My mother’s theory, simplified: The purpose of marriage was originally to assure men that offspring did indeed belong to them. Now, it really has no purpose, it’s just a fun thing people do.
A person I know’s theory, simplified: The purpose of marriage is procreation. No marriage SHOULD take place unless procreation is involved. The reason we don’t stop the elderly and infertile from marrying is because it would be too expensive and difficult to enforce. Gays, however, are certain not to be able to procreate with each other and therefore should not be permitted to marry.
I don’t really know what my theory is. I know it’s not the last one, cause I believe that gays should have the same right to marry that I do. Why is marriage something we do anyway?
I’d say the main purpose in modern times is economic. Married couples get certain benefits that living together couples don’t, which is the main reason I (and my Christian parents even) support SSM.
The main purpose of marriage in my mind is to reap health care benefits should one of the couple have a plan that only extends to their partner if they are married. Also, tax benefits.
I have informed my girlfriend that until one of these becomes an incentive, I see no reason for us to wed. Luckily, she agrees (and didn’t hit me).
I think the purpose of marriage is a sign of commitment, of taking a relationship to the next step, which is rewarded by the government by recognition and the granting of certain rights. I got married before civil unions.
Well, as a Catholic, I believe it’s a sacrament that makes a special bond between two people. As for civil marriages, I believe the main benefit is economic followed secondly by psychological. A good marriage is very healthy.
Marriage tells the world that the person you live with is your nuclear family. It makes your priorities clear–your childhood nuclear family will come before your live in boyfriend, but your husband comes before your childhood nuclear family. When someone is talking about their girlfriend taking a job in a distant city, it’s reasonable to ask if they would be going as well: when they are talking about their wife taking such a job, it’s borderline rude to ask the same question. You can invite one half of a bf/gf couple to many events–but not one half of a bf/gf couple. Courts treat married people like each other’s closest relative, but not bf/gf.
Now then, IMO a relationship quietly turns into a marriage at some point that may not even be noticed by the couple. The wedding is just a way to announce to the rest of the world that you are married. It’s not about changing your relationship to each other–that’s already happened–it’s about telling everyone else how they should treat each other. Very cynically, it’s the nicest way to say “While you are all still very important to me, from now on, they come first”.
For me, marriage is about creating a family unit. Without it, a family is just you and your parents/siblings/children, but your parents aren’t even family with each other, they’re family with your grandparents/aunts/uncles/you.
Throw in marriage, the husband/wife/children are nuclear family, everyone else is extended family.
I think the modern purpose is mostly logistical, it’s much easier to say “legal spouse” (or whatever defined term you want to use) for purposes of health benefits and taxes and custodial parenting rights etc than monkey around with definitions of “dating” and “how many years” and “love each other enough.”
In AP Government when we had to come up with political platforms for our mock election one of the opposing parties played around with an idea of abolishing marriage as a legally defined union (mostly for civil rights purposes), and I actually liked it at first, but the more I looked into the logistics above the more entrenched the idea became in our society, and the more economic and legal restructuring would be needed. Now don’t get me wrong, some restructuring may be GOOD, but after looking that far into it I think the purpose is to keep things relatively orderly, if you think child custody/support lawsuits are bad NOW think of how much term-dancing there’d be in a marriageless society.
Distilled to it’s finest distinction, Marriage is designed to be easy to get into, and hard to get out of. That sence of permanence makes it desirable to work through issues, which in turn, can make the overall relationship more rewarding.
That’s it. In ‘this modern age’, you can get the benefits of marriage without the license. S’funny, I have a friend with a long time live-in GF that won’t marry him because she loves him too much. (Fair enough) But the steps you have to go through to prevent commonlaw marriage are interesting, and it’s odd to see them try to get the same benefits that gays are trying to get when you can’t legally get married. (I hope that was clear) A domestic partnership isn’t necessarily always between members of the same sex.
I think the purpose is to form a social obligation between two people. Speaking at a very high level, having a bunch of individuals running around with no ties to each other is kind of a messy setup for a society. It’s a much neater thing to have other people responsible for us socially.
Legal recognition. It’s a contract, one that is recognized by the government for various purposes, and must be entered (and exited!) in a mandated and controlled manner.
Manda JO and Cheesesteak come closest to my opinion. Marriage is about starting a new family. It’s saying, “This is the person I choose to cleave to above all others.” It makes it very clear to the rest of the world that you and your spouse are a team, not two free agents.
Originally, it was essentially the transfer of a female slave-in-all-but-name from one male owner to another; from father to husband. And no, I’m not all that sympathetic to the “marriage is an unchanging glorious institution that has always held our civilization together” viewpoint. Fortunately, it’s changed a lot.
Now, I look at it as a fairly awkward mishmash of a bunch of different institutions compressed into one. A ritual to affirm love and/or commitment. A legal arrangement to help guarantee the wellbeing of potential future children. A legal arrangement that grants a couple a legally privileged status towards each other. A religious ceremony/commitment in many cases. A territorial marking of each other as mates. Probably some other things I haven’t thought of.
Though I do somewhat agree, the earlier institution did seem to have a purpose as far as neatening property inheritance/rights, just generally making everything (especially population management, the economy, and the legal system) cleaner as far as “who owns what, where are they, and what are their connections.” So it served to be at least a little more than The Original Misogyny™, which was also present.
I believe that marriage provides a package deal of benefits and responsibilities.
Power of attorney in case of injury or disability
Joint custody & responsibility for dependent children
Community property in some states
Joint responsibility for debts incurred
Right to receive medical & other benefits from the spouse’s employer
Differences in how taxes are done
and a host of other things.
As these things are all fairly involved & complex and require a fair amount of planning, paperwork, and long-term commitment, entering into a marriage is usually best done by people who are reasonably certain that they’re willing to enter into these commitments for as long as it takes to fulfill them.
I don’t care whether you call it marriage, civil union, or appeasing the Great God Mojo: it’s a contract, and you have to be licensed to do it. Pity there’s no training requirement, though; there should be at least a multiple-choice test, like driving.
