Hey, Spunkets, Ocober 22,1999
Marriage is a societal contract. Thats why you have a representative of your society preside over it. The man and the woman agree to stay together for a number of reasons, but the reason that the contract exists in the first place is because those two are statistically likely to produce children. Societies can't exist without children, and they need a mechanism to ensure that those children are protected and raised by both parents.
Marriage is a vow that promises to be responsibile for that upon which civilization rests.
So, while a marriage is a mutually agreed contract between a man and a woman, the contract is enforced by society, because society can't exist without it. If the only people that were involved in the process were the man and the woman, we wouldn't need marriage at all.
This is true of all contracts. For instance, if people routinely got away with not paying off their mortgages, we would soon end up living in caves because nobody would bother to build houses.
The state may legitimately get involved in people's private agreements when one party fails to live up the deal (or is accused of doing so) -- not otherwise.
No it is not. The contract is between the parties involved and they do not include society.
" So, while a marriage is a mutually agreed contract between a man and a woman, the contract is enforced by society, because society can't exist without it."
The contract itself is not enforced. In fact, most States allow disolution w/o cause. One party simply says it doesn't exist any more and the State sides with that party. The State then acts to distribute marital property and gives custody of the children to one of the parties. For that determination, no weight is given to any moral breach of the original contract, or breach of cultureal mores.