Why are some relationships marriage, and other relationships not? this is a vital question to consider. If our view of marriage does not offer a meaningful, non-arbitrary distinction between marital and non-marital relationships, and if that distinction does not justify central marriage norms such as fidelity and permanence, then our view of marriage more than likely gets marriage wrong. By this metric, the conjugal view of marriage makes the most sense.
In the conjugal view, marriage involves two partners sharing a domestic life that is directed towards and naturally unfolds into procreation and child raising. That is, partners in a marriage unite - or coordinate - towards procreation. In this view, marriage is different from all other relationships because its unifying good is procreation. No other relationship, be it roommates, siblings, best friends or boyfriend/girlfriend, share that unifying good. Further, this distinction justifies the public norms of sexual activity, permanence and fidelity.
On the other hand, in the revisionist view, marriage is thought to reflect a deep emotional connection between partners. Instead of procreation, the unifying good of marriage is mutual personal fulfillment. However, many non-marital relationships (such as chess partners, dating relationships, or best friends) can also share a deep emotional connection, coordinate towards mutual fulfillment. Further, when marriage is viewed in this light, there is no particular reason marriage ought to be sexual, and no particular reason why permanence and fidelity ought to be public expectations rather than matters of personal preference. So we have no meaningful distinction that justifies important marriage norms...
Extract from www.discussingmarriage.com
No comments:
Post a Comment