Maybe I’m oversimplifying things here, but I read
and saw the present tense, and assumed it was referring to mostly-American, modern, 21st century marriage.
Within that context, arguing about why marriage was first invented back in the dawn of time or about how our marriage practices compare to those of hunter-gatherer societies make as much sense as the Leviticus rules about same-sex marriage and wearing cotton-poly blends.
“Just a fun thing people do”? That’s one of the purposes of the wedding festivities—the ceremony, reception, etc.—but it’s hardly a good enough reason for being married.
I agree with those who say that the purpose of marriage is in creating, and/or formalizing and announcing to the world, a family. When you marry someone, you are making it official: This person and I are a family. Our lives are henceforth united. (And, as a corollary, the person you marry becomes a part of your extended family, and you of theirs). Any children that come along (or that are brought to the marriage by one of the partners) are part of that family, too; although children aren’t necessary for it to be a “real” marriage.
And that’s what gay people are missing out on if they’re not allowed to marry: the chance to announce to the rest of society that “I, and this person whom I love and want to share my life with, are officially a family unit.”
I think this is inaccurate. 2 (or more) people can consider themselves as closely united as can be imagined, but unless they have a valid marriage license, they do not enjoy all of the legal benefits of marriage (at least in states without common-law marriage.) The legal process CREATES the rights/obligations - it does not merely recognize them and inform others as you suggest.
As to why I believe the state should give the term “marriage” to the churches: I have not heard too terribly many people oppose “civil unions” between gays. The main objection I have heard was to use of the word “marriage” - which some want to define as between a man and a woman. If religious folk are hung up on this specific terminology, I see no reason why the state ought to consider itself wedded (heh) to that term.
IMO in this instance the use of a specific word is a sorry excuse for denying a class of persons equal protection under our laws. All the state needs to concern itself with is whether or not the civil union exists, who the parties are, and whether it has been properly dissolved. Whether or not a particular religion considers the union to be valid ought to be irrelevant to the state.
Some examples:
-the Catholic church may issue an annullment, saying a marriage never existed. But unless the couple obtains a civil divorce, they are still married.
-I’ve heard of religions where a divorce is not considered valid if one party does not give their consent in a special manner. That ought to be absolutely independent of either party’s ability to file for and obtain a civil divorce.
-many faiths will not sanction gay marriage. If gays belong to that faith and are troubled by it, that is their problem. They can certainly choose another faith that will recognize their union. Meanwhile, there is no state-imposed impediment to them joining in civil union.
-some faiths may permit polygamy. But the states can determine whether such relationships create family rights/obligations.
Conicidentally, the Catholic sacrament is both, the people creating the marriage, and doing so in the presence of God. It all happens at the same time in the reigious ritual.
I’m in agreement with all the people who’ve talked about creating a family unit. It’s saying we’re not longer him/her and me, we’re us. Come, let’s have a ceremony to celebrate and solemnate this declaration, so that all we care about will recognise it.
I’m against ceding the term “marriage” to religion. Civil unions are fine for giving some reasonable rights to those not willing (or unable) to get married, but marriage is still the next step. We didn’t get married in a church, but in the Ethical Culture Society with no mention of god or other irrelevancies. The reason SSM is an issue is that there is a realization that marriage implies a commitment beyond a civil union. I’m all for religions not having to marry anyone they don’t want to, but let’s not say that marriage is in any way basically a religious rite.
Ambrose Bierce put it best:
The smooth transfer of property to the next generaton.
It’s to form a tribe. Sure, it might be a small tribe (at least for those who don’t breed out of control), but that’s what you are. You’re two (or more) individuals who share a group identity, whose primary allegiance is to the unit that you’ve formed. As the child tribe to two (or more) other tribes, you’ll have to negotiate things between yourselves and relatives, but if your own unit is to survive it has to come first.
That must vary very much by location. A lesbian couple we know spent over $10,000 in legal fees to get a portion of the benefits we got by buying a $27 license. And they still couldn’t put each other on their health insurance policies or file their taxes together.
Also, very few if any states still recognize common-law marriage, and even when they did it was pretty easy to avoid because one of the components was that you had to represent yourself as being married. Don’t represent yourself as man and wife, and you’re not. Simple enough.
At its heart marriage is a strong alliance between people who might otherwise be competing for resources. Compromise and cooperation are generally rewarded.
This.
I don’t want kids, and under Canadian law, The Boy and I are considered common-law spouses and essentially have all the rights of a traditionally married couple. That rules out getting married to legitimize future offspring, or to reap economic benefits we couldn’t get otherwise.
That doesn’t mean I don’t want to stand up in front of everyone I care for in this world and publically declare “Mine! ALL MINE!!!”. Preferably accompanied by finger guns and a wink…
…and maybe a midget dressed like Elvis. Because every good wedding needs one of those.
Having a “purpose” is only a reference to someone’s motivation. What someone are we talking about?
Perhaps little is known about how the social institution was invented or gradually evolved, lost in the mists of antiquity.
For couples marrying, I would guess that it is an expression of love and/or wanting for a family, within a societal context in which this is how most people express love or start families.
For the sake of engineering our society’s future, it’s probably safe to say that the biggest motivation for sustaining and investing in the social institution of marriage is to provide formality to the dependence relationships of children and perhaps women around the times of childbirth and nursing.
Perhaps some churches view marrying of their members to be one of the most important activities from the point of view of the members, so that the relationship between church and members is strengthened by it. Or, said more simply, it’s one of their most important services, and so one they want to keep offering.
This.
I remember when planning Crusoe and I were planning our wedding, my mum and I were arguing about the wedding plans and she got very upset and accused me of not loving her anymore (not her fault, really - I’d recommend not trying to get married at the same time as your mother’s going through the menopause though!). I retaliated by saying something like “don’t be daft, of course I do. After Crusoe you’re the person I love most in the world”.
There was a very loooooooooooong pause, then she suddenly stopped crying, sat up and said: “Of course. And that’s just how it should be”.
You’re looking at the wrong end of the telescope. A lot of larded on junk has been added to the original reason for marriage over time and a lot of these well meaning analyses are missing the point of why marriage has become a human tendency.
The "real* reason for marriage is that human babies are incredibly delicate as animals due to the fact that the big human baby head needs an extended developmental period and has to get out of mommy’s belly before development is complete. In this context a human child is born in an utterly helpless almost neo-natal form relative to other animals.
Our relatively large brains require very high resource inputs of protection and sustenance when young. This would not be possible if women with babies had to forage alone without one on one protection and food provision.
Females call the tune as to with whom they will mate and pair bonding, resource providing men are the mates of choice. Women chose marriage as the necessary and favored form of relationship because otherwise human baby survival would be far more perilous.
The reason something originates is not the same as what it is for: wings and feathers may well have evolved to help in temperature regulation, but you won’t get anywhere arguing that flight is just “larded over” that and that it “miss[es] the point”.
Even within an individual marriage, the reason it originated often has nothing to do with the reason it persists.
Social utility. It creates networks that are useful to society: if X gets hit by a bus and ends up in the hospital, dying, you want to know who gets to see X in the hospital, who becomes guardian of X’s kids when X kicks the bucket, and who gets X’s loot if he does so.
It’s not so far removed from its original function, which had to do with wealth transmission and power.
I’m all for abolishing marriage, giving everyone civil unions, and letting the religious groups sort themselves out.
If you live in Ontario (and some other provinces), one of the major differences between married and common-law spouses is I believe property equalization on divorce. Marriage thus acts as something of an insurance policy for the economically-disadvantaged partner.
Property equalization will never be a valid argument for marriage in my books - I watched my father walk away from my parents’ divorce with a nice tidy nest egg, even though it was my mother who had struggled to support us while he spent every penny our family had to support his addictions and sank us into debt. A woman in her mid-50s with a 100K+ salary shouldn’t end up with a mortgage on a house that should’ve been paid off long before, and with no retirement savings to speak of… nor should a man with a $100/day alcohol habit find himself walking out of the marriage with enough to purchase a luxury waterfront condo. Equality my ass.
So I guess I need to amend my statement - there’s really nothing more that a legal marriage would provide for us that we don’t have already through common-law or a legally binding cohabitation agreement. 
I’m not arguing that it is either a good thing or a bad thing, and certainly not a “valid argument for marriage”. It is simply a legal difference, and one that acts as an insurance policy of sorts for the economically disadvantaged partner - who may or may not be deserving of such a benefit, of course (in divorce, the notion that the economically disadvantaged partner doesn’t deserve a red cent isn’t exactly unknown - for policy reasons, mainly to avoid “Bleak House” style litigation, as a society we have chosen not to pass legal judgment on the alleged worthless parasitism of non-working partners after divorce and impose a formula).
Since it is governed by statute, equalization is considerably more reliable as an “insurance policy” than a cohabitation agreement, which is subject to all sorts of potential legal difficulties.
Thus, at least in this jurisdiction, marriage vs. common-law status has important economic implications, irrespective of whether the partners want children or not.