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
Asylu
Well, not according to religion, you know, religion defining God to have created the world, and religion to have existed from day one.
But that's going into religion versus atheism debate, and that's derailing the thread, as long as you know what I'm talking about, and I know what you're talking about, it's good.
What about religions that are not monotheistic that predate Judaism (the precursor to Christianity)? The Hindu faith as well as
aboriginal
beliefs and marriage systems were in place before long before Judaism was an organized (please try and remember that the Hebrews were first and foremost a tribal society, not a religion. They did not take converts until much, much later.)sect.
But once more...derailing the tread.
Post by
blademeld
Even if religion existed from day #1, Christianity didn't.
The belief is that God created the covenant of marriage when he first created man, and it's that understanding of marriage that Christianity embraces as its own.
This is why I used the term religion instead of Christianity.
What about religions that are not monotheistic that predate Judaism (the precursor to Christianity)?
I didn't want to go into detail, like for instance, there's no set rules about marriage in Buddhism.
Like I said before, as long as you understand and I understand... (in general context)
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.
Post by
138638
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
blademeld
Not necessarily, it can be done to gain citizenship or for other non-romantic reasons; in these cases love and romance play no role in the marriage
Unfortunately, I have to agree on this one. There are too many benefits compared to the consequences. Marriage can be a thing of convenience.
Post by
80642
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
blademeld
I define marriage as a legally binding agreement (a.k.a. contract) created between two people to share everything they own and everything they are. This applies to same-sex couples as well as "traditional" couples.
Just to chime in, you can have the marriage documents so that you don't share everything equally.
Which is relatively common practise for trophy spouses I believe.
Post by
80642
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
blademeld
This applies to same-sex couples as well as "traditional" couples.
Traditionally, everything is shared through the partnership.
Made me giggle. (not that it's a bad thing)
Post by
91604
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
wolfeyoung
Not necessarily, it can be done to gain citizenship or for other non-romantic reasons; in these cases love and romance play no role in the marriage
Unfortunately, I have to agree on this one. There are too many benefits compared to the consequences. Marriage can be a thing of convenience.
I don't know about other countries, but in the US there is a "marriage tax". Two incomes combined could cause the couple to move into a higher tax bracket; now they pay a higher percentage than what they would had they not married but just lived together.
It's not always a benefit to marry.
Post by
327953
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
twsX
A completely redundant and dogmatic bond-but-really-isn't that is abused or evaded (depending on where you live) for tax reasons because backwards legislation in governments which may or may not be backwards still acknowledge its actually-meaningless meaning.
Also, while being a strong proponent of LGBT rights, I have a hard time supporting the endless and resource wasting fight for gay marriage. The bond is virtual. The legislative issues (taxes, insurance, heir) should be fought. Not the right to marriage.
Quite obviously, I am a very religious, Christian person.
Off Topic: You didn't answer the question because stating you're an Agnostic means nothing about what you believe, only your level of certainty in which you believe.This is true of course. Although I haven't met many theistic agnostics so far.
On Topic: Personally Religion only plays a small part in Marriage (when it is applicable)This is not true for a big share of marriages.
Post by
606231
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
buzz3070
While i would consider myself a regular i dont think ive stated my religious viewpoint, i consider myself agnostic im not going to outright dismiss that god does not exist's but to truly believe im going to need empirical proof a higher being such as god exists.
Off Topic: You didn't answer the question because stating you're an Agnostic means nothing about what you believe, only your level of certainty in which you believe. When you say "God" which religious backgroud are you speaking from? Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, etc?
On Topic: Personally Religion only plays a small part in Marriage (when it is applicable); The rituals / traditions / ceremonies. Aside from that its about the lowest common denominator; The union of people that is legally and / or socially acknowledged.
Off topic
I guess for some clarification i was speaking of god as in Christianity. I guess im one of those people who when you say god you automatically think of the christian god.
Post by
Adamsm
Serious answer: To people(gender doesn't really matter), deciding to spend their lives together, to love and support one another, to be there for the good and the bad, and to at least try to work out there problems and take the hard route instead of the easy one.
Joke answer: Let everyone get married, then, they can all be miserable together.
Post by
seebs
Marriage is a way of creating a family unit from people who were (usually) not previously family. Depending on time and culture it may be built around providing for kids, providing for the partner who otherwise wouldn't own property, allocating inheritable resources, or any of a number of other things; the details vary from one culture to another, as do the number or sex of the participants. Of some note, this is particularly a cultural thing; "marriage" tends to be not just a relationship between the participants, but a change in the way the participants relate to the rest of their society.
I don't see any particular basis for restricting number of participants or sex of participants.
FWIW, I'm a fairly militant Christian, I'm just the sort that looks at the Hebrew patriarchs and concludes that there is not a compelling case for claiming that the Bible mandates monogamy. :)
Post by
blademeld
I don't know about other countries, but in the US there is a "marriage tax". Two incomes combined could cause the couple to move into a higher tax bracket; now they pay a higher percentage than what they would had they not married but just lived together.
It's not always a benefit to marry.
This is true, however, this is a mute point for most people getting married for benefits, whether it be health insurance, welfare, citizenship, et al.
Of some note, this is particularly a cultural thing; "marriage" tends to be not just a relationship between the participants, but a change in the way the participants relate to the rest of their society.
Agreed.
I don't see any particular basis for restricting number of participants or sex of participants.
"Tradition", also, people can abuse systems where there are no limits to the number of participants.
There's also the fact that two people
can be
more intimate than three people ever could. That's also a mute point, considering how lightly some people take marriage.
Post by
seebs
I don't see any particular basis for restricting number of participants or sex of participants.
"Tradition", also, people can abuse systems where there are no limits to the number of participants.
Well, the thing is, if you go by
tradition
, there's very strong historical tradition for more-than-two people. Abuse, well... I'm not sure how much of a problem it is. I don't know what the abuses would be. Presuming that we stick with the firm consent requirements, I don't think it's likely to be a serious problem.
There's also the fact that two people
can be
more intimate than three people ever could. That's also a mute point, considering how lightly some people take marriage.
I'm not particularly convinced by that. I've known some triads that seem to be just as intimate, and perhaps more stable. But even if we grant that a two-person relationship may be more intimate, I'm not sure it's society's job to mandate that people can have only those relationships with the maximum potential for intimacy. So basically, unless it's clear that it's very harmful, I'm inclined to say "okay, whatever you want, guys".
Basically, I feel the harm done by trying to deny marital status to people who deserve it is very grave, and the harm done by allowing it to people who don't is trivial. I'd rather err on the side of freedom.
Post by
UnholyDeciever
I really don't have a religion and do not need one. On subject I think a marriage is a union between two people and even if they are same sex marriages, nobody should have the right to stop them from being together legally.
Post by
144978
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.