Marriage

Revisionist vs Conjugal Marriage: fight to the death

The concept of marriage is ingrained in society in the early stages of life. Whether it’s your parents, your friends’ parents, or even a couple you see on a tv show or movie, there are a ton of examples of married couples in most people’s lives. Those examples help shape what people expect from future romantic relationships as well as what to expect from marriage if they choose to pursue that. But what is the ultimate purpose of marriage? What does real marriage entail? If you believe the conjugal view, then you think that the ultimate goal of marriage is to bring two people closer through reproduction. I believe this view is greatly flawed and stand by the revisionist view that marriage is a result of love, and mutual personal fulfillment.

As mentioned earlier, the conjugal view is revolving around the idea that reproduction and raising that child is the ultimate goal, as well as the ultimate unifying tool in a marriage. The conjugalist believes that the intention of reproducing is the most important factor in defining a real marriage, and even if you can’t actually have kids, it’s important to try. The conjugalist has essential views on what marriage is and the purpose behind it.  The essentialist views include things like the desire to reproduce, being between a man and woman, performing acts that constitute the behavioral aspects of reproduction, and exclusivity, as things that are essential to marriage. If you and your partner don’t fit into all of those categories, then you are not really married in their eyes.

The revisionist view is simply the union of two people who commit to romantically loving and caring for each other as well as sharing the benefits and burdens of domestic life. The revisionist believes that a same sex couple can have a marriage just as legitimate as any heterosexual couple. The end goal in this type of marriage is to unify the heart and soul of two people with love versus the conjugal view which aims to unify a man and woman with reproduction. The revisionist doesn’t see sex as a vital part of marriage. It’s looked at as something that’s secondary, and kind of like an added bonus. This is the view I side with.

One of the main points that a conjugalist would make to combat the revisionist argument, is that the right to marry who you love is not a fundamental right. Without concretely defining what marriage is, you leave holes in your argument when it comes to distinguishing which forms of marriage should be recognized. I mean if the right to marry who you love, then what’s to stop people from marrying their sister, or their dog, or an inanimate object? It’s important to explicitly define what marriage is. It’s important to set the proper guidelines based on what’s relevant and irrelevant relative to marriage.

Real marriage is the romantic and intellectual union between two human beings, who are not related, and who are of sound mind. The reason sex shouldn’t be taken into account, but something like kinship should be, is a matter of morality. A man and a man forming a romantic relationship is not inherently immoral, for the same reasons a man and woman can have a romantic relationship that isn’t inherently immoral. In both situations both people are of sound mind and generally unconfounded by any other factors. This allows them to form a proper romantic and intellectual bond with that other person. Uninhibited by outside factors, they can then clearly decide whether they want to continue being with that person. With matters of incest it’s different. Inherently there are factors that cloud the thought process in this situation. Whether it’s the dynamic between the members of that family, family hierarchy, or the values imprinted on the members in that family, the family dynamic can affect your judgement in this situation and impair your ability to make a clear conscious decision. The same way that alcohol or drugs can cloud your judgment, so can things involving family. This is what separates the idea of same sex marriage from relationships that legally shouldn’t be acknowledged as marriages.

The conjugalist views put a lot of emphasis on what they believe to be natural. They believe that men and women were made to be together. They believe that human bodies are naturally incomplete in relation to sexual reproduction, and they need to be biologically united to be whole. And naturally the only way to have a bodily union is between a man and a woman. However there are multiple forms of unions. So then why would bodily union need to be the form that gets emphasized the most in marriage? Marriage is widely regarded as being deeper than just legal documentation. It’s contradictory to then have one of the most superficial forms of unions be the deciding factor in whether a marriage is real or not. If you put together any man and woman, they would be able to have that bodily union,

A conjugalist would counter this by saying that the reason that it’s important that it’s exclusively a woman and man in marriage is due to reproduction. The act of having sex and reproducing creates a closer bond between the two people. If we accept that the only real marriages are between a man and woman with the end goal of reproduction and raising a child, then we are only addressing half of that equation. How the parents feel about and act towards each other is an important factor in the upbringing of a child. If you put a man and woman together who don’t really care for each other, raising a child wouldn’t make them care for each other more. It’d be like they were handcuffed into a situation in which they didn’t want to be in, which would cause more resentment towards each other. This would negatively impact the child they are supposed to be raising.  You could have a heterosexual married couple that fits all of the essential characteristics of a conjugal marriage, but the child’s upbringing could still suffer. With the prevalence of adoption in today’s society, different kinds of couples, such as homosexual and asexual couples, are able to raise kids. They would then be able to raise their child in a loving environment, which you wouldn’t be able to say about the heterosexual couple that doesn’t have that intellectual and romantic union. This is why a bodily union alone shouldn’t be an essential part of a marriage.

Although the argument behind the conjugal view is flawed based on the emphasis of a bodily union, that’s not necessarily the main issue. The premise that reproduction is the main purpose of marriage is the real problem. The idea that every married couple should be trying to have kids, while at one point in history may have worked, is outdated in today’s society. There are asexual couples, homosexual couples, as well as other types of couples that don’t fit into the conjugal view of what marriage is that are just as legitimate as couples that do fit.

Marriage is an important construct in society. The conjugal view is too narrow minded for today’s society. Heterosexual couples are not the perfect template for what marriage is. The divorce rate has been steadily increasing over the years due to lack of fulfillment. Emphasizing things like love and romance in marriages over things exclusivity, bodily unions, and reproduction will lead to more fulfillment in marriages.