Spring Break
Institution of marriage evolves with society
Jamie Thomson
Issue date: 7/11/08 Section: Ed-Op
In his June 27 letter to the editor, Lux Gurusamy wrote: "Marriage is not just a religious symbol or social status or even a spiritual status. It is an identity. It is an identity that has been present ever since time began. … Our ancestors, who were relatively smarter than us, never fooled with that identity."
Marriage has certainly been around for thousands of years, but to claim that it has remained a static, pure institution for all of that time is not to see its true nature. Throughout history, every society has had a slightly different take on marriage, and every religion's definition has been tweaked as society has evolved.
Christian theologian Saint Augustine, in his treatise "On The Good of Marriage," recognized that the rules of marriage changed with the times; he observed that polygamy and other practices that were falling out of favor by the fifth century had previously been appropriate when there was a need to grow the human race, and religious and civil authorities had adapted as such. In Islam, while polygamy is not generally encouraged, it has been practiced in certain situations, especially following times of war when widows and orphans would otherwise be left helpless. More than anything, marriage is a mechanism of society. It has, and continues to have, countless facets: obtaining financial security, seizing power, legitimizing sexual relations, expressing love, procreation, maintaining the royal line or the family name and much more. None of these are wrong, and none defile "marriage" as an ideal; the meaning and execution of the institution of marriage springs from whatever motives society currently endorses.
The United States has seen marriage evolve with our national values. Prior to 1967, the divisive force of racism kept interracial marriage bans in place in many states until the Supreme Court finally ruled such laws unconstitutional.
Before the women's rights movement, wives were largely seen as subordinate to their husbands; but as women gained legal and financial independence, the face of American marriage changed to include an ethic of equality, as well as the possibility for a woman to live a successful life without marrying.
Marriage has certainly been around for thousands of years, but to claim that it has remained a static, pure institution for all of that time is not to see its true nature. Throughout history, every society has had a slightly different take on marriage, and every religion's definition has been tweaked as society has evolved.
Christian theologian Saint Augustine, in his treatise "On The Good of Marriage," recognized that the rules of marriage changed with the times; he observed that polygamy and other practices that were falling out of favor by the fifth century had previously been appropriate when there was a need to grow the human race, and religious and civil authorities had adapted as such. In Islam, while polygamy is not generally encouraged, it has been practiced in certain situations, especially following times of war when widows and orphans would otherwise be left helpless. More than anything, marriage is a mechanism of society. It has, and continues to have, countless facets: obtaining financial security, seizing power, legitimizing sexual relations, expressing love, procreation, maintaining the royal line or the family name and much more. None of these are wrong, and none defile "marriage" as an ideal; the meaning and execution of the institution of marriage springs from whatever motives society currently endorses.
The United States has seen marriage evolve with our national values. Prior to 1967, the divisive force of racism kept interracial marriage bans in place in many states until the Supreme Court finally ruled such laws unconstitutional.
Before the women's rights movement, wives were largely seen as subordinate to their husbands; but as women gained legal and financial independence, the face of American marriage changed to include an ethic of equality, as well as the possibility for a woman to live a successful life without marrying.
Viewing Comments 1 - 9 of 11
Lux Gurusamy
posted 7/11/08 @ 5:29 AM EST
Jamie:
Congratulations on an article that is so eloquent even I am moved to ponder "may be I am wrong".
Nevertheless, I am intrigued by the way you have quoted Saint Augustine on your defense of the subject matter. (Continued…)
sally
posted 7/12/08 @ 12:31 AM EST
I came across an online community for individual seeking interracial love. Here all the people are seeking interracial relationships. ---Blackwhitemeet. (Continued…)
Pat D.
posted 7/13/08 @ 4:11 PM EST
I agree with Mr. Gurusamy. I have argued against him in the past, but on this issue I think he is right. When a new idea or philosphy enters into a culture, it does not change existing definitions or schools of thought. (Continued…)
Jamie
posted 7/13/08 @ 6:07 PM EST
Thanks Lux, it's always a treat to get some healthy debate going in this paper.
I mentioned that Saint Augustine bit because it was indeed so intriguing. (Continued…)
Steph
posted 7/16/08 @ 11:45 AM EST
"And if the argument for this definition change is that it is porgressive and it makes people happy, well then what about the even smaller minority of people who are attracted to animals. (Continued…)
Jamie
posted 7/18/08 @ 6:03 PM EST
I agree entirely, Steph. I used to argue against using "marriage" as a civil term, but at this point I think it is too entrenched in our society to be removed. (Continued…)
Mem
posted 7/22/08 @ 5:31 AM EST
Ugh. Im not at all glad with this article. It is liberal junk really if you ask me. I am Christian and I do believe that this will ruin the sanctity of marriage. (Continued…)
Anonymous
posted 7/23/08 @ 12:52 AM EST
Heterosexual Marriages helps with procreation thus Heterosexual Marriages lead to life.
Whereas Homosexual Marriages do not lead to procreation since both sexual partners cannot procreate thus Homesexual marriages lead to death. (Continued…)
nofanoflibs
posted 7/23/08 @ 12:04 PM EST
Marriage is between a man and a woman only.
Post a Comment