When we look at the issue of marriage, we have to first define what marriage is. After all, finding the purpose of something is impossible without first knowing what that thing is! So how do we define marriage?
The Christian idea of marriage, naturally, is ultimately a typology of the relationship between Christ and the believer. Marriage pictures this in a symbolic manner. After all, the church in the New Testament is considered the bride of Christ; in the Old Testament, idolatry was likened to adultery against God.
It also has, however, the structure of procreation. Men and women are told to “be fruitful and multiply†and the marriage unit is the appropriate realm for such an activity.
Not every culture is Christian, however. There are many different ideas about marriage. But, while there are several variants between different cultures, there are some universal facts about marriage that help us to define what, exactly, that institution is. (The presuppositionalist in me would like to point out that the reason marriage transcends culture is due to the objective truth of theism; but that’s a different argument for a different time!)
Marriage, universally, is first of all a social event. It is a pledge between two people in front of the entire community. It is, therefore, a social contract, not just an agreement between two individuals.
No matter what culture you look at, marriage is held as something “more†than two people simply coming to an agreement that they will live together and support each other forever. It is also an agreement that others in the community ought not violate that marriage agreement. Despite the fact that many cultures tolerate non-married people having sexual relations together, there is no culture that does not at least hold empathy with the innocent party when one person in the marriage arrangement commits adultery. Even polygamous societies abhor someone breaking the marriage covenant, requiring that someone not be allowed to have sexual relations with someone who is married to another person.
So marriage is seen as an agreement between individuals and society as a whole. This agreement results in behavioral standards for both the people involved in the marriage (through their marriage vows) and the people in the community (who are to refrain from causing either spouse to violate their marriage vows). Thus, when the marriage agreement is violated, it is not simply the two people involved who are hurt, but it is society as a whole that is hurt. In other words, society has a real reason to encourage healthy marriages because society is a part of the marriage agreement.
It is possible, however, that someone may argue that marriage need not have such societal obligations. But what are we left with if there is no social contract involved? If there are no social obligations involved, then there is no need for marriage at all. Two people can simply live together, care for each other as they see fit, and do as they please. Indeed, people can do so now already without ever engaging in marriage.
The reason that marriage is different is because it is a social contract. But what purpose could justify marriage being a social contract, one that transcends the two individuals involved and includes society as a whole?
In a word: children. Statistics across the board demonstrate that children raised in a traditional nuclear family do better academically, have a lower crime rate, and are less likely to have children out of wedlock. These things all benefit society as a whole. Therefore, society has a vested interest in making sure that marriages are protected.
Some might argue that marriage is not about children. After all, there are those who marry who choose not to have children. But these are obviously the exceptions to the norm, and it would be a logical fallacy to argue for the exception. Furthermore, while some may choose not to have children, they still engage in behavior that could result in children being created, thus necessitating the stability of the family.
Furthermore, if children are not in view in the issue of marriage, then we must ask: What reason does society have to care about marriage? If marriage is about the adults, then we recognize that failure in the marriage simply results in two adults coming to a different arrangement. While it is certainly possible for one person to harm another, it is still the case that both of the actors involved are legally able to make decisions about their well-being. This sort of thing happens all the time already.
But this is not the case with children. Children, by definition, need parents. A child does not magically know what good behavior is—he or she must be taught right from wrong. A child does not know what is in his or her best interest either. A child might think the best thing would be to skip school and play with a pet, while the parent knows that it is better for the child to learn.
A child, therefore, presents us with different circumstances than just the agreement between two adults would present. As a result, the very fact that children exist presents society with a different circumstance than two adults cohabitating. It is in society’s best interest that children be protected so they can become the best people they can possibly be. Society, therefore, has a vested interest in keeping solid the very foundation of how children are shaped by this world.
Children can only naturally come about due to sexual activity. This is why many societies view sexual relationships as only being proper within the marriage contract. Sexual activity outside the bonds of marriage could possibly result in a child being created without the proper family backing, which would therefore harm society because the child is not receiving an ideal background.
Indeed, this is why most cultures consider rape to be worse than physical assault. Rape not only is a physical harming of an individual, but it harms society as a whole because of the potential to create children outside of the bounds of the ideal family. This is something that is known even on the instinctive level. The victim of rape behaves differently than the victim of a simple assault. (For instance, it is highly unlikely that someone who is mugged in the alley would be embarrassed to call the police; yet such a situation occurs often when rape is involved.) Rape is a worse crime because it is not only a crime against the person, but a crime against the entire notion of family. If rape did not have this familial aspect to it, it would be no different than a mugging in terms of crime and punishment.
Marriage is designed for a specific reason. It is not for the sake of the adults involved in the decision, because if it were only the adults involved then there would not need to be any social aspect to the agreement. Instead, it is for the sake of the children that can be produced by the relationship, and society has a proper reason to have concern in this arena because children with a good nuclear family do statistically better in all aspects of life. Marriage, therefore, is first and foremost about children. This is, indeed, the only reason why society should care about the institution of marriage.
As such, anything that undermines this ultimately undermines society as a whole. If we alter the definition of marriage to include, for instance, same sex marriages, then we must conclude one of two things. Either we are to conclude that society has no vested interest in the raising of children, or we are to conclude that society does have a vested interest in what any two consenting adults do in bed. In short, either we ought not care about ensuring children get the best possible chance at life, or else we need to have a social contract with every adult who arranges any agreement. There is no other way to remain consistent.
So, to summarize:
1. If marriage does not have a social aspect to it then there is no reason to have marriage.
2. If marriage does have a social aspect to it then we must have a sufficient reason for why the social aspect is in effect.
3. That social aspect either concerns children or it does not concern children.
4. If it does concern children, then we do see a purpose for society to recognize a social agreement between two adults because if children are produced we want them to be able to have the best chance in life from the start, and that is found in the nuclear family. Children are not rational adults with the capacity to choose what they want to do; they require guidance, and thus society can require two parents to care for their children (and enact proper punishment if they do not do so).
5. If it does not concern children, then one must demonstrate what purpose society would have for recognizing a social agreement between two adults when both adults are rational humans with the capacity to choose what they want to do and neither choice extends beyond the two people involved.
Our culture is tending toward denying the social aspect to marriage altogether. Thus, we are stuck on number one above and we simply avoid everything that follows by treating marriage as nothing more than a super-sized version of “boyfriend/girlfriend†relationships. Most couples these days don’t do anything differently in marriage than they do before they are married. Marriage, therefore, becomes nothing more than a “word†devoid of content. There is no societal aspect to marriage because we simply deny that our personal relationships can have any aspect on society as a whole. Thus, the divorce rate rises (if you can dump your boyfriend in junior high, why not your husband?).
As a result, we are left with fewer traditional nuclear families. And while there is not a simple one-to-one correlation, it is perhaps telling that thirty years ago there were only 2-300,000 inmates in our country and today there are over 2 million, of which the vast majority come from broken homes. If we continue to ignore the social aspect to marriage, we will continue to deteriorate socially.
