16 of 156

Agree

Write now Article Tools

There are two distinct definitions of the term marriage. One is the classical, moral sense of two people joined in marriage: in the eyes of God, the Church, and society as a whole. This definition requires marriage to be a sacred institution, between only a woman and a man: at least in our modern Judea/Christian culture. Other cultures allowed polygamy, but even then the basic bond is between opposite sexes. Even though one man might have multiple wives, he would not be allowed a husband as well. On "moral" grounds, therefore, marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman.

Our more modern definition takes us into the legal realm. A state sanctioned contract between two people that results in certain legal protections and benefits, both to the individuals and to society. This is what is desired by those who would argue for same sex marriage. To answer the question from that standpoint we must look at why the state is even involved in marriage.

Society has a vested interest in the strength and stability of the next generation of citizens, as well as a responsibility to protect and nurture them. A stable home is beneficial to that goal. In order to encourage this the state has regulated marriage, giving it both benefits and responsibilities. Those who would be married can not easily dissolve that bond, they must go through legal divorce proceedings. Marriage is a legally binding contract between two individuals. This creates a legal, corporate, entity that has rights and benefits of its own. The united couple have a lowered tax burden, shared insurance and other expenses, all to promote the institution of marriage for the benefit of potential children the couple might have.

If these benefits are extended to other couples - unmarried men and women who are living together, but not providing the stability of a corporate (legal) union, same sex couples, or even polygamist groups - it would dilute and lessen the benefits for the stable homes which society is trying to promote. Such couples would reap the benefits of marriage without the responsabilities. At that point marriage, as an institution, would be no longer beneficial to society, but only to those who enjoyed its protections and benefits.

So we can see that in both cases marriage should continue to be a sacred, and governmentally sanctioned and protected, institution between only a woman and a man.

Learn more about this author, Maxwell Cynn.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.

Add your voice

Know something about Marriage should be a sacred institution between only a woman and a man?
We want to hear your view. Write now!