Sanctity of Marriage and other fallacies

We can either all start considering this as an obsolete institution that doesn’t have anywhere near the clout it once had or stop treating it as something that it isn’t. Perhaps the false impressions that have permeated our society have finally started to crumble and the shock of discovering the double-think is now scaring naive idiots into shouting bloody murder.

Marriage isn't what you think it is.

Let’s break down what really destroys marriage, shall we?

Abuse, destroys the sanctity of marriage

In any relationship, there’s little more as vile as treating your significant other with such contempt as to devalue their very existence. It usually starts when the abusers consider themselves superior to their “loved” ones and what results is a massive imbalance in say as far as the union is concerned.

Abuse is essentially a game of control with lives at stake and it demeans the very union that hides it in public among civilized people. I don’t need to go into details here as to why it’s terrible since any considerate adult would know.

Adultery, destroys the sanctity of marriage

It’s a very callous thing to do to someone who has placed his or her trust in your love. It can be so deeply hurtful that it may even be considered a form of abuse considering the lasting anguish that usually comes of it. While generally still considered morally reprehensible, the most severe, legal, punishment for this is divorce (which we’ll get to later) and possibly alimony.

In some cases the other partner is already aware of the indiscretion and a) usually ends in divorce or b) results in some kind of compromise or c) turns into an “open marriage”.

I’m reminded of an old mob convention regarding the treatment of women. It’s a very complicated arrangement since women aren’t generally accepted into the mob even though they may participate in business to some capacity (this is the mob we’re talking about so keep in mind that extreme chauvinism is to be expected).

Every man needs three women, goes a saying.

  • The wife with whom you go to church with and look respectable with in public. You raise her children out in the open and send them to college.
  • The mistress, who you’re really in love with and may even appear in public with, but isn’t generally talked about in the open. Although the wife probably knows about her, but she doesn’t care because she’s still being taken care of as well as her kids. You should send the mistress’ kids to college too, but don’t admit they’re yours.
  • Then there’s the girlfriend, who’s just around for when you get lonely. Don’t have to do ‘nothin about her kids because they’re probably not yours anyway.

Of course, if a woman did any of these, she’s automatically considered a floozie, but good luck getting them to admit the irony.

Divorce, destroys the sanctity of marriage

So it’s “‘Till death do us part… unless we get sick of each other first.”

Had a divorce? Was it not because of abuse or adultery? If the answer is “yes” then getting an opinion on the sanctity of marriage from you is akin to asking a murderer about the sanctity of life.

You’re agreeing to be in each other’s company and come to accept who they are at the core of their being and yet, when the going gets tough, the impatient start walking. We have an incredibly bizarre double standard when it comes to acceptance of divorce. Any seemingly reasonable person who would abhor abuse and adultery would suddenly find little wrong with divorce as long as there are “difficulties” or “irreconcilable differences”. These are the sort of things you have to sort out before getting married, don’t ya think?

Considering the ridiculously short period of time people are staying married these days (after an apparently longer courtship), I’m forced to wonder; what really was the point of getting married in the first place?

Open Marriages, destroy the sanctity of marriage

This is a relatively new term that’s apparently a step above “swinging” in that relationships outside of marriage are meaningful, have more depth and may also be on par or above that with the married partner. As long as the partner is willing to be honest and forthcoming regarding the other relationship(s) with their married partner, then it’s not really considered to be an indiscretion. In fact it may be openly accepted and perhaps even welcomed.

And this is different from polygamy because…?

An open marriage is essentially a legal loophole to practicing polygamy in that if there’s another “marriage” it isn’t really called that, but it is still an accepted extramarital relationship. Even famous people like Will Smith and Jada Pinkett are doing this and we don’t hear a peep out of the SoM crowd.

“Civil Unions” destroy the sanctity of marriage

If marriage is allowed for heterosexual couples then it certainly should be in the domain of gay couples as well. I’m slightly amused by seemingly intelligent people who don’t see the blatant hypocrisy of allowing “civil unions” for gay people while denying them to the very sanctified right of marriage available for straight couples.

Let’s break down the logic shall we?

Most decent, logical, reasonable people would consider all people are created equal. Yes?

These same decent, logical, reasonable people would consider that marriage is a fundamental right for any man and a woman. Yet, some of these decent, logical, apparently reasonable people would rather gay people have a “civil union” instead so they can avoid the full guilt of suppressing their fundamental right to pursue happiness.

So gay people are equal to straight people and are entitled to the same rights, but they must have a separate institution instead of marriage or are denied unions altogether.

Equal to straight people, but separate unions or none at all.


…but equal.

I’ll let you mull over that a bit.

It’s either full marriage or bust people. Have the gall to admit you’re a closeted bigot who doesn’t believe in true equality instead of hiding behind a pseudo moral high ground or, better yet, mind your own business.

Marriage should be no more invalid between gay people than interracial people. They’re all just people in the end.

The sad thing is that aside from abuse, the rest are perfectly legal in Western society (with adultery carrying civil consequences and gay marriage denied in bigot majority states) and the last three are even generally accepted without much brouhaha these days. All of them soundly debase the alleged sanctity of marriage and this is without the cooperation of gay people.