Wednesday, November 10, 2010

Marriage is for...

In our discussions of the Prop 8 readings, we have discussed some of the reasons people use to support of Prop 8. Often, supporters contend it will help to "protect the institution of marriage" (language that is often used in this debate). As you see it, what IS the role, in modern American society, of the "institution of marriage"? How has this role changed over time? Or has it?

33 comments:

  1. To me marriage is something that happens to show someone how much you care about them. Many people get married just to receive benefits or to have children. But that is not the basis of a marriage in my mind. It should be something special an cherished between two people. The institution of marriage had goals when religion fist started becoming involved. Married couples were pressured to have children and to bring them up in the church. But over the course of time the population in general has become less religious and less inclined to bring their up their child in the church, or even have children at all. Marriage has become less of a family feeling, and more of a bond between the two who marry.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Marriage is a strictly legal institution. While it does have its roots in religion, the government has taken it over, so it now has nothing to do with religion at all. You don’t get a religious divorce—you get a legal divorce. In the meantime, any pastor can refuse anyone the right to marry on any grounds (although the government has no such discrimination). In addition, many gays and lesbians have been religiously married although the government does not grant them such rights.

    The meaning of marriage in a religious sense has indeed changed wildly throughout history. Christians have in the past denied marriage to interracial couples, and permitted the marriage of underage women. Europe (or ‘Christendom,’ as it liked to call itself) throughout history considered it normal that women marry and begin procreating as soon as they are biologically capable—and love be dammed. Incest was routinely practiced in Christian nations as well, most notably among rulers and royalty. These people were not heretics—they were Christians.

    So in conclusion, Christians themselves throughout history cannot agree on what is moral or immoral, sacred or profane. The idea that marriage today is a longstanding tradition is laughable, with women getting remarried multiple times, black people marrying white people, and people marrying for love instead of money. So the term ‘sanctity of marriage’ is meaningless and misleading.

    ReplyDelete
  3. At it's heart, marrage was and is a religious institution. However, over time the term has expanded to include the benefits of the legal joining of two people. It has changed from a thing done for the love of another and God, to a thing done for power, money or legal consequence. Part of the reason Proposition 8 is so disputed is that the legal joining has become so entwined with the religious aspects of marrage, allowing same sex couples to marry has become an affront to religion. Marrage is often not done with the church in mind, yet it often remains in some way a legal/religious bond when it should be nothing more than two people's expression of love to one another

    ReplyDelete
  4. To me marriage is solely dependent on the person. If they are a very religious person, to someone who isn't marriage is a legal binding contract. To most of America I would assume marriage is a combination of both. A fusion of both the sole, body, and everything else of two people. I believe that this is in itself a large change. Marriage was a strictly religious affair, with legal attributes, for more of the history of marriage as we know it. It is only recently (past 150ish years) that the legal side of marriage has become a prominent factor. However, it is obvious that religion is striving to gain back its hold over marriage. This is made apparent with the gay marriage hatred. From a legal standpoint, there is no reason why a same sex couple should not be married. It is only due to the influence of prominent religions, and their hatred of homosexuality, that same sex marriages are an issue at all.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I agree with Cam-Cam. Marriage should be between two individuals who want to spend the rest of their lives together. People do not get married for purely governmental reasons, like tax breaks and right to property. They get married because it signifies that those two individuals care about one another and plan to care for each other "until death do [they] part." Although modern marriages are changing and allowing interracial marriage and more, they are still focused on love. Marriage is not focused on power or money. To think that people get married solely for monetary reasons is cynical.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Why is the government and the religious man so against marriage of homosexuals? We have seen in the past that our priests and politicians who so adamantly appose homosexual acts are the ones who are the biggest hypocrites.
    The effaces that our legislators put on this topic is blown way out of proportion. With all of the current real problems of the world why is it that we choose a topic that can so easily be solved? It seems like America went over this topic back in the sixties. It is no different from race segregation. The media that is spent on this topic could be directed towards legitimate problems of the world.

    ReplyDelete
  7. The role of marriage has changed in parallel to the changes in reasoning for getting married. Marriage used to be a union between two people for the necessity of bearing children to help on the farms. Following the industrial revolution, marriage and bearing children was done less out of necessity and more for personal satisfaction. However in the changing of incentive for getting married, there has been a decrease in the sanctity that the union once held. This is what marriage should be, I think anyway, marriage should be a promise between two people to love and support eachother for all their lives, they can chose to have a religious approval if they want. It seems that when someone announces they are engaged, there is less of an excitement about the coming event. Perhaps marriage is just not all that important to the public culture anymore.

    ReplyDelete
  8. My personal opinion and I mean no offense by it whatsoever, but I think marriage is a is a religious ceremony signifying the love shared by a man and a woman, binding the two in a legal contract to make sure both are kept honest. I personally believe that marriage should be strictly man and woman and should only be instituted if the man and woman believe that they are in love and can spend the entirety of the rest of their lives together.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Marriage started as a legal institution. Then it became a religious institution. Lastly, it is now becoming a legal institution again. There is no provision for marriage that the two people need to love each other to marry. There is no reason that two people can't marry and then divorce right after. They can marry for economic or legal reasons. But, that is the reason for marriage in modern society. It allows two people who care about each other to legally and financially protect each other. That is the point of modern marriage.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Marriage has gone through a plethora of meanings, completely dependent on the culture and the time period. The idea that one religion can dominate the definition of marriage seems a little unfair in today's "politically correct" mindset. Which ever the case, marriage can mean a lot of things to a lot of people. Whether it be a legal binding contract, or a symbol for everlasting love for one another, I feel that marriage should be able to be expressed any way the couple (or multiple partners) feel is appropriate.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I completely agree with Slick291. Marriage should be between a man and a woman. Today, gay/lesbian couples are deemed to be ok and accepted among different areas in society. I personally think gay/lesbian marriage is completely wrong and should not be allowed. I am a Christian and believe that God intended for humans to be united together in Marriage but only between two people. One man, Adam, and one woman, Eve. It should be love that brings these two people together. And only true, honest love between a man and a woman should be given the right to continue to grow in marriage.

    Shojunkayoi, watch your condescending and stereotypical terms. Yes, some Christians in the past have rebuked such ideas as interracial marriage. However, your exact words were "in the past." Try not to be so presumptuous in your ideas and so headstrong in your misunderstandings and directly correlate it with the "misleading of the 'sanctity of marriage'"

    ReplyDelete
  12. In the dictionary, marriage is defined as "the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc." (dictionary.com) so the question is whether modern marriage is a legal commitment, or a religious ceremony. I believe that the modern definition is more of a legal commitment between two people who love each other. Therefore, this should not be restricted to only a man and a woman in the legal sense. there are many people who can perform a legal marriage like judges. Churches should not be forced to go against their beliefs because of gay marriage laws, but gay marriage should also not be banned because it makes religious institutions uncomfortable. They should have the same rights in love as everyone else.

    ReplyDelete
  13. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Originally, in Western Civilization, Marriage was an institution which was largely independent of the church. It was first and foremost a legal contract, not a religious one. It wasn't until the 1200s that the church began to actually take a stance on marriage, that being that it was purely a concession to human weakness, and a likelier path to Holiness (in contrast to lascivious behavior). At its very core, marriage was not a holy union between a male and a female, but a concession to the human need for companionship and pleasure. In this way, allowing homosexual couples to marry would in no way damage the religious institution of marriage on the fundamental level.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I think the main issue with marriage is the separation of the concept of marriage and the definition of marriage. The historical definition of a marriage has been a formal union between a man and woman allowing them to have children and start a family, however the concept of marriage isn't quite as simple. Marriage should be a desire to share all aspects of ones life with someone in a close caring relationship. Legal marriage and the more abstract relationship are two very different things that need to be differentiated before one can begin deciding how a marriage should work and who can or can't get married. Gay and lesbian couples are having a hard time being formally married, but many consider themselves married to each other without the legal side of it.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Hey guys, Hammurabi was laying down the law on marriage way before the Torah was even written. If your only reason to be against gay marriage is your religion (hint: there are no other reasons) you need to stop being a huge crying baby and deal with it. There is no "defending the sanctity of marriage" in denying a harmless right to a minority group. If you actually want to deny rights from minorities you're human trash and belong in a garbage can. Hope this helps!

    ReplyDelete
  17. I see marriage changing over time as government changes the basic rules/foundation for the government. 200 years ago, it was really hard for minorities to marry, and marriage meant more than merely a civil union between 2 people. As the public has demanded changes to be made to this institution, the government HAS made them, albeit really slowly. I see the controversy in Proposition 8 as a starting point in which advocates of same sex marriage will find a channel to be heard from, which will inevitably prompt the government to find a balance of some sorts on a national scale, rather than just having states individually handle these issues.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Marriage, is the uniting and bonding of two loved one's, disregarding their gender. I believe that if two people love each other and want to be with each other for the rest of their lives, they should be allowed to. Marriage has changed over time, but looking at it, love is the base and foundation of almost all marriages.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Marriage's role has always been and should always be to provide a framework for families. Statistics show that kids who grow up in families where both the mother and the father are present just overall develop better than kids who don't. It provides stability for children and for women who are giving birth to children. The actual institution of marriage has not actually changed over time. Rather, people's perceptions of and ideas surrounding marriage have changed. But because marriage is fundamentally important to families, and therefore to society, it should be protected for what it is- One man, for one woman, for one lifetime.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Marriage plays no role in American culture currently. It did in the past, as is still seen as "valid" in the eyes of many, but it simply holds no weight today. The institution of marriage is a slandered field and has been removed from the general public as something to look forward to or to respect. Simply put, it holds no value (overall) in the eyes of Americans.

    ReplyDelete
  21. I try to be as understanding and acceptable of people as possible. A lot of the time I struggle with accepting. I believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman only, but that is how I was raised. Since I am trying to be as accepting as possible I suppose I agree with the idea of a civil union and if after the civil union, those who wish can still have a wedding.

    ReplyDelete
  22. What the role actually is is hard to explain since it has been different things throughout history. At one point in time, it was to have a family and continue the human race: have children. That was the whole purpose of the family. Then it was to make ties between two people who should be together, such as children of two wealthy families, in order to continue the wealth. Nowadays, it can be either to have children like some believe, or to merely be with your "soulmate".

    ReplyDelete
  23. The role of marriage has changed quite a bit. I think it was mostly for religious reasons in the past. To connect one person to another in a spiritual way. Then it turned into a legal matter. Taking last names and whatnot. Combining bank accounts and owning land. Today I think its more for that connection with a significant other, something that says you are with the one you were meant for. Marriage today symbolizes the togetherness of the couple, and the ultimate stage of love they have reached.

    ReplyDelete
  24. In modern American society, marriage beholds a connotation that involves love. If two people love each other, they deserve to be married, and the marriage is voluntary for both parties involved. This also means that the families of the man and woman getting married don't necessarily have to be supportive for the marriage to still occur. The role of the institution of marriage in modern American society is a social declaration that two people are, above all, in love with each other. Nothing else is set in stone regarding marriages today. Same-sex marriages are slowly pushing their way into the picture, so pretty soon marriage will no longer be diplomatically defined by Americans as being between a man and a woman anymore. Inter-racial marriages and marriages between people from different political, religious, or ideological backgrounds are much more common today than, say, 60 years ago. While these societal progressions are great because they are indicative of a decrease in discrimination in the realm of marriage, they also make it harder and harder to pinpoint a definition for marriage, or to pinpoint the role of marriage in modern American society.

    ReplyDelete
  25. I find it hard to define exactly what marriage is because of the versatile nature of it. Grouping marriage into categories such a legal or religious doesn't really help to understand or explain it any better. Marriage is marriage. For whatever reason, at any place, under the authority of whoever, marriage is a pact between two individuals who agree to live by certain conditions that they place on one another. I believe that is the most accurate definition I can provide because there are no fundamental laws or reasons that say people have to carry out marriage the way it is generally seen. There is nothing that says that the people who get married have to love each other or that they have to live together. In a philosophical viewpoint, there is no real reason for marriage because it doesn't contribute positively on an evolutionary standard. In fact, it impedes it. Marriage is a phenomenon that can't really be explained. Until religion takes over the idea of marriage, or until people start thinking for themselves, marriage will always be a controversial issue.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Marriage, from what I’ve viewed as I have grown, is a support institution. You choose someone who you care deeply for as a life partner to be there for you through the rest of your life. Your chosen mate is supposed to help you through emotional troubles, financial troubles, and physical disabilities. And when you finally have children (if you do) your mate is supposed to help care for them and together you are supposed to raise them into healthy happy adults that will forward the species.

    ReplyDelete
  27. I think that the "institution of marriage" is used to legally and religously join a man and a woman together. I also feel that marriage really has not changed over the years. It may have been officially classified as a religous function in the beginning, it could also be interpreted as a legal function, as many women would sometimes marry a man to gain power. While people may tend to currently gain more from marriage, the basic concept remains the same.

    ReplyDelete
  28. In society today, the institution of marriage is truly the only thing protecting the family and family values. Marriage is and should only be between a man and a woman. Children, under the most ideal circumstances, need to be raised by a man and a woman. It is critical to the human psych for children to have both influences. Marriage has changed over the years because it has become more about a relationship of love rather than what is necessary for family. An individual can choose his/her spouse rather than have one forced upon the individual. I am a homophobe nor do I hate gay people but they should not be allowed the right to marry. That is a sacred bond between a man and a woman.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Part of the problem is that we don’t have a true definition of what marriage is. When people can’t agree on a universal definition of something fights begin(human life is another example). I would say the original meaning of marriage was an official pact between two families to join a man and a woman and continue their legacy. This definition does not mean much today however, but some of the legal issues may stem from this original meaning.

    ReplyDelete
  30. In modern America, at least as I see it, marriage is worthless unless the two people being married have made the choice and are honestly happy with each other. Most people toss around marriage as a way to get cheaper car insurance more than a way to seal themselves together for life; to me, it doesn't matter what way you swing. Marriage is marriage so long as you intend to stay together. None of this breaking it off after 24 years business.

    The definition has changed greatly from what it once was. Was marriage not once a religious aspect of a relationship, used to seal two beings together for this life and the afterlife? It is now a legal contract, doesn't say jack diddly about being together in an afterlife -- whether or not there is one.

    ReplyDelete
  31. MArriage is different for every person, and this has not changed over the years. Some people marry because they love the person, and some do because there families make them. Some people may also marry because this is what society expects in todays world. People should think of marriage as a way of getting closer to the person they love, and living their entire life with them.

    ReplyDelete
  32. The institution of marriage role is social because it ties two people together as a unit, and marriage has a legal role by offering the people involved rights as a unit. This concept of marriage is different from what marriage was several centuries ago, for it used to have a primarily economic role because it tied the estates of two families together. Marriage at the time did not bond two people as a unit, either. It generally made the wife subservient to the husband and gave the husband access to more income (which may still occur today in US marriages, but this is not what is commonly thought of by Americans when referring to marriage).

    ReplyDelete
  33. "Marriage", to me, is a religious institution between a man and a women. It is unfair for government to interfere with this tradition. Marriage in government should be completely eliminated, replaced with another term with no religious basis. Keep "marriage" religious and separate it completely from its political ties, creating a new term with a definition different from that of "marriage".

    ReplyDelete