Marriage Is More than Just Being in Love
By: Kristia Cavere
With six states allowing homosexuals to marry, and New Yorkâ€™s Governor insistent on it being the seventh state to allow such unions, the definition and legality of marriage has come under more introspection than ever before. During the 1960s with the rise of modern radical feminism, marriage as an institution was discouraged by the left whose proponents claimed it enslaved women. Now an opposite and equally flawed philosophy has appeared in leftist agenda, that all who wish to enter into a legal matrimony should be entitled to do so regardless of the wishes of voters, thousands of years of tradition, and the effect on children and civilization.
Marriage is a multidimensional institution. It has multiple facets and reasons for it to exist as the foundation for society. But throughout history, there has been a tendency for one particular conception of marriage to become dominant as all other aspects are excluded.
There are those from the past with an agrarian perspective who viewed marriage as an economic arrangement. For millennia, the bearing of children within a marriage was a necessity to sustain a family. Their present counterparts are those who argue that marriage is a business merger. It is a way for a woman to be provided for, for a man to have a pretty lady on his arm, or for either party to get someone who fulfills their qualifications.
There are conservative Christians who believe that marriage is for bearing children, although this is a very limited definition of being fruitful and multiplying. There are the prudish feminists, who arenâ€™t against being married, who view marriage as a way to reign in male sexuality. There is the medical community who looks at marriage as a way to express sexuality without transmitting STDâ€™s. There are artists who think marriage is for the purpose of inspiring creativity.
And there are others who think marriage is a way to codify a lifelong friendship and to give certain civil and legal rights for that relationship, beyond an ordinary buddy. This has been the strongest argument from the homosexual community.
There are a host of reasons to understand why the bond of marriage exists. It is a business in the sense that a mutual compatibility should be assured; it is for having and raising children; it is for conveying sexuality in a safe environment; it is to inspire and create a whole relationship that is greater than the individuals in it; and it is to legalize a family that people choose to create for themselves.
For many relationships, they may have some of five above-mentioned characteristics. However, it is only in a union between one man and one woman that each of the five qualities is fulfilled as only one man and one woman are able to naturally create a child. For a true marriage the ability to have and to raise a child, the most important qualifier for a legalized union, should be a possibility. And this is why the state, who sanctions marriage, and God, who created marriage, need to have all these factors met.
Marriage has both a private and a public persona. The private aspect is the love, romance, communication, and interaction between the couple. These elements may be kept only with the partners and not shared with anyone else. However, the public aspect is how these unions affect society. For decades the evidence has been conclusive, but overlooked by those who oppose the male-female union in marriage for political or social motives, that the best environment to raise a child is with a mother and a father. Children need both genders as parents to help them become a balanced person.
As we continue to tamper with fundamental institutions such as marriage, the consequences of such decisions cannot even be fathomed. When marriage is allowed just for sentimentality, it only exasperates the most superficial tendencies in matrimony. If we follow the same logic that the homosexuals are using to justify their getting married, where does it stop? With polygamy, polyandry (one woman married to more than one man), incest? For those who think that such lines will never be crossed, that is just what was said a decade ago about same-sex unions.
Marriage exists on many different levels, and it exists with multiple special components between a man and a woman. It is only within a male and a female can the institution be fulfilled; otherwise it is just a friendship or at best a life-long relationship.
A love affair should be within a marriage. But marriage is not just a love affair; it is a multi-dimensional union with love.