Friday, 16 March 2012

Marriage is not for the good time, it is about the bad ones.

There is much talk of 'same-sex marriage' - supported by the all the main three party leaders. I think the phrase is clearly an oxymoron, as marriage is a step on a journey of a man and a woman having children together and bringing them up is a safe secure environment. Marriage is clearly optional - you don't have to be married to have children, or to stay together to bring them up. However it is there for those who want it as a basis for starting a life together in which to start their family.

The big issue that everyone seems to have missed out on is what marriage is actually for - it keeps being presented as a rather trivial celebration of love and an excuse for a party (the wedding). But where marriage really counts is not in the good times (where everything is easy) but in the bad times when things seem bad and dark. Marriage is a constant and permanent reminder that you have chosen to stay together through thick and thin. Children being brought up by their real parents is the gold standard for human interaction. For many, marriage is the life line that keeps families together when everything else says 'give up and let go', making the difference between keeping going and making things work or throwing in the towel.

Serial marriage/divorce (as practices by the rich and famous) does damage the institution - but they have not broken it. But trivialising marriage as a 'party' to celebrate a good time will indeed break it.

Getting married for your future children/family is a serious commitment - getting married to show 'how much you love each other' at the time is just vanity.

Don't let vanity destroy the institution of marriage - 'the family' is weak enough nowadays already.

2 comments:

  1. Paul,

    Interesting to hear some different arguments in the debate that haven't been given much of an airing. I think it's a good point that some of the rhetoric has been focused too much on the wedding as opposed to the marriage, and that this may devalue the institution for some people.

    I'm curious, though, as to why that makes you against same-sex marriage, rather than simply the way that some people have campaigned? Why is it that same-sex couples can't be getting married for the marriage as opposed to the wedding, particularly if they are looking to adopt a child?

    Lastly, what is your attitude to a male-female marriage in which the bride and groom have no intention of having children?

    Nick

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hi Nick, sorry if I was short on facebook - been getting loads of yah boo type 'noise', so trying to keep it completely focused there (or will be swamped!).

    I have been seeking a same-sex couple who are desperate for this change so to explain the *real* argument (if there is one)... So far *everyone* has been a 'rights campaigner' and (as far as I can tell) straight (and several rather homophobic behind their cant!)

    Same-sex marriage undermines the whole principle of marriage (couples committing to have and bring up their children together). Natural parents bringing up their own children is the 'gold standard'.

    Breaking a vow should be a serious thing - if people are taking the same vow for... for what? I don't know, no same-sex couple have said! Just 'campaigners' saying (apparently patronisingly) 'its what "they" want')...

    Mixed sex couple getting married with no intention of having kids is a grey area... I can live with grey areas...

    ReplyDelete