A fourth reason for marriage, to secure patriarchal properties, has no scriptural backing.
However, huge numbers of marriages do not work out as intended. Many people do not even start out with expectations of life-long loyalty and, unaware of its advantages, may marry for sexual attraction alone.
Pornography is now setting unreasonable norms for sexual behaviour, with imaginations of youthful bodily perfection and satyr-like prowess that are likely to handicap permanent sexual relationships. Even bridal magazines reiterate that greatest sexual pleasure comes from continual variety and intensities of stimulation, rather than from the consummation of love, for which fun and games are just the sauce.
Advertisement
An Australian Muslim advocate of polygamy gives “mutual amorousness” as the justification for having several wives. “Amorous” is different from the close intimacy and loyalty between two people maintained by love, whether hetero- or same-sex. Long-term committed loyalties are also different from partnerships that are multiple or transient.
The pressures against ideals of marriage are immense. Ignorance of “how” is one of them. The emotional and economic costs of breakdowns of marriages and de facto relationships are immense, with suffering and cruelty for the children. Even a dalliance has its emotional as well as physical hazards.
Can anything be done to prevent the legal and social messes we can get our relationships into?
Margaret Mead and others have suggested two legal levels for marriage. Marriage A, without children, can be dissolved at any time by mutual consent, aided by optional counselling. Marriage B, to follow if children are planned or have arrived, is more solemnly celebrated, has more legal bonds, and could require pre-nuptial counselling or relevant training or experience before parenthood, and assurance of a social network of support, of relations, friends or neighbourhood.
Apart from children brought up in institutions or on the streets, single parenting is usually the most difficult for both parent and child, and is mostly likely to have the worst outcomes for the child, although an amazing number of brave battling women or men manage brilliantly.
Statistically, single mothers are more likely to be at the bottom of the income scale, face more difficulties when they are sick, more problems with the work burden if they are employed, are more likely to be unemployed, and have more problems with their children as teenagers. Yet there are considerable pressures on young teenage girls to become pregnant. These pressures need to be recognised and countered, especially when they come from the media, including magazines for girls.
Advertisement
It is hard for the state to withhold financial support from teenage mothers in their need, but a valuable preventive message could be knowing that higher benefits would be paid to the first two children in a legally recognised permanent relationship.
As we become more aware of the global population problem and reproduction becomes limited to one each, two per family, the question of the role of the state becomes more critical. How much can or should families be “married to the state” financially?
Is society stronger when human beings can have long-term intimacy as a stable emotional base and as a haven against the storms outside?
Can different personalities be better matched to forms of relationship that are most adapted to their needs and to their positive functioning in society?
I think ideals can still be often achieved, but there is a good deal that needs to be changed in how we are brought up, and what are the ideals and satisfactions that we are taught and that we learn.
Discuss in our Forums
See what other readers are saying about this article!
Click here to read & post comments.
7 posts so far.