Why is Marriage Important?
Is this argument compelling?
Consider that a man is a species-being, and the species to which he belongs — the species that defines his nature — is both rational and social. Man cannot live at all — much less live well — except by the mutual protection and mutual support of other human beings. Morality refers to those rules that mankind has learned, both from reason and experience, are necessary for surviving and prospering. The inclination of many men — what we might call the inclination of their lower nature — to take their sex where they find it and ignore the consequences, must be subordinated to their higher nature, which includes the interest of society (and the interest of nature in the species). For in no other species are the young so helplessly dependent for so long. Hence the importance, even for survival, of the laws both moral and civil governing the institution of marriage and of the family. We know that the relaxation of these laws leads to disorder, disease, and death, no less surely in the most advanced cultures than in the most primitive. But the good of the family is not merely self-preservation and survival, but the higher good — the happiness — of all its members, including those whose original horizon may not have extended beyond immediate gratification…
It is painfully but unfortunately necessary to repeat the obvious. Incest, like adultery, strikes at the good order of the family, because jealousy — properly understood — necessarily accompanies that passion by which and out of which the family is constituted. This jealousy is acknowledged in the traditional marriage service, in which the partners promise to “renounce all others.” A wife does not expect to be in sexual competition with other women, and a husband does not expect to be in such competition with other men. Confining sexual friendship to its proper sphere — between man and wife — is the very core of that morality by which civilization is constituted. It did not require Freud to instruct us in the fact that the sexual passion in its primal force is anarchic, and that the “discontents” of civilization may be traced to its imperfect sublimation. Nevertheless, without the control of the libido by the super ego, all the interests of civilized existence are at risk. Our contemporary moralists, whose categorical imperative is, “If it feels good, do it” have forgotten the lessons of Freud no less than those of Aristotle or Aquinas.
The dissolution of the family is at the root of nearly all the social problems afflicting contemporary American society. The high rate of divorce is making emotional cripples out of children at all levels of society. And the children of divorce become divorced themselves at much higher rates than others. Crime, drug abuse, alcoholism, mental illness, venereal disease, low educational achievement, lack of job related skills, inability to function well on jobs, all of these things — and many more — are due at least partly to the disintegration of the traditional family. And at the root of the disability of the American family is the ethic that says that sexual gratification is and should be only a matter of personal preference and personal choice. The traditional family, the embodiment and expression of “the laws of nature and nature’s God,” as the foundation of a free society, has become merely one of many “alternative lifestyles.”
by Harry Jaffa
This is the nub of some of the more sophisticated arguments that advocate recognizing marriage as being exclusively between one man and one women. Do you find it compelling?
No, because much of it (appart from direct effect on offspring) applies to same-sex marriage also. Unless you think that gays who seek marriage are immune from the same stabilizing effects (in which case your argument devolves to “gays are different”).
Married people (and especially married men) commit fewer crimes, take fewer risks, are more stable employees and generally better citizens than single people. Why does this change for committed gays?
I find myself more bothered by things like “domestic partnerships” and other temporary cohabitation agreements that seek the civil benefits of marriage without offering any real stability in return. I’d think anyone truly concerned about the (civil) institution of marriage would be aghast at these marriage-lite frauds.
Comment by Kevin Murphy — 11/25/2008 @ 10:36 am
What is the purpose of marriage? What end does it fulfill?
Procreation, and the cultivation of children, is an important and essential difference, isn’t it?
Comment by Fritz — 11/25/2008 @ 12:47 pm
Most people I know who are married did not get married because they wanted to cultivate children; they got married because they were deeply in love with their partner and wanted to commit to that partner that they were going to spend their life together, supporting one another. They got married as a way of proclaiming that commitment to each other and to the world, and in order to celebrate the fact of their love.
This is why I’ve always found the “marriage is about procreation” argument puzzling: it is completely inconsistent with my experience of the motivations of people who are married and who have chosen to become married while I have known them.
Comment by aphrael — 11/25/2008 @ 12:55 pm
Argument is compelling – but it only proves your opening premise that Marriage is important, which virtually no one is arguing against. The premise you presumably want to prove is that excluding gay relationships from obtaining the status of marriage is important. Which means you need to show why gay marriage would threaten overall marriage, which seems unlikely particularly as the alternative is mostly more gay promiscuity not gay people settling down with a member of the opposite sex.
Comment by TomO — 11/25/2008 @ 12:56 pm
aphrael,
I’m not sure I agree. Whether they admit it publicly or not, I think most women want marriage because they ultimately want children. Marriage isn’t required or even expected in today’s world in order to be with a partner but, at least for now, most women feel social pressure to get married if they want children.
Comment by DRJ — 11/25/2008 @ 1:46 pm
DRJ: I’d say we are seeing a new phase in the redefinition of marriage, and it’s a process that started in the 18th century, but it’s been subtle enough that only now if the old version of the defintion being officially abandoned. If it is being officially abandoned.
Back in Ye Good Olde Dayes, marriage was seen as the creation of a household whose purpose was giving birth to and raising the next generation. This was the model from ancient times on; the Romans, the Biblical Hebrews, the Greeks, and just about everyone else shared it, including the Chinese and Indians (the Indians of India, that is).
Then came romantic love in the middle ages, which was originally not seen to be connected to marriage, or if it was, then as an oddity. A man and wife love each other? Christian moralists approved, but everyone else would think it touchingly impractical. But over time, the idea that the marriage partners should love and respect each other percolated up from the lower classes, who practiced that idea long before the upper classes and the People Who Wrote Books did, until it became first a problem and then an established approved view. (Think of Shakespeare–usually when a marriage is involved, either the lovers face opposition from their families, as in Romeo and Juliet, or one lover must be persuaded to accept a partner who is proposed by the family, as in All’s Well that End’s Well. The only real exception is Much Ado About Nothing, and even there the opposition of romance versus family lurks in the background.)
The idea that one should love one’s marriage partner didn’t really get under full steam until the late 18th century, and even then it carried on with the corollary that, “Oh, since you love one another, you’ll do very good as parents”. And that was the state of affairs until our own time. Perhaps feminism has something to do with the lastest change, as well as the rise of “gay rights”.
But if the Old Definition is to be definitively abandoned–and it will, but probably not for another generation at least–then we need a full discussion of it, the sort of discussion that legislative action provides and judicial decision does not. Which is why I’m against the court decisions in favor of gay marriage.
Comment by kishnevi — 11/25/2008 @ 2:29 pm
Would it be permissible in this thread to ask why marriage, if it is deemed to be “legal” and appropriate for any two consenting adults, isn’t also applicable for, say, any three consenting adults? Asked differently, if the definition of the word “marriage” is to be altered, why shouldn’t it lose even more of it’s long-standing traditional meaning?
Comment by Old Coot — 11/25/2008 @ 3:21 pm
I am married. My wife and I have no children, and in fact are past the point where it is likely. Are you saying my marriage should be invalid, Fritz?
Comment by Kevin Murphy — 11/25/2008 @ 3:54 pm
O.C.–
Well, polygamy has a longer history than monogamy, so I’m not sure what you are arguing. I believe most of the Old Testament patriarchs had several wives. Many ancient cultures practiced polygamy, and some still do.
However, this “slippery slope” argument has been thrashed to slivers of dead horse elsewhere over the past 10 years and I see no reason to engage in it again.
We are not talking about B.C., we are not talking about Islam or Mormons or ancient civilizations (which had other weird notions), we are talking about here, now, and this single subject:
Does same-sex marriage offer society and individuals enough benefit to support the state equating it with traditional marriage?
Comment by Kevin Murphy — 11/25/2008 @ 4:03 pm
Not arguing, simply curious.
Comment by Old Coot — 11/25/2008 @ 5:30 pm
While love is the intial premise of marriage the “procreation pretense” is a real and important one.
But I know the fundamental question here is: “Is the homosexual lifestyle desirible enough, to society, to enhance it’s stature, and help it endure?”
Nah, not so much.
Homosexual marriage can’t provide for the strengthening effects of genetic pooling without some pretty involved “Work arounds” of biology.
Will the acceptance of Homosexual relationship soften our dislike for other “Alternate” lifestyles like Pedophilia, Bestiality etc?
Could be.
Does the homosexual family fare any better or worse than the Heterosexual family?
Nah, not so much. About the same (I won’t bore you with the Googled stuff.)
So, my only real reason (I mean biological workarounds are done for hetero couples as well.)
is the potential for the normalizing of other currently undesirble lifestyles.
I mean a textbook title “Billy has two daddies” not so bad.
But “Billys has a Human Daddy and a Horse Mommy?”
ehhhh not so good.
But does that ridiculous example bar homosexual marrige?
It does for me. I mean really can anyone promise me that NAMBLA won’t sue for Man-Boy marriage rights in the future?
Comment by paul from fl — 11/25/2008 @ 5:35 pm
in which case your argument devolves to “gays are different”
Gays ARE different.
Married people (and especially married men) commit fewer crimes, take fewer risks, are more stable employees and generally better citizens than single people. Why does this change for committed gays?
Ask the gays.
I’d think anyone truly concerned about the (civil) institution of marriage would be aghast at these marriage-lite frauds.
I think you’re a marriage moby.
Comment by Subotai — 11/25/2008 @ 6:36 pm
Does same-sex marriage offer society and individuals enough benefit to support the state equating it with traditional marriage?
It offers society no benefit at all. If it did some society would have offered it at some point in human history.
Comment by Subotai — 11/25/2008 @ 6:38 pm
Married people (and especially married men) commit fewer crimes, take fewer risks, are more stable employees and generally better citizens than single people. Why does this change for committed gays?
Ask the gays.
Where’s the evidence that married gay men don’t commit fewer crimes and take fewer risks, etc, than unmarried gay men?
I think you’re a marriage moby.
I think this term is overused to shut down discussion when you encounter people who disagree with you; in this case, Kevin has been posting here for longer than I have, and has shown a long history of being a reasonable debater who says what he means and does not troll.
Comment by aphrael — 11/25/2008 @ 7:13 pm
Kevin -
the fact that NOT EVERY heterosexual marriage mutually produces children does not negate the fact that ONLY a heterosexual marriage can.
Comment by Adriane — 11/25/2008 @ 8:21 pm
Where’s the evidence that married gay men don’t commit fewer crimes and take fewer risks, etc, than unmarried gay men?
LOL.
Is this sort of thing considered top notch debating tactics at your college? As you knew before asking your question, there is no pool of “married gay men” to examine.
Comment by Subotai — 11/25/2008 @ 8:38 pm
Kevin asked the correct question.
Does same-sex marriage offer society and individuals enough benefit to support the state equating it with traditional marriage?
He simply failed to notice that the answer is “no”. Same sex marriage offers society no benefit at all.
Comment by Subotai — 11/25/2008 @ 8:45 pm
Kevin asked you why something is different for gays. You responded by saying ask the gays. I responded by asking you to provide evidence that it *is* different for gays.
My experience is that it isn’t different for gay men. But my experience is a collection of anecdotes and not particularly compelling, because the plural of anecdote isn’t data.
That said, you’re wrong that there is no pool of married gay men to examine; I’m a married gay man, for example, and there are plenty of married gay couples in Canada, the Netherlands, and other European countries. However, any statistics you draw from them may not apply to married gay men in the US because of social and cultural differences, for the same reasons that other crime statistics aren’t always comparable.
So it may be difficult to garner the statistics. But you seem to be suggesting that it is clearly true that marriage does not have similar effects on the behavior of gay men to the effects it has on the behavior of straight men. Do you have any supporting evidence for that? I can offer the anecdotal evidence of my life, which sucks as supporting evidence; what can you offer?
Comment by aphrael — 11/25/2008 @ 9:13 pm
aprhrael, even if there were more gays uninterested in marriage than straights, it wouldn’t really matter since they wouldn’t be participating.
The simple answer that anyone who’s in a stable marriage knows: such people take fewer risks because they don’t want to risk the best thing they ever had. Cannot for the life of me see how it would be different for gays that seek marriage.
Comment by Kevin Murphy — 11/25/2008 @ 11:10 pm
Does an apple offer society and individuals enough benefit to support the state equating it with a pork chop? Or is it sufficient to identify an apple as an apple and a pork chop as a pork chop?
I would offer Andrew Sullivan as evidence that marriage doesn’t settle a gay man down, but again, data is not the plural of anecdote.
Comment by Pablo — 11/26/2008 @ 5:22 am
Same sex marriage offers society no benefit at all.
That’s a dangerous basis upon which to decide merit. Lots and lots of people are a drain on society, simply because they are stupid and/or parasitic. The better question is: what is the cost of same sex marriage? How does it harm me in any way?
I’ve recently had a thought that I haven’t yet decided upon… legally, there should only be civil unions, between any two consenting adults. “Marriage” should be the (optional) religious act that results in a legal civil union.
Comment by Justin — 11/26/2008 @ 7:35 am
I agree. But that’s not good enough. Choosing to set yourself apart is wrong, unless you’re gay or some other minority.
I’m still waiting for a straight white guy pride parade.
Comment by Pablo — 11/26/2008 @ 7:59 am
Liberty is such a silly idea…
Comment by Justin — 11/26/2008 @ 9:19 am