What is the purpose of marriage?

[Little-Acorn]

To examine the purpose of marriage, you'd have to go back to when it was first invented. And that was a long time ago. Maybe as far back as cave-man days?

Before marriage became a societal norm, there were three major problems:

1.) Males would often fight over females, sometimes injuring or killing each other. And fights might be repeated over and over - it was never really "won". Extensive carnage and lasting hostility was often the result. Females might also fight over males, but that was less common.

2.) When children were born, often the mother was left to care for and raise the child, sometimes with help from other women, less often from men, and sometimes with no help at all.

3.) As adults reached older ages and physical attractiveness waned, older people were being neglected and abandoned, sometimes starving and/or dying alone with no one to help when they needed help.

Marriage was likely developed to deal with all three of these problems at once. It was made to be permanent, for the rest of the spouses' lives, to eliminate the bloody competitions, guarantee multiple participants in the raising of children and support of the family even when the support was a lot less fun than the sex that led to the production of children; and to provide multiple participants in caring for members when they were older and physical attractiveness and usefulness had diminished.

Technically marriage had nothing to do with love. To be more precise, you could have all the love you wanted, whether you were married or not- marriage wasn't necessary for you to love someone, care for them, etc. It was only necessary to KEEP you caring for them, possibly long after you didn't feel like doing it any more.

And that was the difference between societies that had marriage, and those that didn't. Both kinds had loving and caring. But the society with a strongly held marriage custom, had far more caring, namely when one partner maybe didn't feel in love any more.

If we could guarantee that we would ALWAYS feel like loving and caring for a certain partner (and/or children), then marriage would be unnecessary in ANY society - it would add nothing. But millennia of hard experience has shown that more IS needed - and so marriage was designed, to add guarantees where they were clearly needed but, unhappily, often did not exist.

Marriage is not there to help you love each other. For those who love each other, marriage can certainly be more enjoyable and even beautiful. But even in the pre-marriage days (long ago), there were some couples who stayed together all their lives without any legal or societal mandate. Those couples didn't need marriage - they had lots of love and caring without it. And if all couples had been like that, then marriage would never have been invented, or needed. But marriage was invented for the couples whose loving and caring might later disappear, but whose needs and obligations would not.

Marriage is not there to help you love your partner. You can do that fine without it. It's there to keep you together with your partner even if your love later disappears - something that people found over the ages, was grimly necessary.

Keep the real purposes for marriage in mind, when you enter into debates over what it is and what it should be.

If you want to get married in order to show love and dedication to your partner... remember that you don't need marriage to do that. You only need marriage to keep your partner with you - or to keep you with your partner - even if you don't feel you want to be with them any more. THAT is the reason you are getting married. It's the only thing you will have, that you don't have without marriage. It's the only reason marriage is needed at all. And if that reason didn't exist, there probably wouldn't be any such thing as marriage, thousands of years ago or today.

[Syrenn]

make no mistake... marriage was about property rights. Who owned whom, who belonged to whom and the paper trail possession rights of property, goods, land and money.

i dont give a rats ass if any religion recognizes my marriage.

I DO care very much if the government recognizes my marriage.

[Noir]

make no mistake... marriage was about property rights. Who owned whom, who belonged to whom and the paper trail possession rights of property, goods, land and money.

i dont give a rats ass if any religion recognizes my marriage.

I DO care very much if the government recognizes my marriage.

^Win.

[Little-Acorn]

make no mistake... marriage is now about property rights. Who owned whom, who belonged to whom and the paper trail possession rights of property, goods, land and money.


Fixed it for you, Syrenn. :)

Marriage nowadays certainly involves a lot of what you said. But it didn't start that way, and was not invented for any purpose relating to property. It was invented to keep people together, in view of the fact that they and their children would need that help, even if one or both partners no longer felt like giving it.

[Noir]

Fixed it for you, Syrenn. :)

Marriage nowadays certainly involves a lot of what you said. But it didn't start that way, and was not invented for any purpose relating to property. It was invented to keep people together, in view of the fact that they and their children would need that help, even if one or both partners no longer felt like giving it.

When exactly do you think this 'redefinition' took place? A cursory glance at history shows its about property rights.

[jimnyc]

While as of late it incorporates many monetary things and real estate - the exact answer to the question depends on who you ask. My "personal" answer?


The Elements of a Natural Marriage:As Fr. John Hardon explains in his Pocket Catholic Dictionary, there are four elements common to natural marriage throughout history:


It is a union of opposite sexes.
It is a lifelong union, ending only with the death of one spouse.
It excludes a union with any other person so long as the marriage exists.
Its lifelong nature and exclusiveness are guaranteed by contract.

So, even at a natural level, divorce, adultery, and "homosexual marriage" are not compatible with marriage, and a lack of commitment means that no marriage has taken place.




http://catholicism.about.com/od/beliefsteachings/p/Sac_Marriage.htm


Marriage in the Catholic Church, also called matrimony, is a "covenant by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life and which is ordered by its nature to the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring. has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament between the baptised.".[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_marriage#cite_note-1) Matrimony, from the Latin [I]mater, "mother," and monium, "-mony" (status) is the creation of the status of mother.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_marriage


Take this ring as a sign of my love and fidelity. In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.

http://catholicweddinghelp.com/topics/text-rite-of-marriage-mass.htm

[aboutime]

After 44 years this month. The purpose of my marriage to my Best Friend in life, has been watching our two grown son's become responsible, intelligent, dignified men, husbands, and fathers.

Anyone who has to ask what the purpose is. Will never know, nor will they ever be satisfied as selfishness runs in their blood.

[Robert A Whit]

To examine the purpose of marriage, you'd have to go back to when it was first invented. And that was a long time ago. Maybe as far back as cave-man days?

Before marriage became a societal norm, there were three major problems:

1.) Males would often fight over females, sometimes injuring or killing each other. And fights might be repeated over and over - it was never really "won". Extensive carnage and lasting hostility was often the result. Females might also fight over males, but that was less common.

2.) When children were born, often the mother was left to care for and raise the child, sometimes with help from other women, less often from men, and sometimes with no help at all.

3.) As adults reached older ages and physical attractiveness waned, older people were being neglected and abandoned, sometimes starving and/or dying alone with no one to help when they needed help.

Marriage was likely developed to deal with all three of these problems at once. It was made to be permanent, for the rest of the spouses' lives, to eliminate the bloody competitions, guarantee multiple participants in the raising of children and support of the family even when the support was a lot less fun than the sex that led to the production of children; and to provide multiple participants in caring for members when they were older and physical attractiveness and usefulness had diminished.

Technically marriage had nothing to do with love. To be more precise, you could have all the love you wanted, whether you were married or not- marriage wasn't necessary for you to love someone, care for them, etc. It was only necessary to KEEP you caring for them, possibly long after you didn't feel like doing it any more.

And that was the difference between societies that had marriage, and those that didn't. Both kinds had loving and caring. But the society with a strongly held marriage custom, had far more caring, namely when one partner maybe didn't feel in love any more.

If we could guarantee that we would ALWAYS feel like loving and caring for a certain partner (and/or children), then marriage would be unnecessary in ANY society - it would add nothing. But millennia of hard experience has shown that more IS needed - and so marriage was designed, to add guarantees where they were clearly needed but, unhappily, often did not exist.

Marriage is not there to help you love each other. For those who love each other, marriage can certainly be more enjoyable and even beautiful. But even in the pre-marriage days (long ago), there were some couples who stayed together all their lives without any legal or societal mandate. Those couples didn't need marriage - they had lots of love and caring without it. And if all couples had been like that, then marriage would never have been invented, or needed. But marriage was invented for the couples whose loving and caring might later disappear, but whose needs and obligations would not.

Marriage is not there to help you love your partner. You can do that fine without it. It's there to keep you together with your partner even if your love later disappears - something that people found over the ages, was grimly necessary.

Keep the real purposes for marriage in mind, when you enter into debates over what it is and what it should be.

If you want to get married in order to show love and dedication to your partner... remember that you don't need marriage to do that. You only need marriage to keep your partner with you - or to keep you with your partner - even if you don't feel you want to be with them any more. THAT is the reason you are getting married. It's the only thing you will have, that you don't have without marriage. It's the only reason marriage is needed at all. And if that reason didn't exist, there probably wouldn't be any such thing as marriage, thousands of years ago or today.

People in America to this day never were trained to understand Marriage.

Back in the days of Rome, they kept carefully crafted and written laws. Today those who say I love you and will marry you are thinking not so much with the head on the shoulders and so many mistakes are made to day i picking mates, that ought to stand as plenty of proof.

[Robert A Whit]

make no mistake... marriage was about property rights. Who owned whom, who belonged to whom and the paper trail possession rights of property, goods, land and money.

i dont give a rats ass if any religion recognizes my marriage.

I DO care very much if the government recognizes my marriage.

And Mom and Dad possessing the children and passing to the kids things mom and dad accrued during life. See roman laws found on the internet. I have read a lot of Roman law.

[gabosaurus]

2.) When children were born, often the mother was left to care for and raise the child, sometimes with help from other women, less often from men, and sometimes with no help at all.

This still happens all too often. Regardless of what some people believe, there is a LOT more instances of men running off from children than the other way around.

To me, marriage isn't about anything except legitimizing your relationship before the eyes of your peers and society as a whole.

[Syrenn]

Fixed it for you, Syrenn. :)

Marriage nowadays certainly involves a lot of what you said. But it didn't start that way, and was not invented for any purpose relating to property. It was invented to keep people together, in view of the fact that they and their children would need that help, even if one or both partners no longer felt like giving it.


no... you did not fix that for me. I suggest you read up.

marriage was always about property rights. I suggest you read up on your history.

mens rights to whom they could have unlimited sex with....lets not forget that women were property. Marriage settled the question of who would receive property and goods upon death of said man. All property was settled on a male heir back then... and establishing line of rights was paramount to keep order.

[fj1200]

I DO care very much if the government recognizes my marriage.

Why?

[Syrenn]

Why?

if you are taxed based on said status.... then i care.

[fj1200]

if you are taxed based on said status.... then i care.

OK, last I checked there was a marriage penalty. Though there are plenty of advantages for marriage, I would rather they all be done away with.

[jimnyc]

marriage was always about property rights. I suggest you read up on your history.

Asking, not questioning! Is this how Roman Catholic marriages always were? I had always thought differently.

[Little-Acorn]

marriage was always about property rights. I suggest you read up on your history.


I'd be happy to. What documents did you have in mind?

[PostmodernProphet]

the purpose of marriage is to reduce the amount of fun guys have......

[Robert A Whit]

the purpose of marriage is to reduce the amount of fun guys have......

Yep, and some other guys are having a lot of fun with the woman that said fun loving guy will marry at some point. This is just using women not as humans, but an object of fun and dummies can't notice his future wife will have been fun to other men.

I recall a man very devoted to his wife finding she bailed on him to divorce him and she went back to one of those men she had fun with in earlier years.

So Mr. Smart ass ended up with a woman who has been essentially used for many years.

A common trait for fun loving guys is they forget about the golden rule.

[Syrenn]

Asking, not questioning! Is this how Roman Catholic marriages always were? I had always thought differently.

you are making the mistake that marriage was or is about religion...or had anything to do with religion. Religion was only the trappings.

The "marriage" was about who would belong to who family and the lines of inheritance established. Marriage was used to forge and seal alliances by arranging marriages.

[revelarts]

What is the purpose of marriage?
the question goes to whether or not we come from cave men and we make up a story there.
various other customs.

or

What is the purpose of marriage?
Jesus said..
“Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.”

...more or less

If you think all that stuff is a myth , well then eat drink and be merry for tomorrow we die.
As far as property is concerned. contracts can handle that stuff. they work everywhere else it BS to say it has to be called marriage and entail all the physical emotional implications . property contracts are just that, anyone can get them. and anyone can get medical power of attorney. if that's an issues.

But we are watching western culture abandon it's foundation of marriage, which is not Rome or Greece marriage could legally included slavery, children rape, human sacrifice, legal concubines, polygamy etc. And not from Cave Men (:rolleyes:).
Christendom is the foundation which has defined marriage in the west for over 1000 yrs as 1 man one woman for life.

without that foundation ,welll, marry your dog or a tree who cares, "ever man did what was right in his own eyes".

[jimnyc]

you are making the mistake that marriage was or is about religion...or had anything to do with religion. Religion was only the trappings.

The "marriage" was about who would belong to who family and the lines of inheritance established. Marriage was used to forge and seal alliances by arranging marriages.

I guess I don't know my history, I can only discuss today I suppose. As long as I've been alive, marriage TO ME is about the things I posted earlier. But yep, I know property and $$ play a part, but a true Catholic is certainly not marrying for that reason, IMO.

[Syrenn]

I guess I don't know my history, I can only discuss today I suppose. As long as I've been alive, marriage TO ME is about the things I posted earlier. But yep, I know property and $$ play a part, but a true Catholic is certainly not marrying for that reason, IMO.

that was the historical reason, yes. Today reasons are different...


alright... so in your opinion...what is a "catholic" marriage supposed to be for?

[jimnyc]

that was the historical reason, yes. Today reasons are different...


alright... so in your opinion...what is a "catholic" marriage supposed to be for?

I suppose I should say that this is what "I" was taught growing up, so I should say I am only speaking from my perspective of what a marriage is and what it stands for. Since you asked, I think my post got lost in the shuffle:

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?40005-What-is-the-purpose-of-marriage&p=628186#post628186

[tailfins]

This still happens all too often. Regardless of what some people believe, there is a LOT more instances of men running off from children than the other way around.

To me, marriage isn't about anything except legitimizing your relationship before the eyes of your peers and society as a whole.

I have a different perspective. One example comes to mind in particular. A friend of my wife's married a lonely farmer in Georgia. I will refer to her as M. This farmer had plenty of money. M was a single mother and considered the bottom of the barrel in her home country. M marries the farmer and agrees to be a good wife in exchange for providing her daughter with a good father. The farmer has a rigid schedule and is about as romantic as a toilet plunger. I noticed his 1970s vintage polyester suit at the wedding. The daughter is now grown. The farmer kept his part of the bargain. M got her own apartment in Atlanta and has built a successful cleaning business. She checks on her husband weekly and promises to run the farm and take care of him when his health begins to fail. I'm pretty sure she will keep her word. What's your take on such an arrangement? Everyone seems better off from this deal.

[Little-Acorn]

that was the historical reason, yes.

A little earlier you told me that was NOT the historical reason, that "marriage was always about property rights".

Which is it?

[Robert A Whit]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Syrenn http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=628339#post628339)

you are making the mistake that marriage was or is about religion...or had anything to do with religion. Religion was only the trappings.

The "marriage" was about who would belong to who family and the lines of inheritance established. Marriage was used to forge and seal alliances by arranging marriages.



I guess I don't know my history, I can only discuss today I suppose. As long as I've been alive, marriage TO ME is about the things I posted earlier. But yep, I know property and $$ play a part, but a true Catholic is certainly not marrying for that reason, IMO.

We need to visit an era pre-marriage rather than speak of today, when we speak of history of marriage.

Pre-marriage, when it dawned on men that as they were out hunting some animal, some other male was hunting the woman he had kids with. He intended to do his best to get her pregnant.

At that time, land or air or water could not be divided. Even today, we do not divide or own air. Government attempts to own air by making rules of flights above land but air is far too elusive to be owned.

There had to be a cause for marriage to be invented. We can argue all year long over causes. Man hunted while women picked things like berries to eat. She had value in helping find food and she bore children. I am not suspicious at the time he wanted marriage until something else kept happening. His woman kept getting pregnant by other men.

Something had to be done or this would never end. The men sat around proposing rules. Some rules were agreed on. Can't say that it included marriage at that point.

It would not involve land because at that point, men did not understand owning land. Who owned caves? Who owned the fish in the waters? Who to this day owns bugs. Who owns the birds flying about? We even don't understand things like this so we can't blame the ancients for not understanding many things. It must have been awful for the early man who had no language.

Today, marriage is global. Each land, each community feels it has the right laws about marriage. Arabs endorse having many wives provided you can afford to. I believe that the ancients also saw women in different ways. This is based on movies about the Chinese and Koreans but they had women leaders. These movies are in the languages and thank god for translations under the movie. So, those claiming women were property ignore the women who were in charge and owned land themselves.

How does one describe marriage between slaves? That is not about her being property, or so I believe.

We think we marry for love. That love may not last. So was it really love? Do we fall out of love with our kids or our parents? They tell me there are different forms of love. Maybe love was never the right word, given they manage to claim love is not the same as a universal word.
Most women today won't admit to the man they marry that his wealth has something to do with her wanting marriage. That wealth is property, so if marriage is over property, and most often during history, it was the male with property, why do women show up on debate boards saying it is property rights?

I have plenty more to say but I have to end at some point. Time for somebody else to explain this.

[PostmodernProphet]

Yep, and some other guys are having a lot of fun with the woman that said fun loving guy will marry at some point. This is just using women not as humans, but an object of fun and dummies can't notice his future wife will have been fun to other men.

I recall a man very devoted to his wife finding she bailed on him to divorce him and she went back to one of those men she had fun with in earlier years.

So Mr. Smart ass ended up with a woman who has been essentially used for many years.

A common trait for fun loving guys is they forget about the golden rule.

/rephrase.....marriage and Robert are here to keep us from having fun.......

[Robert A Whit]

/rephrase.....marriage and Robert are here to keep us from having fun.......

Well hell, you provide that service so why can't I do the same?