Marriage: A Tradition Worth Saving?

What is marriage?

A simple question in appearance, perhaps; but it can reel-in numerous, extensive, and exhausting answers. As with many things in this world today, the concept of marriage is almost entirely a matter of perspective.

Anyone who watches American television -especially such reality shows as "Say Yes to the Dress" and "Whose Wedding Is It Anyway?" -may get the impression that the modern marriage is all about living out the Disney-endorsed fairy tale of childhood -with little to no mention of life afterward. What a number of people seem to forget is that a wedding ceremony is meant to last only 30 minutes. A traditional marriage is meant to last for 30 years, at least.   

The following video, created by TED Ed, gives a wonderful (brief) overview of the history of marriage.

 

Marriage, as the above video illustrated, has been around for centuries. It has taken and continues to take many forms -sometimes consisting of more than two individuals; sometimes consisting of same-sex and deceased individuals. 

An additional aspect of marriage that the video points out is that society as a whole holds the monopoly on the idea of what constitutes a marriage. 

So, to amend the question from before, what is marriage in (post)modern America?

Answer: Broken.

Marriage, especially between heterosexual couples, is a failing institution in present-day America. Fifty percent of all marriages currently end in divorce. 

Surely though, because society had a hand in forming the tradition of marriage, it has the power to save the institution from failing altogether.

But, to complicate the matter further, is marriage a tradition worth saving?

Again, answers differ.

A Proposal of Cancellation
In 2012, writer and activist Merav Michaeli gave a TED Talk about the failing archaic tradition of marriage and society's need to do away with it. Please click on the video below to hear her reasoning.

Truly, Michaeli offered a well-founded argument for the cancellation of traditional marriage. From a feminist perspective, the life of a woman who is bound in a traditional marriage is rather thankless and debasing. Even today, living in an economy where both the husband and wife have to work outside of the home to make ends meet, many a woman is still expected to maintain a household -doing the cooking, the cleaning, and the child-rearing -after working eight hours or more a day. 

On occasion, granted, the stereotypical male will look up from ESPN (or Minecraft) long enough to throw his beer bottle into the recycle bin. But help from there is expected to be somewhat limited.

Even if they have never heard of or viewed Michaeli's Talk, it would seem that more and more members of Generation Y are choosing to take part in long-term romantic partnerships rather than getting married.

Perhaps such individuals are victims of broken families, refusing to follow in their (now-divorced) parents' footsteps. Maybe these young people, like Michaeli, see marriage as being archaic and irrelevant. 

Or, maybe, Millennials are too use to throwing something away when it no longer suits them.

A Proposal for Reinvention
Despite Michaeli's insistence that marriage is too broken to be fixed from the inside out, perhaps it can be reconstructed from the outside in. 

To clarify: From the outside, on the sparkly surface, marriage looks like a fabulous affair to be swept up in. Who doesn't like the idea of living out the rest of one's life alongside one's twin flame? Who doesn't like the idea of having a partner to help navigate the obstacles of life with? But, again, that is only the surface. And the surface is what needs to be breached here.

As when dealing with anything sustainable, anything worthwhile, a great deal of dedication and hard work goes into discovering and building relationships. 

Like so many of my peers, I too grew up in a broken home. And yet, somehow, the few successful marriages that I witnessed over the past twenty-five years have helped me become a romantic. My goal is to, one day, have a family of my own -with an established egalitarian relationship between my spouse and I; and, certainly, a few children. 

Perhaps, today, such can be considered rather lofty goals. However, it is my belief that two people working toward a common goal can accomplish a great deal. And, luckily, the most basic marriage only needs two people in order to function, to succeed.

The following, I predict, are the three areas where marriages fail -followed by proposed my proposed solutions.

My List of Three Possible Reasons As to Why Marriages Fail

1. Lack of formed identities. So many people enter into relationships thinking that they will find completion in the form and presence of another person. Instead of focusing on what we want in an ideal mate, however, we need to focus on becoming an ideal mate. (The latter goes for both males and females.) As cheesy as the idea may sound, get to know yourself: build on your strengths and work on your weaknesses. Celebrate your quirks. Date and fall in love with yourself! 

The first marriage a person should look into committing to needs to be with one's self.

2. Failure to communicate. People are more connected than ever; and yet, so few individuals are able to communicate without their iPhone. 

Talk to your partner: check in with them, and make sure that you are both on the same page.

On a deeper level, ask personal questions: What are your goals? Can your goals be achieved together? Can you support each other in your respective goals? What are you both looking for in a relationship? Do you both want marriage and children? Etc.

Discover and dismantle any illusions that may exist between you. Fall in love with your partner, not your idea of who your partner is.

3. The consumerist mentality. As hinted at preciously, much of modern society is sold and treated as being disposable. Once something is broken, people tend to be quick to throw that item away and replace it with something better. 

But that is the difference between objects and people: As the philosopher Immanuel Kant would argue, people are not meant to be thrown away. People, and relationships, are meant to be fixed.

Society needs to stop glorifying divorce as being a quick fix-it-all method.

A Possible Answer
So. . . Is marriage worth saving?

In the traditional sense, no. Perhaps the marriage of old deserves to be put to rest.

Perhaps the tradition needs to die so that something new, something better, can replace it. . . 

Marriage means something different for everyone. Keeping that in mind, for our own personal reasons, we can each decide to let go of marriage and embrace something different; or we can remold the concept into something better.

The ultimate decision is ours, not Society's. 

Gay Marriage: Poking Holes in the 'Anti' Argument

There was dancing in the streets of Austin, and in many other American cities, on the day that it was announced that same-sex marriage had at last been made legal.

Not long after, particularly in the more conservative areas of the United States, protest events were held to demonstrate objection to the Supreme Court's decision. Legalizing gay marriage, to summarize the collective cries, would undermine the sanctity of [holy] matrimony and family.

The American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family, and Property (TFP) is one such Christian campaign that continues to denounce homosexual marriage as being either legal or moral. On one of its associated websites, in fact, the TFP has listed 10 such reasons as to why gay marriage is "harmful."

Although it is by no means this humble blogger's intent to single out the TFP as the solitary voice against homosexual marriage, I recognize its well laid out list of reasons as reflecting much of the same protests made by similar conservative peoples and organizations. (The most recent being that of Kim Davis, the Kentucky county clerk who declined in giving marriage licenses to same-sex couples.)

As such, by using the list as an outline, I need not worry about missing vital part of the issue as I make my counter-argument.


1. Homosexual marriage is not marriage.

"Calling something marriage does not make it marriage. Marriage has always been a covenant between a man and a woman which is by its nature ordered toward the procreation and education of children and the unity and wellbeing of the spouses."

Marriage, in the majority of Abrahamic religious cultures, began as a covenant not between a man and a woman; rather, it was a contract between a man and a woman's father. A woman was primarily bought or sold to her spouse, through either a bride-price or a dowry, so that the man had possession of a womb. And in many parts of the world, the latter practice is still played out today.

Love and equality in marriage are relatively new concepts and almost entirely exclusive to Western culture.

Perhaps, it is time for the convention of "marriage" to be re-evaluated and redefined.

2. Homosexual marriage violates the laws of Nature.

"Marriage is not just any relationship between human beings. It is a relationship rooted in human nature and thus governed by natural law... Any situation which institutionalizes the circumvention of the purpose of the sexual act violates natural law and the objective norm of morality."

Oh, woe to he who passed theology but failed sexology! Homosexual behavior is prevalent in Nature. It is especially used and practiced by the bonobo -mankind's closest biological relative in the animal kingdom. 

In the world of the bonobo, sexual behavior is used as a means of expressing gratitude (for shared food) and avoiding violence (between group members). Anything from groping genitals to full intercourse is practiced among the members of a group, regardless of gender. And because harmony is key to the function of the bonobo, the use of sex helps the bonds between the group members to become strong and deep.

Clearly, humans have inherited the promiscuous tendencies of our primate relatives. Therefore, would it not make sense that we might have inherited other sexual tendencies as well?

3. Homosexual marriage denies a child either a mother or a father.

"It is in the child’s best interests that he be raised under the influence of his natural father and mother. This rule is confirmed by the evident difficulties faced by the many children who are orphans or are raised by a single parent, a relative, or a foster parent... Same-sex “marriage” ignores a child’s best interests."

American society at present is denying children of their mother or father, or both. Mostly, this deprivation is caused by the demand of long workweeks. For some, there are not enough hours in the day to be parents. 

And even if there were enough hours available for some, there are people in this world who do not have the appropriate countenance to be parents. The ability to conceive and birth a child does not a good parent make. Children are just as likely to be abused and neglected by their biological parents as they are by adoptive or foster guardians.

Children need attention from adults. In order to develop properly, they need nurturing (i.e. loving) validation. Just as important, if not more, a child needs to grow up feeling safe. And a homosexual couple is just as capable of meeting a child's needs as a heterosexual couple.

Certain members of society may argue that a child needs a mother and a father, but a child is not born into this world knowing what a parent is. As it grows physically and develops mentally, a child learns who the primary figures in his/her life is. He/She learns which parent fulfills which need best. The titles of "Mother" and "Father" are merely that, titles -means of differentiating one parent from the other. A child, again, only needs to know that it is loved and safe. Everything else is irrelevant. 

4. Homosexual marriage promotes and validates the homosexual lifestyle.

  

"In the name of the “family,” same-sex “marriage” serves to validate not only such unions but the whole homosexual lifestyle in all its bisexual and transgender variants... Legal recognition of same-sex “marriage” would necessarily obscure certain basic moral values, devalue traditional marriage, and weaken public morality."

Three points:

1. Public morality is a creation of a culture's social contract (see Thomas Hobbes); and as society changes, so too does its contract. If the majority of society is in agreement that the homosexual lifestyle is 'worthy' of validation, then rules will gradually change in order to accommodate the new mindset.
2. Just because someone happens to find fulfillment as another gender or with the same sex does not invalidate this individual as a human being. He or she is still a person who is entitled to happiness and love. And speaking of love...
3. When one considers the origins of the practice and the presently high divorce rate, it must be acknowledged that there is something wrong with the traditional take on marriage. And when something is broken, there are only two options: throw it out, or fix it.

5. Homosexual marriage is not a civil rights issue.

 "Homosexual activists argue that same-sex “marriage” is a civil rights issue similar to the struggle for racial equality in the 1960s... This is false."

Homosexuality is a civil (i.e. human) rights issue! Therefore, anything that is associated with it is part of the issue as well. 

Homosexuals are a minority group. Over and over again, especially in the 20th century, they have been discriminated against:

In the early days of Hollywood, actors like Clifton Webb (Laura, 1944) and directors like James Whale (Frankenstein, 1931; Bride of Frankenstein, 1935) hid their sexual identities out of fear of being blacklisted in the film industry. 

During the 1980s, the gay community was used as the scapegoat for the rampant spreading of HIV in America -nevermind that everyone and anyone can be a carrier of the virus. They were victims, too! Victims of the virus, as wells as victims of society.

Why do I point such things out?

I do so to highlight the following element: the oppression of fear. Like the American Americans prior to the Civil Rights Era, like the Jewish population living under Hitler's Nazi regime, the homosexual community in America has been continually deprived -over the years -of certain intrinsic rights, by society. They have been denied acceptance; they have been denied safety; they have been denied happiness. 

The ruling in favor of same-sex marriage is but one overdue step in correcting years of social wrongdoing.

6. Homosexual marriage cannot lead to the creation of a family.

"...[S]ame-sex “marriage” is intrinsically sterile. If the “spouses” want a child, they must circumvent nature by costly and artificial means or employ surrogates. The natural tendency of such a union is not to create families."

Did not Abraham and Jacob, both, use surrogates when it was thought that their respective wives were barren?

Straight couples, due to various complications, sometimes have to resort to "circumvent[ing] nature" in order to have a child. One celebrity couple, Sarah Jessica Parker and Matthew Broderick, used a surrogate to have their twins. And Sarah Michelle Gellar (Buffy the Vampire Slayer) was conceived through sperm donation.

Also, to restrict the term "family" to refer only to those who are blood-related is ludicrous! Many people find their true family(s) outside of their respective gene pools and amongst their peers (i.e. the tribe). It simply comes down to acceptance, connection, and love. Wherever all three of the latter reside, there is family. 

All humans are capable of accepting, connecting, and loving -regardless of sexuality.
Family does not have to include children. Sometimes, it can just be two people and a pet hedgehog named Hammish.

7. Homosexual marriage undermines the purpose for marriage benefits.

"One of the main reasons why the State bestows numerous benefits on marriage is that by its very nature and design, marriage provides the normal conditions for a stable, affectionate, and moral atmosphere that is beneficial to the upbringing of children—all fruit of the mutual affection of the parents... Homosexual “marriage” does not provide such conditions... It is not entitled, therefore, to the protection the State extends to true marriage."

The State can decide for itself what is worthy of benefits, and what is not. 

Believe it or not, some people do not get married in order to receive tax breaks or insurance discounts. Some people marry in order to ritually bind their soul with that of another human being's. 

And, as point out in a previous section, homosexuals are just as capable of providing safe and loving environments as heterosexual family units. Therefore, each type of union is equally entitled to the protection of the State.

8. Homosexual marriage is an imposition on society.

 "By legalizing same-sex “marriage,” the State becomes its official and active promoter. The State calls on public officials to officiate at the new civil ceremony, orders public schools to teach its acceptability to children, and punishes any state employee who expresses disapproval... In every situation where marriage affects society, the State will expect Christians and all people of good will to betray their consciences by condoning, through silence or act, an attack on the natural order and Christian morality."

Historically, society has a way of doing away with something that proves to be an imposition -in one form or another.

No one is asking the conservative Christians of the world to accept homosexuality or same-sex marriage. A number of us are only asking that such factions be moral enough to practice tolerance toward what they do not like or understand.

It is the practice of intolerance that often leads to such tragedies as the Spanish Inquisition and the Rwanda genocide. 

9.  Homosexual marriage is the straw that will break society's back.

"If homosexual “marriage” is universally accepted as the present step in sexual “freedom,” what logical arguments can be used to stop the next steps of incest, pedophilia, bestiality, and other forms of unnatural behavior?"

Homosexuality is natural. Period.

Incest has been practiced in societies for thousands of years. King Tut married his own sister. The royal families of Europe have inter-bred for centuries. And, in certain parts of the world today, uncles still marry their (teenage) nieces.

People marry their pets -not always for sex, but so as to cement their companionship.

All these things have happened and are happening still in one culture or another today; and yet, the world has not fallen in on itself... 

Relax: your apocalypse will come another day.

10. Homosexual marriage offends God. 

 "Whenever one violates the natural moral order established by God, one sins and offends God. Same-sex “marriage” does just this. Accordingly, anyone who professes to love God must be opposed to it."

By no means do I claim to be a scholar of the Bible. That being said, however, I do recall at least two particular verses:

Luke 6:37 (NIV)
"Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven."

Romans 14:4 (NIV)
"Who are you to judge someone else's servant? To their own master, servants stand or fall. And they will stand, for the Lord is able to make them stand."

Surely, someone who loves God does not feel entitled to condemn another human being in place of the Lord...?

If further debate is needed, however, regarding the supposed 'sinfulness' of homosexuality,  please see the chart below.



Conclusion
As an ally of the LGBTQIA (Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transexual Queer Intersexual Asexual) community, I see little to no harm in the recent legalization of same-sex marriage. Rather than tearing apart families, I can only see this progressive move as building more honest family systems. And, once people see the goodness of such a change, once people are willing to look beyond former biases and propagandized lies, it is possible that this new ruling may bring about a stronger sense of community amongst Americans.