Before we try to redefine marriage, we must remind ourselves of what marriage really is. A rose is a rose by any other name, and calling a cabbage a rose does not make it a rose.  Then we must consider why there is such an institution, whether it is beneficial and whether it would be beneficial to change it.

Marriage is a vow of lifelong commitment made by two people to each other ‘forsaking all others’.  Although many do not keep that commitment, that does not change the requirement for the commitment, it simply means that they have broken their vow.  However, marriage is about more than a lifelong commitment to another person.  It is a union between two people who also commit to the joint care of their offspring.  It is a commitment to only produce offspring with that one other person.

“marriage brings husband and wife together in the delight and tenderness of sexual union and joyful commitment to the end of their lives. It is given as the foundation of family life in which children are born and nurtured and in which each member of the family, in good times and in bad, may find strength, companionship and comfort, and grow to maturity in love.”

For those who do not believe in spiritual issues, the behaviour committed to in the marriage vow is a highly successful behavioural pattern that the biological process of evolution through natural selection has produced.  Indeed, scientific research demonstrates that children raised in the traditional family environment are more successful than those who do not have that advantage.  Marriage as presently defined is a more successful and beneficial way of life for both the individuals and for society as a whole.

Heterosexuality is the only successful biological behaviour – homosexual couples cannot produce offspring – so the most beneficial arrangement for continuation of our species is the heterosexual relationship within the environment of marriage.

For those who do believe in spiritual issues, marriage is also the union of two spiritual beings who have different and complementary roles in the production of new spiritual beings.

So it is unquestionable that the ideal situation for children is to be brought up by a couple who have committed to each other and to the children.  The ideal cannot always be achieved, but it remains the ideal.  Marriage is recognition of a couple’s determination to strive to achieve that ideal, the couple chooses to accept the responsibility in front of their friends.  The friends recognise the commitment, and are able to support the couple in their commitment.  Those who know a couple are married should not try to destroy the marriage; it can be hard enough for two people to keep their commitment without others undermining it.  Although many marriages do not succeed, that is no reason to destroy the basis for marriage; it is a reason to help those who want to make it a success achieve their ambition.  We should not be lowering the standards and expectation of marriage, we should be helping couples to achieve them

Changing the definition of marriage to allow homosexual couples to be declared ‘married’ is not just a consideration of being kind and sympathetic to them, is would simply destroy marriage.  Marriage would no longer be the specific recognition of the role and responsibilities of parenthood.  It would no longer be an institution to support those who want to commit to the special relationship that is best for bringing up our children.  It would simply become a ‘badge’ on a relationship.  If the homosexual ‘marriage’ breaks down, the consequences are confined to the couple, if a true marriage breaks down the consequences are on the children and on society.  Society respects things that are important and tries to preserve them.  If things are less important, then it does not matter if they are not preserved.  Changing the definition of marriage would make it less important, and less likely to be preserved.

It is argued that it is not fair to limit marriage to a man and woman; perhaps it isn’t fair – but the world is not fair.  There are far more issues where lack of fairness really matters; the great divide between rich and poor nations for example.  Sometimes it is best simply to accept this; if we let envy or bitterness take over then it will destroy us and our actions are likely to cause distress and damage to many others.  That is the position with the marriage question.

Rather than redefining marriage, we should be reminding ourselves of how important it is.  We should be doing all that we can to help those who are married to keep their commitment and make their marriage successful.

About Minimalist Christian

Phil Hemsley is a graduate of the University of Cambridge, and a Fellow of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers in the UK. He works for a multinational company in the power industry, has presented technical papers at international conferences and holds many patents. He has published two books, the most recent is "The Big Picture, an Honest Examination of God Science and Purpose". He has lived on both sides of the faith fence. He is married, with two daughters.
This entry was posted in General and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Marriage

  1. Ed says:

    I am reminded of an incident, quite a few years back, when a catholic priest refused to marry a couple since the woman’s disability meant that she would be unable to have children. For him, a marriage without children could not be a marriage.
    This debate in the media is becoming quite interesting. I am yet to hear clearly from those who are demanding this change, and what marriage would give gay couples which civil partnerships don’t. I am also interested in whether civil partnerships are more succesful and long-lived than traditional marriages. Perhaps it’s too soon to judge. But with the divorce rate currently at nearly 50% some would argue that heterosexual married couples are doing a fine job of destroying the institution by themselves.
    Ed (divorced)


    • Lidia says:

      Hi Ed, I just want to clarify a point you made. The reason the Catholic priest could not marry the couple should have been that the woman was unable to perform the marital act, not that she was unable to bear children. I certainly hope that was the case. Also, for the Catholic Faith, a marriage that is NOT OPEN to children is not really a marriage. There are lots of faithful Catholics who are open to kids, yet can’t seem to get pregnant. Their marriage is still considered a true marriage in the Catholic Church.


  2. Excellent post! I’ll make more in-depth comments over on Public Catholic, but I particularly enjoyed the way you addressed all viewpoints. Good job.


Please leave a reply and I will try to get back to you.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s