Monday, February 05, 2007
The Institution of Marriage
In the immortal words of Groucho Marx: "Marriage is a wonderful institution, but who wants to live in an institution?"
The definition of the institution of marriage, according to the western world for the most part, is the legal, domestic union of one man and one woman. Which is a fine definition as far as it goes. I happen to live in this particular wing of the institution. However, aside from certain Judeo-Christian interpretations of biblical mythology, why is this
mandated to be the ONLY definition? Honestly, if this were the best, most natural, most advantageous arrangement for the species wouldn't it be biologically ingrained? As in wolves or eagles? Would it really require governmental enforcement?
Should it? Aside from the fact that this is enforcing by law the domestic arrangements two consenting adults are allowed to make. I mean, think about it, every time we turn around some kind of social/cultural adjustment is named as a "threat to the institution of marriage". If the institution of marriage is so fragile, that it can be threatened at the drop of a hat, perhaps that's a sign that it's no longer a viable institution as currently defined.
I read this today from The Irish Times:
Three in four voters would now support divorce..."The poll was conducted last Monday and Tuesday, January 29th and 30th, among a representative sample of 1,000 voters at 100 sampling points in all 43 constituencies.
Asked if they thought the introduction of divorce had undermined the institution of marriage or not, a clear majority, 64 per cent, said it had not, whereas 24 per cent thought it had and 12 per cent didn't know."
And this opinion piece from the Chicago Tribune: (which I HIGHLY recommend reading by the way)
Is gay marriage a threat to marriage?..."...self-styled defenders of marriage say that if it isn't restricted, it will promptly wither and die. They think allowing gays to wed would soon cause heterosexuals to abandon marriage, start propagating offspring out of wedlock and slide into degeneracy."
So divorce and gay marriage are two things that threaten the insitution of marriage as it stands. Well
yeah they will! Which brings me back to my viability theory.
Question: What is the REAL purpose of marriage? If it's just to legally bind one man and one woman in domestic partnership, then I'm completely missing the point. I have always been of the opinion that marriage is supposed to be a partnership in every sense of the word; physical, spiritual, emotional, practical...etc. And, for those who choose it, marriage is supposed to be the foundation for a family unit. A unified team dedicated to raising healthy, happy, well adjusted children and sending them out into the world to live a full and satisfying life of their own.
This doesn't in any way require a legal contract binding one man and one woman. Ask anyone who was raised by a single parent/grandparents/older sibling(s). Or anyone who was raised by abusive/incompetent/neglectful one man, one woman parents. The very thought that the family unit will crumble if the one man, one woman formula isn't adhered to is ludicrous on it's face.
So rather than expending governmental resources "defending the institution of marriage" as represented by the narrow and non-descriptive definition currently held, why don't they direct these resources at supporting the
actual institution of marriage? Any functioning family unit of whatever composition that strives to better themselves and the community they live in.
Just a thought.
posted by Kimber
at 2:05 PM ::
~#~
(0) comments
0 Comments:
