The Purpose of Marriage

Since the meditation grove is still open, this is a topic that popped into my head from some things that were discussed elsewhere. What is the purpose of marriage? Now before anyone goes quoting religious books or reciting the teachings of their religion, I'd like to clarify a bit of what I'm after. What's the heart of the meaning, the lesson behind the things we are told?

For instance, I think the purpose of marriage, when you get down to it, is a contract to ensure children will have parents to raise them. By entering into a marriage, you are saying these two people will stick with each other through thick and thin. Their children will have parents they can rely on to raise them and help them in life.

In this way marriages are trying to avoid the fall out of one night stands. In those instances a child may be forced to grow up not knowing who their father is. Or have a father who left them because there wasn't a marriage bond keeping them around. Plus having two parents eases the burden of raising a child.

Now obviously not everyone abides by marriages and people still abandon their spouses or lovers. However, the idea behind marriage is to create a general feeling that people should get married and stick around to raise their kids. It instills a principle. It creates a more positive society.

What does everyone else think?
_________________

Master Joined: 15 Apr 2008 Posts: 4400 Location: Korriban

To me marriage is a commitment that you make with another person to spend your lives together out of love. Kids aren't always required, but if two people have thought it out, spent time making sure it would work, and decided on making this lifelong commitment then they get married. That's what it is to me.
_________________
Perfection is a lifelong pursuit requiring sacrifice. The only way to get it quicker is to sacrifice the most.

Master Joined: 21 Mar 2010 Posts: 813 Location: Maryland

Marriage is a religious contract between two people binding their love before God.

Now, the government has gone a long way toward hijacking the concept of marriage and twisting it to become an actual legal contract between two people. That's cool and all, but that's not actually marriage. If you get "married" in a courthouse, it's not a marriage. It's essentially a civil union. Which is why the government should just get out of the marriage business entirely - but won't, because it's too lucrative.

Now, the purpose of two people joining together under the law is, in my mind, for mutual benefit. You get a ton of government benefits by being married. And even more for having a family. Tax deductions, etc. Honestly, most people get married because it's the social norm. Everyone since the dawn of modern civilization has gotten married, so let's keep up the tradition. Some go on to raise families, some don't. Now, I don't think it's always been this way. In fact, until the last 50 years or so, I'd say that the vast majority of marriages were done for religious purposes. Today, it's probably more for the money.

What a world we live in.

I believe that the original point of marriage was to create a legal organism for the purpose of hereditary and estate exchanges. At least that seems to be the one most prevalent in history where the point was more on the two families creating a formality to join their lands together than about the two betrothed people who might not have even known or liked each other.

I think for a lot of people it has a religious meaning, but I'm not sure what that is because I haven't studied marriage views of most religions.

I'd like to think that it is a thing unique to each person, but the cynic in me thinks that most people in western society just do it because it is what is expected of them. Doesn't mean that they aren't really in love with each other, just that I think most people in viewing the course of their lives have the expectation that it should lead to marriage and children, etc.

Master Joined: 15 Apr 2008 Posts: 4400 Location: Korriban

* Tangos in to the conversation - because waltzing is too flamboyant*

You rang? Very Happy

Okay, let's see. In days of old, marriage was called 'handfasting'. Marriage itself was not religious until fairly recently (depending on what you call 'recent', I suppose Razz

), as it was primarily a way of creating bonds in the community, as well as strengthening the standing of the families involved and forging an alliance of sorts - though that's too strong a word for it. The marriage itself was undertaken by anyone of standing within the community. That could include priests and priestesses, but also wealthy landowners, community chiefs - anyone with a recognised standing in the community. Because it was a big community thing; records of who got married and had kids was kept by the community as a whole. This was done, most likely, because the higher government in place was too removed, and it was done probably out of necessity. Also, during these handfasting ceremonies, the hands of the couple would be tied together by rope - that's where we get the phrase 'tying the knot'.

Interestingly, there are many different ways of proposing marriage, and actually being married. In ancient Egypt, you were married if you simply lived in the same house as each other. In ancient Greece, the man (who had to be over 30) asked the woman (girl, really, since they only had to be around 13) for marriage by throwing an apple at her. The woman accepted by catching it. In Switzerland, if two people were seen in public drinking together, then they could be considered married. For more than a few tribes, marriage started out by simply kidnapping the woman. In later years, the more formal marriage-for-land concept took prominence, though the Mongols continued this practice, albeit in a more formalised way (which, in an odd way, made sense. If you weren't smart enough to succeed, you couldn't get married). And, indeed, the word 'wedding' itself is derived from the Anglo-Saxon word 'wedd', meaning 'gamble'. The religious aspect came later, with the 'Book' religions - though it was a while before they became solely the domain of religious institutions (at least, in England. In Scotland handfasting lasted up to the 20th century).

So, weddings did happen for mainly legal and monetary purposes (the tradition of wedding presents is derived from the bride price, for example. And you don't want me to go into detail about stag parties. Those crazy Spartans *eyes picture of Spartan helmet fondly*.), but that's not all of it. The heads of the household could force the couple to get married, despite their wishes, but more often than not it was a fairly civil thing. If they didn't get along then they didn't have to get married. And love would often come (hopefully) later. But marriages for love did happen. In most handfasting ceremonies the line 'together for life/as long as our love burns bright' was uttered.

Nowadays, it's done almost primarily for love - and that's where I stand on this. For me, if I want to spend my life with a woman (through love), then I will marry her. But it is a big thing, for us, and not a decision to be taken lightly.
_________________
I am a Star Wars fan. That doesn't mean that I hate or love Jar Jar. That doesn't mean I hate or love Lucas, or agree or disagree 100% with him. That doesn't mean I prefer the PT over the OT, or vice versa. That doesn't mean I hate the EU, or even love all of it. These are not prerequisites. Being a man is not a prerequisite. Being a geek is not a prerequisite. The only prerequisite is that I love something about Star Wars. I am a Star Wars fan.

I imagine I would still feel the same way about marriage regardless of my religion. I would still think marriage should be for life. It just seems the good and noble thing to do. I would also still be annoyed by divorce being handled so cavalierly. Of course, my religion jives perfectly with this.

I agree wtih Skuldren about marriage being good for children, because it's good for kids to have a father and a mother. But, like Caedus said, having children isn't a requirement of marriage.
_________________

Where sky and water meet,
Where the waves grow sweet,
Doubt not, Reepicheep,
To find all you seek,
There is the utter east.

Master Joined: 15 Apr 2008 Posts: 4400 Location: Korriban

I know several couples who have decided not to have children. In fact one of my friends just got her tubes tied so that they can't. They just don't want to bring a child into this world. They've lived hard lives and both done things in life that no one should have to. They are both doing better now and are very happy with each other after 6 years of marriage, they want to continue this way. Out of all my married friends they're the ones that I think are going to wind up being that adorable old couple holding hands on a park bench while they feed the ducks.

Kids are something that I've recently begun to think I don't want. Those who have known me for awhile know I've always wanted to get married and have a family but those things are starting to become less desirable to me. Have for almost a year now. The purpose of marriage (to me) is to find something that makes you feel finished or complete. I feel finished and complete. One day I'll probably change my mind and decide I want those things again, but right now I'm considering not doing these things. I've discussed previously that the biblical marriage was about finding an equal to both challenge and support one another and sure one day I'll need that but I honestly don't see the full purpose of marriage for myself. I think its a personal thing that the world has made more legal and public and that doesn't sit right for me.
_________________
Perfection is a lifelong pursuit requiring sacrifice. The only way to get it quicker is to sacrifice the most.

Somehow I completely overlooked the idea of getting married for material gains. This certainly would come to play in the old days, especially when they were people of status or had some degree of wealth (be a goat or title to a barony).

This also makes sense if the parents are in control of the marriage, or in other words arranged marriages. But were all marriages in ancient times arranged marriages? Was that the common practice by all people?

Lots to ponder.

Now fast forwarding and considering marriage for the purpose of love, I ask: why love only one person? Why the possessiveness? I certainly understand that it makes things simpler. The more people in a relationship, the harder it would be to maintain. I guess in those terms, when marriage is for love between just two people, it's more of a contract of fidelity. I can understand that.
_________________

Knight Joined: 03 Apr 2012 Posts: 103 Location: UK

Historically of course, there have been many societies that have functioned where a recognized marriage could be between three or more people. Polygamy (1 man, multilpe wives) and polyandry (1 woman, multiple husbands) have worked well for generations in societies.

In the Comanche tribes for example, polygamy was the norm. Hunting and warfare killed or maimed a proportion of the men, so there simply wasn't enough of them for each woman to have her own husband. The women still needed a family unit - a man to hunt for meat and hides and provide her with children. The solution was therefore polygamy. The Comanches had a low birth rate, so more wives meant more children to support each man.

A young man would usually choose his first wife romantically. Sometimes it was mutual, other times, he would be an older man her family approved of, and she would be expected to obey by marrying him. Occasionally, young couples would elope. As a young man became more succesful and wealthy, he might take more wives. The first wife was the 'senior' wife and had more priviliges, but generally the work would be shared among all the women. Secondary wives could be captives, but it was recommended to take sisters of the first wife, as they had established relationships and were thought less likely to fall out.

How much of this could be called 'romantic love' and how much just practicality, is another matter. Certainly, there could be very strong bonds formed. It could be romantic or platonic but the union between groups of individuals - husband and wives - functioned as a marriage, with rights and duties recognized.

Knight Joined: 07 Feb 2012 Posts: 358 Location: USA

Master Joined: 15 Apr 2008 Posts: 4400 Location: Korriban

Master Joined: 09 Jun 2009 Posts: 1410

Caedus, the Pharaohs of ancient Egypt definitely had multiple wives. The main wife held the title of "Great Royal Wife", and it was her son who succeeded to the throne (if she had one. If she had a daughter, that daughter was married to the next pharaoh. The other wives were known as minor wives.

For the rest of the ancient Egyptian population, monogamy was the rule, although they did have divorce which wasn't hard to attain, but it was expensive. It's interesting to note that while adultery was grounds for divorce, only women could commit adultery. Married men were exempt from that.

With the Hebrews, childlessness was actually the most common cause for divorce, and polygamy was permitted although not practiced that much.
_________________
Roqoo Depot co-founder.