Define "Marriage"

[Draka]

Ok. Very simple. Define what marriage is, WITHOUT using gender specific words. What is a marriage? What makes it real? (I'm NOT talking about in the eyes of the government. Just the concept of marriage itself.)

Is a marriage dependent upon love?
Commitment?
Legal papers?
Clergy blessing?
Ceremony?


There are a few issues that this definition affects. Namely: same sex marriage and "premarital" sex.

If a marriage is a loving commitment between two people then anyone can be married.

If a marriage is a matter of legal papers, then it is a secular thing and not a religious one and it matters not what any religion has to say about it.

If a marriage is a clergy blessed union then anyone of any religion can possibly be married regardless of any legal paperwork or whether they are homosexual or not.

If a marriage is dependent on some kind of "ceremony" then a couple could do that between themselves at home and they would be just as "married" as someone who got married in a church or courthouse.


So, which is it? What, regardless of anyone's gender, defines a marriage?

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Marriage is the consensual bond between people.

 

[zenzero]

Friend Draka,

Being single have nothing to offer except to say: just have fun!

Love & rgds

 

[Sunstone]

Marriage is a publicly committed to and witnessed pair bond.

 

[Venatoris]

A mutual vow of fidelity between two individuals.

 

[Kerr]

It is a bound of love between tow indiciduals... or should be, ideally. There is also a legal aspect.

 

[England my lionheart]

It is a loving sexual relationship with your very best freind

 

[zenzero]

Friend My Lion heart,

It is a loving sexual relationship with your very best freind

Hahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
so sex is the topmost recall in your mind?

Love & rgds

 

[McBell]

Ok. Very simple. Define what marriage is, WITHOUT using gender specific words. What is a marriage? What makes it real? (I'm NOT talking about in the eyes of the government. Just the concept of marriage itself.)

Is a marriage dependent upon love?
Commitment?
Legal papers?
Clergy blessing?
Ceremony?


There are a few issues that this definition affects. Namely: same sex marriage and "premarital" sex.

If a marriage is a loving commitment between two people then anyone can be married.

If a marriage is a matter of legal papers, then it is a secular thing and not a religious one and it matters not what any religion has to say about it.

If a marriage is a clergy blessed union then anyone of any religion can possibly be married regardless of any legal paperwork or whether they are homosexual or not.

If a marriage is dependent on some kind of "ceremony" then a couple could do that between themselves at home and they would be just as "married" as someone who got married in a church or courthouse.


So, which is it? What, regardless of anyone's gender, defines a marriage?

Marriage is a legal contract between two people.
Any and everything else that people add to it is merely fluff and window dressing.
Regardless of how emotionally attached to said fluff and window dressing people get.

 

[Willamena]

Ok. Very simple. Define what marriage is, WITHOUT using gender specific words. What is a marriage?

Marriage is a coming together of opposites to be one, in emulation of the relationship of individual to the divine.

What makes it real?

Realization of the relationship makes it real, whether the relationship of each individual to the divine and hence to the body of the marriage, or just the relationship of the individual to the other.

Is a marriage dependent upon love?
Commitment?
Legal papers?
Clergy blessing?
Ceremony?

I believe it is dependent upon love, commitment, and ceremony. The other two options represent human authority.

If a marriage is a loving commitment between two people then anyone can be married.

Yes.

If a marriage is a matter of legal papers, then it is a secular thing and not a religious one and it matters not what any religion has to say about it.

Where the papers represent something (the social contract, the commitment) then it can be a sacred thing as well as secular.

If a marriage is dependent on some kind of "ceremony" then a couple could do that between themselves at home and they would be just as "married" as someone who got married in a church or courthouse.

Yes.

 

[Autodidact]

Thanks for starting this thread. This is a question I think about a lot, wondering, if we were allowed to, do V. and I want to get married? I think marriage is a huge institution with a lot of history, some good and some bad. Marriage is the foundation of family. It can be a lifelong bond of love and partnership. It can also be arranged, abusive, empty, a merger of families, purely political, dramatically patriarchal and a lot of things I don't want any part of. So the question for us (purely hypothetical, unfortunately) is whether the institution can be saved, whether the good parts of it can be kept while the negative aspects wither away.

Our relationship is very important to both of us. It is based on truth, trust, commitment, passion and intimacy. Would marriage encourage and facilitate those things, or would it be detrimental?

We like to create our relationship the way we want it, not to just step into a pre-existing box. We've chosen to be sexually exclusive because we think that works best for us, not because someone else said it's a rule we have to follow. We allow each other a lot of space, freedom, independence, because we think that leads to healthier and happier individuals and, paradoxically, a truer intimacy. The bottom line, really important to us, is that we create our own unique relationship structure. Can that be done within the marital relationship?

 

[England my lionheart]

Friend My Lion heart,



Hahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
so sex is the topmost recall in your mind?

Love & rgds

Of course not Zen really i should have said something along the lines of Aristotle like Marriage is one soul shared by two bodies but hey we would all be reaching for the sick bags.

 

[blackout]

Marriage is a legal contract between two people.
Any and everything else that people add to it is merely fluff and window dressing.
Regardless of how emotionally attached to said fluff and window dressing people get.

In our society, I have to agree with mestemia
that marriage has come to mean a legal contract between two people.

This is why there is a battle over it.

If anyone could just "be" married who would be fighting?
But we have to GET married ...
in order to GET marriage rights.
And the giver of the legal contract/rights is the state.

If people wanted to keep the word "marriage" religious in nature,
they never should have handed marital authority over to the government.
I'd say it's much to late to complain now.

 

[Draka]

Thanks for starting this thread. This is a question I think about a lot, wondering, if we were allowed to, do V. and I want to get married? I think marriage is a huge institution with a lot of history, some good and some bad. Marriage is the foundation of family. It can be a lifelong bond of love and partnership. It can also be arranged, abusive, empty, a merger of families, purely political, dramatically patriarchal and a lot of things I don't want any part of. So the question for us (purely hypothetical, unfortunately) is whether the institution can be saved, whether the good parts of it can be kept while the negative aspects wither away.

Our relationship is very important to both of us. It is based on truth, trust, commitment, passion and intimacy. Would marriage encourage and facilitate those things, or would it be detrimental?

We like to create our relationship the way we want it, not to just step into a pre-existing box. We've chosen to be sexually exclusive because we think that works best for us, not because someone else said it's a rule we have to follow. We allow each other a lot of space, freedom, independence, because we think that leads to healthier and happier individuals and, paradoxically, a truer intimacy. The bottom line, really important to us, is that we create our own unique relationship structure. Can that be done within the marital relationship?

From what you've said about your relationship, I'd say, in my opinion, you are already married to each other. Now if only the government in not just other states, but the country, would just have the balls to chuck what some religious conservatives have to say about the issue out the window and let ALL its citizens have the same civil rights to have their marriages recognized legally, then you could be legally married if you wanted to. I guess it comes down to what you, in your own mind, think marriage is and if you really want it. If it's any consolation, if you lived here, I'd be more than willing to perform your wedding, all nice and legal.

 

[Draka]

So far, with the definitions I've seen, I haven't seen one that would go against same sex marriage. I've seen a couple that say that it is only a legal thing and nothing more, but I just don't see those particular people who have that view as ones that would even have an issue with premarital sex anyway, so I'm not really seeing anything against that either.

Interesting that I don't seem to be getting any answers from the ones here on RF that seem so adament about what a marriage can and can't be. I'd really like to see what their definitions of marriage really are.

 

[TheKnight]

I have a question before I answer, what would be considered a gender specific term?

 

[uu_sage]

Marriage is a union of two loving consensual individuals.

 

[Autodidact]

From what you've said about your relationship, I'd say, in my opinion, you are already married to each other. Now if only the government in not just other states, but the country, would just have the balls to chuck what some religious conservatives have to say about the issue out the window and let ALL its citizens have the same civil rights to have their marriages recognized legally, then you could be legally married if you wanted to. I guess it comes down to what you, in your own mind, think marriage is and if you really want it. If it's any consolation, if you lived here, I'd be more than willing to perform your wedding, all nice and legal.

Well, for example, we keep our money separate. We do some things jointly if we do a project together, and we support and help each other, but each have our accounts and put our own paychecks in there. If she wants to buy something, she buys it.

Or even her decision to move in here, it was her decision. She takes me into consideration, but her life is really up to her. Or regarding career, she consults me, but it's her life and her decision. We prefer that kind of model; it feels freer and more comfortable to us.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that for us it's about our love for each other, our emotional commitment, passion and intimacy. Our legal relationship is a practical thing to be concerned about, and we've done POAs and stuff, but our relationship isn't primarily about money or joint tenancy; it's about our love for each other. Marriage can be that--or not. You can be married and not love each other.

So the question is whether stepping into a structure that we didn't design would be conducive to strengthening our relationship?

 

[blackout]

Marriage is a union of two loving consensual individuals.

I'm not debating here, just wondering...
(especially because your UU )
Why only two?

 

[blackout]

Marriage is a union of two loving consensual individuals.

I'm not debating here, just wondering...
(especially because your UU )
Why only two?

Well that gets me thinking now actually.

Perhaps your definition can stand even in a poly situation.
Every larger configuration is made up of individual links of two.
So even if one were committed to two partners in a triad say,

A+B
B+C
C+A

There is a union between every partnership of the larger whole.

Still it pushes the bounds of the notion that you can't be married to more than one person at a time.

I really don't know WHY people feel committed unions should take place between only two partners.

Anyway... my 2 poly cents.