The Quest to Define Marriage

“There is no such thing as society, there are individual men and women, and there are families,” are the famous, or perhaps infamous depending on the readers perspective, words of Margaret Thatcher. And many western thinkers have latched onto that line and turned it into the maxum for their new political doctrine. But in doing so, many forgot those last two words, “and there are families,” instead opting for a more modern, more individual centric doctrine perhaps best rephrased as “There is no such thing as society, there are only individuals whomst freedoms and autonomy are corrupted and tyrannized by their environment and by their government.” To this sort of Liberal ideologue, human society is but a mechatronic combining of independent individuals, and it is those individuals, regardless of national, familial, or class backgrounds, that are the fundamental component of a people. While not entirely incorrect, individuals are in some sense the foundation of society, individuals themselves cannot be understood independently. Individuals can only be appropriately understood within their correlation with others, with their community. An individual “person” is of very little interest or worth to a whole country. They are but a statistic. In fact, independent individuals are best epitomized by homeless destitutes, without any obligations to a family, a community, or even an employer. They are but themselves, existing in their own tiny pod leaching off their country for aid, rather than aiding their country. The gods of their own world. But conversely a man, a father, a husband, is of a very high moral and utilitarian caliber. And he is best appreciated through his relation to others and the good he does. Whether that be his relationship to his local church or community, his wife, his children, or even to his country.

If it is true that independent individuals themselves are not the foundation of societies, as this essay contends, then that must mean families are. As family is the first layer of social dependency, it is the most bare and true social arrangement. And that arrangement is anchored first and foremost by a marriage. In order to understand society wholly, it must be understood at its root. Especially the root of family and marriage. Which brings about the question: What is marriage, what is its purpose, and what is its relationship with the ultimate goals of personhood and of grander politics?

The original origins of marriage, as many feminist thinkers gleefully exclaim, was that as a means to bind women to men in a one sided contract. Women were handed over to men as property and were required to refrain from any extramarital activity and fastened to the household, meanwhile men were granted the right to take upon as many wives as they pleased and were permitted to satisfy their sexual perrogatives with prostitutes and even other, often underaged, males. Marriage wasn’t rooted in anything sacred or intertwining, it was purely the one sided contractual ownership of women by men. Woman bound to man, but man bound to nothing but his hedonistic desires.

It wasn’t until Christian revelation that modern marriage became the institution we recognize today. Or at least the institution we once would have recognized as akin to our own. Christianity served, in some sense, as a feminist vessel. Though not in any sense philosophically feminist, Christianity brought about a moral equality between man and woman, binding husband to wife just as wife was bound to husband. But the true interpretation of marriage dates back even before Jesus walked on earth. In fact, it finds its origin in the very beginning. The book of Genesis, where God created woman out of man stating “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.” After all creation, and while everything was still untainted by sin, disease, and death, the only time God declared anything other than “good,” was solitude. It was the independence of man from others of his kind, and to solve that, rather than creating another identical male for Adam to socialize and do God’s will with, he created Eve. And he created her uniquely and intentionally different from Adam. Good in her own value.

However, granted that many readers will not hold to the Christian premise of creation and morality, this essay will refrain from any religious defense of marriage. Instead, articulating the key differences between the conjugal view of marriage, the view held by Socrates, Aristotle, our founding fathers, and virtually every major religion and culture in history, from the revisionist view of marriage, held by most today.

Marriage throughout its history has served an indispensable role in the maintaining of social order and the preservation of the fruits of society. Namely, that of procreation. So far, there has yet to be found a durable culture that refrains from all procreation, those societies, generally speaking of course, die out. But conversely, a society that practices no form of sexual discipline, as Oxford and Cambridge University Social Anthropologist JD Unwin displayed in his 600 page research book , collapse inward and begin to lack moral identity, creativity, and expansive energy. Rather than innovating, advancing, and cultivating, societies become lazy and uninspired as they become more sexually promiscuous. And sexual promiscuity is a consistent sign of an empire impending demise.

America very obviously is afflicted with these symptoms, as pornography, hookup culture, and the general devaluation of marriage persists we have become a fatter, less educated, less productive, and worse citizenry. If you put the American people as they are today in 1770s America she’d still be subject to the British throne. While some of this can be attributed to other factors, a very sizeable proportion can be attributed to the revolution of sexual norms and the erosion of the traditional hallmarks of marriage which anchor our lives, as will be shown later.

One of those hallmarks is the definition itself. Once upon a time, not so long ago, marriage was appreciated for what it was, that being the sacred spiritual, emotional, and physical union between a man and woman which fully realizes itself in the rearing and raising of children. But recently that definition has been changed to simply describe any two people with “serious” romantic interests in one another that wish to have their relationship recognized by the state.

That is the revisionist view of marriage, that marriage is the public declaration of the intensity of the romance involved, and sex is but a beneficial enhancement of that relationship. Under this view marriage is primarily an emotional union, and when that emotion dies, when the flame dwindles, divorce is an acceptable, and sometimes even wise, decision to make. There is nothing permanent about this bond, as it is predicated on consent and passion. Consent that can be, and even should be, revoked as soon as passion dies. The successfulness of this sort of marriage is measured by the happiness and pleasure it brings to the two people involved.

The conjugal, or traditional, view of marriage conversely is that of social good, marriage is a unique relationshsip, predicated on the distinct sexual differences between man and woman. This dichotomy between man and woman, through their own roles dictated by their innate strengths, is ordered around family life and ultimately realized through children. The eternal emotional, spiritual, and physical binding that occurs through marriage only deepens the durability of the relationship.

This view postulates that children are the ultimate good of marriage, and because of that the state has a governed interest in the preservation of the institution of marriage. Children’s welfare being so fundamental to the wellness and future of society, and that welfare being dictated so much by marriage and family, the State has not only a right, but a duty, to properly define and preserve marriage as the social good it is, and in its most true and natural form. When marriage is weak, children hurt. And the ultimate effects of a poor marriage culture is greater incarceration and poverty rates for the children it creates. Problems that ultimately require state assistance to interject. If limited government is a good to be pursued at all, it can only be fulfilled by government properly fulfilling those roles it does have, so that it doesn’t need to fulfill roles it doesn’t have.

By refusing to authoritatively define marriage, instead opting for a Libertarian approach that renders marriage politically obsolete and purely left to the private market, or worse yet by defining it improperly, the consequences have real tangible consequences, consequences that require an expansion of government handouts and overstep once reaped. In order to reduce the need for welfare and regulation, a moral and astute citizenry is necessary, and that can only be achieved through a proper familial structure to raise children in, a structure that can only exist through the harboring of a healthy marriage culture.

Some argue the conjugal view of marriage to be bigoted and anti-gay, but this isn’t so, the conjugal view isn’t a cynical plot to prevent same sex couples from marrying, it’s a genuine philosophy which was born totally disaffected by homosexuality, meant to properly structure society in a prudential way. The consequences of that philosophy does necessarily exclude certain types of relationships from the label “marriage,” But it is not out of disdain for the morality of those relationships and certainly not out of disdain for the people in them.

Marriage as defined under the conjugal view, is a permanent and comprehensive union. That union is intertwining, it unites two people, two souls, as one. Intertwining that is done through the generative act of sex, particularly, sex with the natural capacity for child rearing. As it is the only way by which two people can be united together as one. By combining the emotional connection of marriage, the love, the romance, and the spiritual union, as well as the physical connection of marriage, sex, two flesh are made one. This union is not merely metaphorical or religious, it is real and concrete. To use an analogy, a pile of cotton is not a singular object, it cannot be described as “one.” It is several pieces of cotton, stacked on top of one another. But it is not a unified entity. However, a pile of cotton manufactured and produced into a T-Shirt is a singular entity. The shirt itself, born out of that pile of cotton, is in itself something independent and singular. Or another example, a carburetor and a transmission are not one entity. They are two distinctly unique entities with unique functions and roles. But, when combined together towards a common goal, vehicular locomotion, it does transform into a sole entity. It would be absurd to consider a car to be “multiple.” A car is a singular entity in itself, even despite the several unique parts that go into it. And while those parts maintain their individuality and purpose, that purpose is unified together to form a common shared good. That good being convenient locomotion. What makes for unity is common action and activity driven towards a common end and made into a greater whole. Marriage is like the organs of the human body, it may consist of unique parts with unique functions and identities, but it is all aimed towards a common biological goal.

In marriage, through sex, two become one. By uniting in the generative act that creates new life, both flesh have consented to union. They are now engaging in the unifying action aimed towards reproduction. Children, that is the shared goal; the common ends. And sex, reproductive sex, is the means to that ends. It unifies two as one through the creation of its biological good: Children. In this sense our partner does complete us. Without them procreation is impossible, and true comprehensive unity isn’t had. No other relationship no matter how strong can achieve this level of unity. Once a child is born, both the parents’ lives are changed forever. And they have now attached each other to the other’s life in a permanent way. No matter what outcome, nothing can change that the relationship of the two parents has created something new and permanent: A distinct living being. A being that is the embodiment of the permanence of the sex had, and the manifestation of the physical, emotional, and spiritual union of a man and woman.

Some revisionists would argue the state should grant marriages to those who provide one another domestic support and care. This definition however is not concise enough to separate that which we intuitively know to be marriage from that which we know not to be marriage. Take Oscar and Scott for example, Oscar and Scott are two friends who live together. They’ve developed a very close bond with one another. Perhaps they are former college roommates who reunited together as widowers. Let’s say Oscar wants Scott to be the one who visits him in the hospital when he’s ill, wants Scott to give directions for his health should he fall ill, and wants him to inherit his assets should he die. Does this totally non sexual, non romantic, relationship then constitute a marriage?

If the distinguishing aspect of marriage is merely domestic support and care, then it would be impossible to give a concise argument for why Oscar and Scott are not married. In every practical sense of the word, they would be. Some have argued that the state should recognize platonic friendships. The impact of this should be fairly obvious, if Oscar and Scott are socially indistinguishable from Adam and Eve then the relationship between Adam and Eve, between husband and wife, has been degraded to being of the same nature of any other relationship.

This is not to say friendships aren’t valuable. They are, they are valuable in and of themselves and the perpetuation of friendship is also a noble social good. But friendships are fundamentally different from marriages. A friendship teaches individuals to grow, friends learn from one another and learn how to interact with one another. Friendships can help sturdy the storm of life and navigate the conflicts which come along. Friendships make life worth living and enjoyable. They are good in their own value. But friendships are not comprehensive unions of body, soul, and mind. Friendships do not call for exclusivity or permanence in the way marriages do.

Marriage requires exclusivity and permanence so that it can properly accomplish its goal. Children are permanent, they are not temporary or fleeting. Children are the future of the world, without good children properly raised there cannot be a good world properly stewarded. As studies have shown, as psychology has shown, and as tradition, common sense, and generational wisdom has revealed, children need their mother and father. The ideal structure to raise a child in is when both his biological father and biological mother maintain an intact marriage. This fact is indisputable and logical. Any reasonable person would naturally assume, even aside from the empirical evidence, that preserving the natural relationship which created the child, one man and one woman, would also be the most natural and effective way to raise that child. Friendships do not exist to create and raise children, and thus they lack the unique union, permanence, and exclusivity of marriage.

Friendship and marriage are different, with different purposes, of different roles, and thus of different expectations. And when social reconstructionists, or marriage revisionist, redefine marriage in a way specifically engineered for the purpose of including homosexual relationships they simultaneously strip the groundwork which established why marriage was created in the first place and why it is of unique character and value. Doing this has universal implications on our broader marriage culture.

We live in a social world, a world of people with norms and traditions. Our norms guide us in life, our culture is our teacher. Aside from a select few gifted individuals with the ability to reason and rationale beyond the confines of their environment, our culture forms our perceptions of right and wrong and of how we should behave, what we should value. This is especially true of young people lacking the context and experience to properly interpret life. Which is why it is imperative to establish a culture with a healthy perception of, among other things, marriage. By redefining marriage at a legal level and infesting our cultural world with this new perversion, our cultural perception of marriage is tainted. Today the revisionists have won. Broadly speaking sex has been seperated from its inherent value of procreation, and marriage has been separated from sex and comprehensive union. Young boys and girls have no teacher to tell them how to act in marriage, how to treat sex. They’ve been robbed of their instructor whom has been replaced with a fraud that propagates revisionist dogma. Their marriages suffer because of it,their children suffer because of it, and their lives suffer because of it. It is no coincidence that despite great advancements in technology and material wealth, that today depression and suicide rates are higher than ever before.

The consequences of redefining marriage isn’t limited to gay people, redefining marriage has long term consequences on the health of our marriage culture which has long term consequences of on the health of our children and thus the health of our nation. That is why this debate is not about “gay marriage,” but instead about the definition and purpose of marriage itself. In order to preserve something, the philosophical framework and cultural language which enshrines it must be preserved, if it is not, then eventually the logical conclusion of the new philosophical framework will arise. As without that basis, nothing protects it.

Now perhaps revisionist could argue sex is what distinguishes marital domestic relationships. Oscar and Scott aren’t married because marriage describes the sexual bond of two people expressed in a domestic environment. But marriage revisionist and feminists will never concede that sex ought to be enjoyed only within the confines of marriage. Or even within the confines of monogamy, so long as the non monogamy or non marital relation is consensual. Because to the revisionists, sex is merely physical, aside from the increased pleasure, there’s nothing to dichotomize sex from any other anatomical functions such as urination or breathing or snoring or crying. Sex is just something people do, and the only moral boundary that ought to persist in reference to it is consent.

This becomes problematic when revisionist redefine marriage to include non traditional structures, and then rest the entire basis of their definition, the definition that distinguishes marriage from other relationships, on sex which they believe to be merely a commodity and biological function, rather than an intertwining generative act which unites husband and wife as one towards the common ends of child rearing. When the revisionist rests his entire framework on an act which he believes to be arbitrary and unspectacular he reduces the value of marriage itself, for everyone, not just gay couples. If the distinguishing aspect of marriage is sex, and sex is rather insignificant aside from its source as a pleasure, then the greatest defining aspect of marriage isn’t values or purpose, but a cold hearted economic partnership which only exists in aide of one’s quest for materialistic gain and stability. Marriage thus becomes an archaic institution of very unextraordinary character aimed towards nothing but the pleasure of the two involved and the materialistic gain which may follow.

In this way revisionists take us back far in time. Back to when marriage was the contractual ownership of woman by man. Back when marriage wasn’t intertwining, it was merely legalistic and economic. It only served as a means to pleasure for those involved. Christianity sought to make marriage beautiful, to harness a man’s ambition towards something good, towards supporting and loving one wife, towards providing for his children and ensuring the continuation of his way of life, of his community, of his country. Revisionists rather than seeking to raise the standard of men to that of women, perhaps in a way similar Christianity did, seek to lower the standard of both men and women to that of an equally degenerate and self centered ambition.