Defining Marriage

By Rachel Murdock

The social definition of marriage has changed over the last few decades.  Something that used to seem simple and straightforward has become convoluted, confusing and hard to define.  In the effort to make everything fair and politically correct, the sacred and powerful tool used to most effectively create a family has come under attack.

Some say that marriage is outdated, unnecessary and disregard it as “just a piece of paper.” Strangely, some of these same people also seem to hold marriage in higher regard when it comes to gay marriage. They classify it as a civil right even though there is no mention of “the right to marry” in the constitution, bill of rights or amendments. Some people believe marriage is about love, while others place importance on the “perks” government gives to those who are married. Others feel that government has no place in marriage at all.

So what is marriage anyway? Most would say it is about two people who love each other, deciding to spend their life together and forming a contract in order to unite property and pledge fidelity to each other. 

However, during the course of civilization, marriage hasn't been so much about love, but more about the sexual approval of society. No one has a problem with love and friendship. But sexual behavior comes under much closer scrutiny because sex has consequences.

Marriage has historically been a multiparty agreement between individuals, government, society and religion and is used by society to protect the family from the consequences of sexual behavior. However, attitudes towards sexual behavior began to change during the sexual revolution.  Sex was once viewed as a sacred expression of love between husband and wife as well as the fundamental means to the propagation of the human race. After the sexual revolution, sex is now seen by many, merely as a recreational tool for self gratification--to be used without conditions, with anyone or anything.

Most people agree that love can play a role in sex, but many seem offended when it is suggested that sex is about creating babies and should be used within the bonds of marriage to protect the family.

Family is the basic building block of society. Society is basically a very large organization of people.  There are many sub-organizations within society. Organizational units of society are setup to provide or produce the components of a healthy civilization. For example: companies produce goods and services.  Political parties and churches produce values, ideas and viewpoints.  Armies provide security.

However, the basic building block to these organizations is the family.  It is the smallest organizational unit, which provides all the sub-organizations with the most necessary component-- People. 

Families, like organizations, have different strengths and weaknesses and not all families are created equal.  Some are broken, some have fewer resources than others.  Some do not have the education required to operate at the most optimal level.  But all families headed by a husband and wife, are designed  to produce people. If the family remains in tact after the bearing of children, and if the husband and wife are able to work together in unity as they rear those children, then the people produced by that family are much more likely to be successful in more aspects of life.

I am not saying that children raised by single parents will not be successful or that infertile couples are not a family.  Children raised by single parents can grow up to beat the odds and contribute greatly to society. However, studies have shown that a child raised by both a mother and a father has a higher chance of becoming a hard-working contributor of our society.

For those that argue the fact that there are some heterosexual couples who are unable or unwilling to have children--The fact remains that they were designed to do so. Those who painfully struggle with infertility are able to adopt and provide that adopted child with both a father and a mother.

A majority of the population is still against gay marriage, although attitudes are rapidly changing. Those who disapprove of gay marriage don't necessarily think there is a problem with men loving men and women loving women as the LGBT community suggests.  I think we all agree that love is good.  It is the sexual relations between members of the same sex that is disapproved of.  Simply put, there is no benefit to the organizational structure of society, to sanction a union that was not designed to produce people.

Marriage is a multiparty agreement and at this point, it seems that only two of the four parties are willing to sanction that agreement; The couple wanting to pledge lifelong commitment to each other and the government, which is willing to grant the privileges it allows for heterosexual couples. If two of the four parties are against entering into the multiparty agreement of marriage, then civil unions will have to due for now.

Society is still steeped in a huge debate regarding redefining marriage and whether or not homosexual unions justify a family: the basic building block of society. Many argue that gay couples can adopt or use in vitro fertilization via surrogate just as heterosexual couples do. This is a valid point as it is now an option. Obviously that hasn't been the case until recently.

Most religions consider homosexuality a sin and remain staunchly against same-sex marriage because it goes against basic religious tenets. Some Jews and Christians point to the Old Testament where they believe that civilizations were destroyed by God for the sin of homosexuality. Whether you agree with that or not, it is another explanation for why some people oppose it so strongly. To call people of faith intolerant or bigoted because of their beliefs is an intolerant thing to do. Those beliefs need to be respected and understood, not mocked and scorned.

This country was founded on the most basic fundamental value of freedom.  But freedom is not full reign to do whatever you want to do.  This would lead to chaos and anarchy. Society implements rules and laws to keep order and allow the most freedom for it’s citizens.  Free reign ends where another’s rights begin.

Does the government have the right to force unwilling parties into the multiparty agreement of marriage?  If half of society believes that homosexual unions do not produce societal building blocks, and if churches view the practice as a sin, how can you force them into a binding contract?

In their attempt to force society to accept their sexual behavior, the LGBT community has masterfully devised a huge public relations campaign effectively utilizing  Hollywood and the main stream media to portray this as a civil rights issue-- and its working. Every sitcom has the obligatory loveable gay character to get audiences to identify and sympathize with. The mainstream media has jumped on the bandwagon and criticizes anyone who disagrees with same sex marriage as being intolerant, bigoted and un-evolved. The music industry touts that homosexuals are “born this way” and have no choice in regards to their sexual preference even though "choice" is an overriding theme in many of their other philosophies.  These forces have joined together in a huge effort to make the gay marriage issue all about acceptance, love, fairness and equality.  But that is not what the argument is about. Society does not oppose those values.

Society demands order, not chaos.  It demands rules and law, not a free for all.  It demands no disruption to the basic building blocks that keep it productive and functioning. We believe in agreements between willing parties. We believe in calling things what they are. Words have meaning. 

We do not "commission" businesses and we do not "incorporate" armies--because each provides a different function--the word and action used to empower them is different. Likewise we do not "marry" homosexuals but can grant them a civil union.

If someday, federal law requires all states to recognize same-sex marriage, then married homosexual couples will find that although they have the label they sought after, they will still be viewed by much of society as a mislabeled organization-- unable to perform the fundamental function of a family.

No one is stopping homosexuality and no one is stopping them from loving whomever they choose. I am in support of civil unions, but this is not enough for the LGBT community.  They want society’s approval of their sexual behavior. They want society and religious institutions to sanction their homosexual behavior as a proper use of the procreative power. They want to change the meaning of words. This is something that two of the parties are not willing to do at this point.

Society and religions may eventually change their views. As the Greatest Generation and the first wave of baby boomers disappear, the old fashioned values and historic views of marriage will most likely fade as well. There may not be many people left to defend marriage as we know it. The way marriage is defined will be decided by the next generation, and the consequences of that change will be determined decades later.