This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
How do you define 'marriage'?
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Gone
However, I'd caveat that with the point that although marriage is between two people, it doesn't exclude a person from being married to multiple people through several marriages. That is, a man with three wives (or woman with three husbands) has three marriages, or three partner-ings with three different people, not one umbrella marriage with four people.
Besides the wording whats the difference there? I mean weather its one big 'marriage' or a bunch of seperate ones involving the same person, it puts people in basicly the same situation.
Post by
Squishalot
Child custody rights, for one. Estate rules, for two. Anything to do with agency (the right to enter into contracts for others), for three. Basically, the three spouses won't share in the same rights as the polygamist in actions against each other.
To be clear - the beneficiary of a spouse dying would be 100% the polygamist, not split 33% each way between the polygamist and the two remaining spouses.(##RESPBREAK##)8##DELIM##Squishalot##DELIM##
Post by
Jubilee
Is polygamy acceptable in marriage?
Is homosexuality acceptable in marriage?
Legally? Morally? Socially?
I agree with Squishalot in theory. In practice the current system I don't believe is built to handle people being in more than one marriage at a time, so as long as the tax and custody laws could be amended, I think that would be fine.
Post by
MyTie
Wow, rez indeed. This thread wasn't green the last time it saw light!
My personal view - I see marriage as being between two people. That, by definition, excludes polygamy, and includes homosexuals.
However, I'd caveat that with the point that although marriage is between two people, it doesn't exclude a person from being married to multiple people through several marriages. That is, a man with three wives (or woman with three husbands) has three marriages, or three partner-ings with three different people, not one umbrella marriage with four people.
What is acceptable about saying a marriage is "between two people only", but not saying "a marriage is between a man and a woman only"? It seems a bit superficial to apply some limits to marriage, but not to others. Where do we draw the line, and who is the authority to enforce the line?
Post by
Gone
Child custody rights, for one. Estate rules, for two. Anything to do with agency (the right to enter into contracts for others), for three. Basically, the three spouses won't share in the same rights as the polygamist in actions against each other.
To be clear - the beneficiary of a spouse dying would be 100% the polygamist, not split 33% each way between the polygamist and the two remaining spouses.
Even if that works from a buisness sence, its still fraut the the potention for emotional and domestic problems.
Post by
Squishalot
Why do we say that a trustee of a trust can be an independent (or dependent) company, but not an independent individual, despite the fact the trustee can be a dependent individual (but only if all of the beneficiaries are trustees)? Where's the logic behind that?
Arguably, it's the government of the day who draws the line and enforces it. How we define it doesn't really matter in the grander scheme of things. As Jubilee points out - if the rest of the system were sufficiently modified, we'd be able to handle polygamous marriages. However, where the system only adequately deals with marriage between two people, a polygamous 'umbrella' marriage cannot fit within it.
For now, given that the broader legal system treats marriage as a contract between two people without having any particularly problematic legal points in relation to the gender of said people (e.g. specific legislation talking about how a MAN has these rights in a marriage and a WOMAN has these other rights), it would be reasonable to broaden the term to include homosexual couples.
Even if that works from a buisness sence, its still fraut the the potention for emotional and domestic problems.
Ah, that's entirely a different issue.
That being said, polygamy works currently in the Middle East, and worked exceptionally well (all things considered) in past-China.(##RESPBREAK##)8##DELIM##Squishalot##DELIM##
Post by
91278
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Jubilee
I'm completely fine with civil unions and whatnot, even giving them the same rights as regular marriages, but I refuse to call them marriages. It's a matter of principle.
A "manual metal tilling implement" is a fork, even if you don't call it a fork.
But what if it wants to get married?
Post by
91278
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
KingdomKnight
mar·riage
noun \ˈmer-ij, ˈma-rij\
Definition of MARRIAGE
1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage> b : the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
2: an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
3: an intimate or close union
Like this.
Post by
asakawa
I can define
my
marriage.
It's an agreement between myself and the person I love to be faithful* to each other.
I don't really believe in what is the generally accepted/understood meaning of "marriage" - rather, I don't really believe in defining it at all.
My
marriage is an intimate thing between me and my partner. If there are legal proceedings that go with sharing your life with someone then I think they should be handled in a legal way (with a trip to your lawyer's to sign some papers). If one's religious views required you to carry out a religious ceremony to be married then you must be free to express yourself in that way.
Just as I wouldn't want to limit someone's ability to have a religious ceremony of their choice, I wouldn't consider my own lifestyle** reason to inhibit someone else should they wish to marry any (or any number of) consenting adult(s). These cases may be more complicated but I don't see that as a reason to limit things on principle.
* The word "faithful" has connotations so, to be clear, this doesn't necessarily preclude extra-marital relationships though it usually would.
**
I
'm a heterosexual atheist. Your marriage is
your
business - not mine, nor the government's, nor any church's (nor a forum for that matter ^_^).
(I just want to add that, while I don't really believe in the "institution", I think it's wonderful to find someone that makes you so happy that you want to share everything with them and I think that the expression of that should be unfettered!)(##RESPBREAK##)8##DELIM##asakawa##DELIM##
Post by
pezz
Fine, as long as it is getting married to a spade, apparently.
So, so excellent.
Child custody rights, for one. Estate rules, for two. Anything to do with agency (the right to enter into contracts for others), for three. Basically, the three spouses won't share in the same rights as the polygamist in actions against each other.
To be clear - the beneficiary of a spouse dying would be 100% the polygamist, not split 33% each way between the polygamist and the two remaining spouses.
Even if that works from a buisness sence, its still fraut the the potention for emotional and domestic problems.
Right, because one man and one woman marriages aren't fraught with potential for emotional and domestic problems? The simple way to avoid more of those in a polygamous marriage than you'd get in any other marriage is not to get into a situation you don't want to be in. I'd never ever get myself into a polygamous marriage, because it isn't what I personally want out of life. It's a different story between three or four people who DO want that out of life.
Post by
gamerunknown
I think I'll use this as my definition:
You know what, it doesn't matter if you're married or not, as long as you're happy with your significant other, and you don't hurt them physically or emotionally.
Although I haven't met many theistic agnostics so far.
I haven't met any Coptic Gnostics, funnily enough. Ololol.
The public declaration between a man and woman before God of their eternal devotion to each other.
If we use the NT definition of marriage, we've got a lot to pare back from the modern system. Paul explicitly touts the virtues of remaining a virgin, saying that marriage is the next best thing for those that cannot fulfil that spiritual calling. Jesus decries divorce except in the case of adultery, but also says there is no marriage after heaven (it would be awkward if one got married after a spouse died and met the old wife in heaven). I think that in order to remain constant, the ultimate echelon of marriage would be defined as marriage solely for procreation. Using the rhythm method would be conniving, but natural. Hand jobs, anal sex, use of prophylaxis, blow jobs, any other form of irrumatio, sex after menopause, sex where one partner is infertile: I can't differentiate the other forms of sex from the second. The Catholic Church would be remarkably consistent on all apart from the last two (and follows the Biblical prohibition for divorce), so can be lauded for that much. The separate, "give to Rome what is Rome's" issue of the benefits of marriage such as tax cuts, adoption rights (studies show gay couples make just as good parents), inheritance, hospital visiting hours, that kind of stuff, I think could be separated so that any kind of professed union or signature (thus allowing civil and polygamous unions) would be enough. At the moment several states only recognise married men and women for such things. Also, there may be constitutional precedence for not saying that homosexual partners can have separate but equal status.
Those issues are important in terms of polygamy too: would there be an upper limit? Because I'm sure many more people than are currently marrying would do so for the temporal benefits rather than the tradition of love. It'd also be much more difficult to evenly divide estates and craft fair prenuptial agreements and a prenuptial where one partner is treated better than the other would be a tad harsh, for example. Which leads to my next issue:
as a male, i'd prefer polygamy...... :(
That being said, polygamy works currently in the Middle East
Polygamy is a patriarchal practice, probably derived from the Coolidge Effect. It benefits men as they have a refractory period while women don't and men historically have sought to impregnate as many different women as possible, while women have sought a stable partnership. This drive manifests itself in modern society with women wanting men to have emotional fidelity (even if men have a fling, they'll clearly care for their children more), while men want women to have sexual fidelity. I'm not saying there isn't room for individual differences (homosexuals and asexuals are good examples), nor am I advocating evolutionary Darwinism. I'd argue that polygamy works from an economic standpoint but not an emotional one in the Middle East: a man cannot spend equal time with each of his wives every night and a man cannot get pregnant. His eldest son will also likely be the primary heir (the Quran provides more explicit rules about males inheriting more, one can look them up if one wishes). Perhaps polygamy could work should one strip away male privilege (in both inheritance and exclusivity of having multiple partners), the dowry system and arranged marriages.
Post by
Gone
Idk how "well" polygamy works in the mid east tbh, I don't wanna sound like Joe American Guy here, but if the majority of the middle east ever catches up to the rest of the world as far as civil rights go, then I don't think polygamy will work any better there than it does anywhere els in the world.
Post by
gnomerdon
marraige is a holy communion between man and wife through god that they will be love each other and never be apart.
in the united states, marriage is a contract in which the poorer one will divorce the rich one down the line to get 50% of their assets or reap child support benefits.
Post by
91278
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
I think when government law regulates the marriage, which is a religious ceremony by definition, it violates the constitution. Further, I think that if a church wants to marry a man, a man, another man, and a carrot under the umbrella of marriage in the eyes of the spaghetti monster they worship, that should be their right. Government shouldn't give preferential treatment or legality to any form of religious ceremony. What I'm saying is I don't believe that heterosexual marriage should be illegal or legal, nor should polygamy, nor should homosexual marriage, or marriage with a carrot. The government should be blind to marriage.
Post by
Jubilee
I think when government law regulates the marriage, which is a religious ceremony by definition, it violates the constitution. Further, I think that if a church wants to marry a man, a man, another man, and a carrot under the umbrella of marriage in the eyes of the spaghetti monster they worship, that should be their right. Government shouldn't give preferential treatment or legality to any form of religious ceremony. What I'm saying is I don't believe that heterosexual marriage should be illegal or legal, nor should polygamy, nor should homosexual marriage, or marriage with a carrot. The government should be blind to marriage.
How does custody work then?
Post by
gamerunknown
How does custody work then?
I wont speak for MyTie, but it would be possible to separate the marriage vows and the marriage contract, i.e have the vows in whichever establishment is sacred to you, then sign the contract legally at city hall. Who is entitled to be bound by contract can be arbitrated by the government (i.e a carrot can't inherit one's possessions, if there is already an exclusive contract one can't enter into another).
Post by
gnomerdon
If that's the case, then what point is there to a marriage vows. It has just as much pretty words as a contract has. They need to be completely separate, yet both sides have to have the same equal rights as other couple.
Marriage should only be for man and women only, as stated in the bible.
There should be a new term for couples who doesn't want to do the church way, yet still reap the same benefits and disadvantages as a married couple. Let's call it, carriage for now.
That's what you call a prenuptial agreement, gamerrunknown.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.