rights and duties between the parties (and their children, if any) that most of us see as desirable. The concept of marriage and the family is is so deeply woven into the law it'd be darned near impossible to list all its implications.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

The government's involvement makes sense up to the point of merely knowing who is who and following name changes for citizen-accountability purposes. This is fine, no biggie. Can't govern a people if you don't know who they are.

But government shouldn't have the right to dictate marriage.

However - what is the 'purpose' of marriage. What's wrong with it being diverse in it's purpose? Why can't it be complicated?

For us it serves a simple purpose: we loved eachother so much that we wanted to be together - physically and legally.

 

[_Markum_]

Traditionally, the purpose of marriage was to establish a lineage, the "male line". This gave the males a sense of immortality, not only through the propagation of their genes, but through the persistence of their property. From generation to generation, a given family, or bloodline, could thereby increase in prestige and power, thereby serving as anchors, the "pillars", of society.

Marriage conferred upon the male the exclusive right to his wife, most notably her reproductive organs, but all the rest of her as well, since the proper rearing environment requires the commitment of a variety of resources. But the rise of the "rights of women" put an end to this traditional purpose of marriage by ending the primacy of the male. Now the purpose of marriage is to enforce various social responsibilities--which, as others have explained, it does only poorly at best. It is an antiquated remnant of a previous age. It serves now only to dilute the power/property of men, enhancing the control of government.

 

[Frolicking Dinosaurs]

I believe marriage is a religious sacrament and the church should have complete and total say so over who can and cannot marry in their church. The only thing the government should be doing is licensing civil unions for all couples wishing to have both the legal rights and responsibilities current associated with marriage in the US and for the accountability / citizenship purposes mentioned early.

 

[roguenuke]

Legal marriage makes 2 people each others' closest relative. This also means that each person's immediate family becomes the other person's legal family. Since spouses are a choice, whereas who your blood relatives are really aren't (unless we are talking about a person's children), legal marriage provides a legal status to a person's spouse that puts them in a higher position than any other relative.

It also ensures that such a commitment in a relationship is recognized as two people sharing the assets/finances/property earned by those two people while in that relationship. This type of relationship is seen as a positive to society because the couple is responsible to take care of each other in hard times. Society might have to take up the slack, but only after the couple together is having too hard a time doing it between the two of them.

There are a plethora of legal responsibilities, rights, and benefits that come with a marriage, but most are related to the two being each others' closest relative and the fact that they are legally recognized as a committed couple, responsible for each other.

 

[roguenuke]

Marriage is unique among all human relationships.

It's the one relationship that provides for the creation of new human beings, which protects the right of each new child to be connected to the father and mother who created him and are responsible for him, and which forms the basis of a stable family, which is itself the basis of any stable and successful human society.

People do not need marriage to reproduce. Mankind was reproducing well before marriage was even thought of and is still reproducing outside of a marriage now. And many married people now never reproduce. Many others do not raise their own children, but are still loving parents.

 

[jambalaya]

Probably small clans, tribes and whatever way back when wanted to recognize the coupling of the men and women. I would imagine that in it's most basic form it was recognition of a woman as some man's property. Official marriage was probably religious in nature in the beginning then the government saw some need to set up rules and collect a fee to saction marriage.