The Purpose Of Marriage?

[wenglund]

In another thread, Stargazer made the salient point: "As I've said before in this context, there is no gay marriage. There are solemnized relationships that some are pleased to call 'marriage.'" (See HERE)

 

Even though currently a super majority of states legally recognize solemnized relationships between gays, which they are pleased to call "marriage," and the trend appears to be headed towards legalization of the same nation-wide, I believe that Stargazers point is worth further vetting, if for no other reason than to provide compelling rationale going forward for opponents, such as myself, to restrict our own use of the word "marriage" to the traditional and longstanding legal sense of the word, regardless of what the courts and other people may chose to do. 

 

​To me, the rationale goes beyond the desire to conserve the traditional meaning, and includes the critical need to remain mindful of the core purpose for marriage in the eyes of God as well as the law, which seems to have been lost or obscured midst the fog of public debate on the matter.

 

Too often these day people conflate the trappings of marriage with the purpose of marriage. They figure that since love motivates couples to get married and hopefully stay married, and marriage ceremonies are often filled with expressions of romantic love, then marriage is all about romantic love. 

 

And, while in a way this may be true, at least in the eyes of the state, romantic love may be nice but irrelevant. The marital laws contain no litmus test for love, nor is it the state's concern whether or not couples falls in or out of romantic love. The state derives no direct benefit from the love, or the lack thereof, and thus it has no vested interest in therein. Love, then, is a trapping of marriage, and not the purpose behind marriage in the eyes of the law (or God).

 

Given that marriage consist of a formal, binding, and longstanding commitment between couples and on behalf of their potential offspring, the fundamental purpose of marriage in the eyes of the law and God, is to legitimize sex and the product resulting therefrom. Simple as that.

 

By "legitimize" I mean authoritatively recognize, approve, and encourage (and in the eyes of God, make holy). 

 

The state and God very much have a vested interest in promoting legitimate sex between men and women and discouraging illegitimate sex between the same. Beyond health concerns, it has entirely no interest in gay sex, and thus no need to legitimize it through marriage. Hence, solemnizing gay relationships doesn't fit the purpose for marriage in the eyes of God and the law, and so it doesn't make sense to call such solemnization "marriage."

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited October 15, 2014 by wenglund

[tonie]

 The problem is, court after court, whose duty is to judge the law and the interest thereof, have determined that there isn't a reason for the States not to recognize same sex marriage.

 

Also, are you suggesting that a loveless heterosexual (and be being such sex less) marriage, is an ideal setting for children to be raised in. How do you suppose a loveless and most likely sexless heterosexual couple would conceive children?

[tonie]

 Love, then, is a trapping of marriage, and not the purpose behind marriage in the eyes of the law (or God).

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

 

Ensign, January 2014

 

Love Your Wife

Counsel repeatedly given to husbands by prophets and apostles consists of three simple words.

 

If a husband will put his wife’s needs above his own, his love for her will increase. That’s the counsel given by President Henry B. Eyring, First Counselor in the First Presidency, who repeats a three-word teaching often given to husbands by prophets and apostles: “Love your wife.”

 

“It will take faith and humility to put her interests above your own in the struggles of life,” President Eyring says. “You have the responsibility to provide for and to nurture the family with her while serving others. That can at times consume all the energy and strength you have. Age and illness may increase your wife’s needs. If you choose even then to put her happiness above your own, I promise you that your love for her will increase.”¹

A Sacred Responsibility

Elder Russell M. Nelson of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles explains the responsibility that husbands have to love their wives. He says that of all priesthood duties, a husband’s primary responsibility is to his wife.

“Priesthood offices, keys, callings, and quorums are meant to exalt families,” he says. “Priesthood authority has been restored so that families can be sealed eternally. So brethren, your foremost priesthood duty is to nurture your marriage—to care for, respect, honor, and love your wife. Be a blessing to her and your children.”²

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

 The problem is, court after court, whose duty is to judge the law and the interest thereof, have determined that there isn't a reason for the States not to recognize same sex marriage.

 

Also, are you suggesting that a loveless heterosexual (and be being such sex less) marriage, is an ideal setting for children to be raised in. How do you suppose a loveless and most likely sexless heterosexual couple would conceive children?

 

Did you read this?

 

 

Even though currently a super majority of states legally recognize solemnized relationships between gays, which they are pleased to call "marriage," and the trend appears to be headed towards legalization of the same nation-wide

 

 

And your point about "loveless" is a total straw man.

[wenglund]

 The problem is, court after court, whose duty is to judge the law and the interest thereof, have determined that there isn't a reason for the States not to recognize same sex marriage.

 

Actually, the courts of late haven't really spoken to the question of legal definition or purpose for marriage, but have inanely focused on equality.

 

As mentioned earlier, the purpose behind marriage has been ignored or obscured, which is why I brought it up here--not with the intent of changing the banal and potentially harmful social trend (I accept and respect it to a point as counseled by Elder Oaks), but rather to keep in remembrance the healthy and wise and productive purposes had in the past.  

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited October 15, 2014 by wenglund

[mtomm]

One of the purposes of marriage is to promote fidelity and stability. For this reason the state does have a compelling reason to sanction SSM for both children that are involved and for the health of the partners. The sex of the partners makes no difference in those reasons. 

[JLHPROF]

And, while in a way this may be true, at least in the eyes of the state, romantic love may be nice but irrelevant. The marital laws contain no litmus test for love, nor is it the state's concern whether or not couples falls in or out of romantic love. The state derives no direct benefit from the love, or the lack thereof, and thus it has no vested interest in therein. Love, then, is a trapping of marriage, and not the purpose behind marriage in the eyes of the law (or God).

 

Given that marriage consist of a formal, binding, and longstanding commitment between couples and on behalf of their potential offspring, the fundamental purpose of marriage in the eyes of the law and God, is to legitimize sex and the product resulting therefrom. Simple as that.

 

By "legitimize" I mean authoritatively recognize, approve, and encourage (and in the eyes of God, make holy). 

 

I agree that "romantic" love is not the purpose of marriage in the eyes of God.

I completely disagree that "love" is not a purpose of marriage in the eyes of God.

 

And I 100% disagree that the fundamental purpose of marriage in the eyes of God is to legitimize sex/offspring.  That is too legalistic and not in keeping with the very reason for God's being.

Marriage is to join together a man and a woman (or women) into a God unit.  It is to allow them to perpetuate the very race of the Gods in the eternities.  And since only those who achieve exaltation and become Gods will have any marriages or increases in the eternities, there will be no such thing as "illegitimate unions or offsprings" in the eternities.

 

We can't look at a heavenly institution from an earthly standard.  God doesn't care in the long run about state issued marriage licenses.  He only cares about marriage by his authority.  D&C 132.

[wenglund]

Also, are you suggesting that a loveless heterosexual (and be being such sex less) marriage, is an ideal setting for children to be raised in. 

 

No. I am distinguishing between the purpose of marriage and elements (healthy or otherwise) of marriage. Love, particularly Christlike love, is a desired element of marriage, though not the fundamental purpose for marriage in the eyes of the law and God.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[JLHPROF]

No. I am distinguishing between the purpose of marriage and elements (healthy or otherwise) of marriage. Love, particularly Christlike love, is a desired element of marriage, though not the fundamental purpose for marriage in the eyes of the law and God.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

The fundamental purpose is to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man.  Any marriage that doesn't contribute to that work is outside of God's purpose.

[cinepro]

We should make a rule that anybody who wants to start talking about "traditional marriage" or what "marriage" has meant in times past needs to read up on the subject and not present the history of marriage as if it is entirely encapsulated by the last 40 years of American pop songs and romantic comedies.

 

Allowing a man and a woman to freely choose to marry each other, with "romantic love" as an important indicator, is a vast improvement over what "traditional" marriage has been.  It may not be perfect, but it's the best we've come up with so far.

 

Start with this.

 

The History of Marriage

Edited October 15, 2014 by cinepro

[SeekingUnderstanding]

In another thread, Stargazer made the salient point: "As I've said before in this context, there is no gay marriage. There are solemnized relationships that some are pleased to call 'marriage.'" (See HERE)

 

Even though currently a super majority of states legally recognize solemnized relationships between gays, which they are pleased to call "marriage," and the trend appears to be headed towards legalization of the same nation-wide, I believe that Stargazers point is worth further vetting, if for no other reason than to provide compelling rationale going forward for opponents, such as myself, to restrict our own use of the word "marriage" to the traditional and longstanding legal sense of the word, regardless of what the courts and other people may chose to do. 

 

​To me, the rationale goes beyond the desire to conserve the traditional meaning, and includes the critical need to remain mindful of the core purpose for marriage in the eyes of God as well as the law, which seems to have been lost or obscured midst the fog of public debate on the matter.

 

Too often these day people conflate the trappings of marriage with the purpose of marriage. They figure that since love motivates couples to get married and hopefully stay married, and marriage ceremonies are often filled with expressions of romantic love, then marriage is all about romantic love. 

 

And, while in a way this may be true, at least in the eyes of the state, romantic love may be nice but irrelevant. The marital laws contain no litmus test for love, nor is it the state's concern whether or not couples falls in or out of romantic love. The state derives no direct benefit from the love, or the lack thereof, and thus it has no vested interest in therein. Love, then, is a trapping of marriage, and not the purpose behind marriage in the eyes of the law (or God).

 

Given that marriage consist of a formal, binding, and longstanding commitment between couples and on behalf of their potential offspring, the fundamental purpose of marriage in the eyes of the law and God, is to legitimize sex and the product resulting therefrom. Simple as that.

 

By "legitimize" I mean authoritatively recognize, approve, and encourage (and in the eyes of God, make holy). 

 

The state and God very much have a vested interest in promoting legitimate sex between men and women and discouraging illegitimate sex between the same. Beyond health concerns, it has entirely no interest in gay sex, and thus no need to legitimize it through marriage. Hence, solemnizing gay relationships doesn't fit the purpose for marriage in the eyes of God and the law, and so it doesn't make sense to call such solemnization "marriage."

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

While I agree that one of the benefits from marriage is reducing children born out of wedlock, it is not the only one. Some other societal benefits from marriage that apply to gay marriages as well as straight marriages (just to list a few):

 

• Married people are healthier, happier and enjoy longer lives (more productive citizens, less drain on societal)
• Married couples are build more wealth as compared to singles or cohabiting couples
• Provides a more stable enviroment for adopted children
• Encourages social behavior, and community involvement

[cinepro]

 

The state and God very much have a vested interest in promoting legitimate sex between men and women and discouraging illegitimate sex between the same. Beyond health concerns, it has entirely no interest in gay sex, and thus no need to legitimize it through marriage. Hence, solemnizing gay relationships doesn't fit the purpose for marriage in the eyes of God and the law, and so it doesn't make sense to call such solemnization "marriage."

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

If what you say is true, I have really bad news.

 

When it comes to "offspring", gay sex is irrelevant (google "how babies are made" for more info).  The only way it would be relevant is if you could show that gay people want to get married so bad that they will marry someone of the opposite gender and have kids if the government doesn't ratify gay marriages.  But I don't think that's the case.

 

If "legitimate sex" is the goal, and that's what the government should focus on, then any time spent talking about "gay marriage" is just a distraction from the real problem: the massive amount of extra-marital sex men and women are having, and the huge number of children who are born to unmarried women. 

 

Your theory fails on many other different levels as well, but it at least had a small shred of originality (even if it is so obviously inapplicable).

[wenglund]

One of the purposes of marriage is to promote fidelity and stability. For this reason the state does have a compelling reason to sanction SSM for both children that are involved and for the health of the partners. The sex of the partners makes no difference in those reasons. 

 

You are correct that in addition to the fundamental purpose I suggested (of which sexual fidelity is a key factor and a state interest that has little or no bearing on gay relationships apart from the health exception I mentioned), the stability of parental relationships is also a fundamental purpose behind marriage.

 

However, the two go hand in hand. As such, in terms of the purpose of marriage and state interest, it only fully applies to heterosexual relationships and not to other alternative parental relationships where stability is a desired factor--gay relationships, single mothers, foster care, etc. Stability within those other parental entities should and have been encouragement through other governmental means (it should be noted that children of gay parents receive a disproportionately higher rate of state assistance than the general population).

 

Besides, given that SS couples with children are the rare exceptions among gay relationships, solemnized or otherwise, In large part because of the basic biological principle that human men can't naturally impregnate men, and women can't naturally impregnate women, as opposed to it being the rule among heterosexuals, and given that the vast majority of children currently parented by SS couples came from destabilizing and breaking up heterosexual relationships, then reason and reality seems to run counter to what you suggest. For the children's sake, it is not in the state's interest to encourage the destabilization and break-up of heterosexual parental relationships through legalizing the solemnization of same-sex relationships.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

I agree that "romantic" love is not the purpose of marriage in the eyes of God.

I completely disagree that "love" is not a purpose of marriage in the eyes of God.

 

And I 100% disagree that the fundamental purpose of marriage in the eyes of God is to legitimize sex/offspring.  That is too legalistic and not in keeping with the very reason for God's being.

Marriage is to join together a man and a woman (or women) into a God unit.  It is to allow them to perpetuate the very race of the Gods in the eternities.  And since only those who achieve exaltation and become Gods will have any marriages or increases in the eternities, there will be no such thing as "illegitimate unions or offsprings" in the eternities.

 

We can't look at a heavenly institution from an earthly standard.  God doesn't care in the long run about state issued marriage licenses.  He only cares about marriage by his authority.  D&C 132.

 

You may have a point in terms of marriage as a new and everlasting covenant. However, my comments were more broad in scope, and also included civil as well as religious marriage not bound under the new and everlasting covenant.

 

And, regarding sex as a fundamental purpose for marriage, as distinguished from love, I wasn't speaking so much legalistically as I was morally and categorically. The bonds of marriage are what morally distinguish between appropriate/legitimate/holy sex and inappropriate/illegitimate sex, whereas the same is not true for love. Love is very appropriate and encouraged outside the bounds of marriage.

 

Also, I was considering sex primarily in its procreative sense, and not so much as an expression of sexual attraction or love. In other words, a fundamental purpose of marriage is to appropriately bring children into the world.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited October 15, 2014 by wenglund

[SeekingUnderstanding]

...and given that the vast majority of children currently parented by SS couples came from destabilizing and breaking up heterosexual relationships, then reason and reality seems to run counter to what you suggest. For the children's sake, it is not in the state's interest to encourage the destabilization and break-up of heterosexual parental relationships through legalizing the solemnization of same-sex relationships.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

Assuming you are correct, this is an argument in favor of society legitimizing same sex relationships. It was societal disapproval of gay relationships  that led gay individuals to form unstable straight unions in the first place. 

[JLHPROF]

 

You may have a point in terms of marriage as a new and everlasting covenant. However, my comments were more broad in scope, and also included civil as well as religious marriage not bound under the new and everlasting covenant.

 

And, regarding sex as a fundamental purpose for marriage, as distinguished from love, I wasn't speaking so much legalistically as I was morally and categorically. The bonds of marriage are what morally distinguish between appropriate/legitimate/holy sex and inappropriate/illegitimate sex, whereas the same is not true for love. Love is very appropriate and encouraged outside the bounds of marriage.

 

Also, I was considering sex primarily in its procreative sense, and not so much as an expression of sexual attraction or love. In other words, a fundamental purpose of marriage is to appropriately bring children into the world.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

 

It was your use of "in the eyes of God" that stopped me looking at your comments civilly or socially.  In my opinion the only marriage God legitimizes is the marriage God joins together (and extended to parent/child as well).  He has nothing to do with any other kind of marriage since they are not eternal and only apply to things of man.

[BCSpace]

While love should certainly exist in marriage, love is not the purpose of marriage.  It is obvious that one can love just as much without marriage and hence I have no sympathy for the gay marriage argument that those opposed to SSM are somehow preventing two people from loving each other.

 

Marriage is all about having children or raising a family or the possibility of that.  It's about selecting a person you feel will be the best partner and influence on your family or future family.

 

And no, I don't believe married couples without children should have their marriage licenses taken away.

 

Relative to the state, marriage is only a welfare issue. What type of relationship will benefit society the most and which is appropriate? The answer is obviously only a heterosexual relationship as such provides the proper male female role model for children in the relationship and those observing from outside the relationship.  We certainly don't give or want to give welfare benefits to everyone who wants them.

 

So let gays marry all they want, just don't force the state/society to recognize and benefit such marriages.

[sethpayne]

 The problem is, court after court, whose duty is to judge the law and the interest thereof, have determined that there isn't a reason for the States not to recognize same sex marriage.

 

Also, are you suggesting that a loveless heterosexual (and be being such sex less) marriage, is an ideal setting for children to be raised in. How do you suppose a loveless and most likely sexless heterosexual couple would conceive children?

 

I think marriage should only be legal if all of the following requirements are met:

 

1.  The couple is heterosexual

2.  Both partners can prove fertility 

3.  The couple signs an affidavit that they will have children within a 10 years period.  If not, their marriage will be annulled - - adoption doesn't count because marriage is about the sexual act and its consequences.

 

I think the above would exclude all marriages that do not involve the birth of children.  No more infertile or over-50 couples getting married.  In fact, this should prevent anyone over 45 from being allowed to be married.

 

Seems like a perfect system to me.

[sethpayne]

While love should certainly exist in marriage, love is not the purpose of marriage.  It is obvious that one can love just as much without marriage and hence I have no sympathy for the gay marriage argument that those opposed to SSM are somehow preventing two people from loving each other.

 

 

Sure thing, BC.  Love never enters into it.  That's why ancient poetry and literature has absolutely no examples of the expression of romantic love.  Never have we heard stories -- real or fictional -- of people getting married because they love each other.

 

Marriage is about procreation, period.  End of story.

[Ahab]

I think it's helpful to distinguish between marriage and a marriage ceremony, also known as a wedding. Marriage is the act of 2 people coming together as one, the physical and sexual union. A marriage ceremony, or wedding, is an event that puts a legalistic sealing of approval on a marriage, as if to say yes it's okay for these 2 people to come together in a physical and sexual union.

LDS are typically opposed to both marriage and a legalistic seal of approval for same sex "couples", and if the world objects to our opposition of what we believe to be unrighteous they should learn to live their own lives with no expectation that we, as a body, will ever agree with them on this issue.

After all, we're just saying we don't approve of it.

They can of course physically do things that we do not approve of, unless or until God puts a stop to it.

[california boy]

I am going to cut you a little slack on your views and understanding of what you think marriage is since you have never been married.  I think your views of marriage only being about sex and having children is probably a common view among those who are single.  But once you are actually marry and take on that responsibility, you will find that your whole life changes even before you have any children.  Marriage is an important part of the plan of salvation whether a couple never has children or not.  There are so many lesson one learns once they are in a marriage relationship.  Here are just a few of the important gospel lessons one can learn through being in a marriage.

 

Maybe first and foremost, you learn to put others before yourself.  No longer are you only responsible for the decisions you make for your own life, but how your decisions effect other peoples lives.  You learn to sacrifice for others on a daily basis.  It is not just some theory taught in Sunday School, but rather a laboratory that you learn that lesson over and over again.  You learn how to guide and persuade with kindness and love.  Forcing others to live by your rules does not build character and mature adults.  In the end, each person has to decide for themselves what their character will be and how they will conduct themselves in this life.  You can't just blow off the other person because you have a disagreement.  You are forced to work things out to the benefit of others as well as yourself.  Through marriage, you learn that your partner can play a key role in helping you become a better person.  You get a different point of view, and explore ideas that you might not have thought about on your own.  When two people come together, your life is enriched and enhanced by the life experiences that they bring to the relationship.  You learn about trust and what it is like to depend completely on another person as well as being completely depended upon.  You learn to bear one another burdens.  And to love even when it is not easy or convenient.  

 

These are just 5 minutes of reflections on what marriage means and why it is an important element to the plan of salvation.  God wants us to learn all of these valuable lessons.  And I am sure that every married person on this board could add to and amplify these and many other positive aspects of marriage.  Sure there are other ways to learn many of these principles.  But there is nothing like being in a committed relationship that is not easily dismissed to help you learn the hard lessons when it is not easy to do so.

 

Whether you are gay or straight is completely irrelevant.  I hope you find that special person to share your life with.  And when you do, your eyes will be opened up to the many blessings of marriage that are completely unrelated to procreating.

[thesometimesaint]

Actually, the courts of late haven't really spoken to the question of legal definition or purpose for marriage, but have inanely focused on equality.

 

As mentioned earlier, the purpose behind marriage has been ignored or obscured, which is why I brought it up here--not with the intent of changing the banal and potentially harmful social trend (I accept and respect it to a point as counseled by Elder Oaks), but rather to keep in remembrance the healthy and wise and productive purposes had in the past.  

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

Please SEE the 14th Amendment.

[california boy]

Relative to the state, marriage is only a welfare issue. What type of relationship will benefit society the most and which is appropriate? The answer is obviously only a heterosexual relationship as such provides the proper male female role model for children in the relationship and those observing from outside the relationship.  We certainly don't give or want to give welfare benefits to everyone who wants them.

 

So let gays marry all they want, just don't force the state/society to recognize and benefit such marriages.

 

Well, that and the pesky little 14th amendment that gives equal protection guaranteed all Americans under the Constitution.  

[wenglund]

Assuming you are correct, this is an argument in favor of society legitimizing same sex relationships. It was societal disapproval of gay relationships  that led gay individuals to form unstable straight unions in the first place. 

 

I am sorry but your proposition doesn't make sense on a number of levels.

 

For one, last I checked, neither heterosexuals or homosexuals have been forced, by social stigma or otherwise, to marry someone of the opposite sex, let alone have children together. Since shotgun weddings have been outlawed many decades back, marriages have been the result of consent--a principle of primary importance to gay activists. So, if gays married into unstable mixed relationships and decided to have children, it was by choice.

 

It has also been their choice whether or not to stay in and stabilize those mixed marriages with children. And, were gays so vulnerable to social pressure and stigma as you suggest, then the stigma against divorce would have led them to remain in and stabilize those marriage. The fact that many have chosen otherwise, somewhat negates your proposition. 

 

For another, since stability is only substantively relevant as a government interest in cases where there are children, it makes no sense to, for stability purposes, legally promote relationships that are biologically ill-equipped to have children, and where those few cases that do have children are the product of gays freely choosing to destabilize and break up prior relationships, let alone are notoriously unstable in their own right even with children. Heterosexuals have serious problems with instability and divorce as it is, it would be inane to add into the legal solemnizing mix a group that is far more prone to divorce and instability.

 

I could go on and on, but...

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund- 

[wenglund]

It was your use of "in the eyes of God" that stopped me looking at your comments civilly or socially.  In my opinion the only marriage God legitimizes is the marriage God joins together (and extended to parent/child as well).  He has nothing to do with any other kind of marriage since they are not eternal and only apply to things of man.

 

Perhaps I should have highlighted the word "and" so as to make more clear the broader scope of the topic. Either way, the purposes of marriage, in divine terms or otherwise, doesn't apply to gay relationships.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-