Define Marriage

[mb7588a]

My stab at it:

Marriage is the legal union and social right of two people. This right is a choice of the individual to marry whom that individual pleases and requires a consenting second party.

[Edge]

1. Marriage is a legal union between two people--

male & female, male & male, and female & female--who love each other.

[foreigncorrespondent]

2. Marriage...

..is the commitment to sharing a monogomous life together by two adults who truly love one another.

[TexasMexican]

3. a man and a women.

flame away.

[mb7588a]

5. Flame!

:grr:

kidding. You're entitled to your opinion. In your opinion, should "betwen a man and a woman" also be the legal defintion? Not just the sacred?

[TexasMexican]

6. I'm not really sure.

Personally I dont think people should get any special legal benefits for being married, if you have kids and you are raising them then you should get something for that, but not just for being married.

[stevedeshazer]

9. Why? n/t

[Terran]

58. I've asked him or her that before

on a previous thread, and received no answer.

So tell us, sir/madam, can you state any rational legal basis for denying gay people the right to marry?

[BlueEyedSon]

8. .... of the same race and faith only....

ROTFLMAO!

[ulysses]

19. a man and a *women*?

Polygamy?

[pintobean]

30. I assume....

...English is his second language and he meant woman.

[AP]

4. Marriage is a spiritual relationship the government should get its nose

out of.

Confer the rights and burdens on people who want them. Don't ask them to meet some spiritual threshold as well.

Gov'ts should ONLY give civil unions to any two people who want them. If you want to find someone to marry you too, go for it, but it should be required to trigger the legal rights and burdens your gov't endows you with.

[Mattforclark]

7. Civil Marriage is when

people decide fill out a form. The form then gives them a different legal status from non-legally married persons.

[Nobody]

10. Here's my stab at it

Marriage is a commitment by two people to spend the rest of their lives together. (I do think that people, being people and not perfect, make mistakes occasionally, so I have no objection to divorce, but you should go into a marriage with the idea that it's going to be forever. None of this Britney Spears crap)

[Terwilliger]

11. Marriage is the cementing commitment to a lifelong partnership

it isn't necessarily a religious idea

[canuckagainstBush]

12. "Marriage is a legal contract between two persons" n/t

[BlueCollar]

13. a religious concept

traditionally and historically defined as a spiritually approved union between a man and a woman which allows for the legal procreation of the species?

[MurikanDemocrat]

14. A legal union between two consenting people

[TeeYiYi]

15. I believe that marriage is . . .

. . . a sacred and legally binding union between one blue-eyed blonde-haired Catholic man and one blue-eyed blonde-haired Catholic woman, sealed in the Catholic Church in Rome, by the Pope, for time and all eternity and legally sanctioned by Federal Law, making all fruits of the union eligible for special privileges and tax breaks based on the quality and quantity of children sired as a direct result of the marriage. This may also apply to Mormons and Protestants, but not to Baptists. And Mormons definitely CANNOT be married if either the man or the woman has brown hair or brown eyes. This is not negotiable and will definitely nullify the marriage. With Protestants, at least one of the married partners has to have blonde hair AND blonde eyes or they are automatically ineligible for the marriage umbrella. Anything outside of this description is not marriage at all and anyone who doesn't agree with me needs to just get used to it and accept the fact that I'm right.

TYY

[foreigncorrespondent]

16. Well said!

Brava!

[mb7588a]

17. I guess i'm going to hell then? :( nt

[TeeYiYi]

18. Oh yeah . . .

. . . if your personal definition of marriage doesn't match mine . . . YOU'RE GOING TO HELL!:evilfrown: Sorry.

TYY:bounce:

[Muddleoftheroad]

20. Questions?

Why two?

What about father/daughter or mother/son? Or sister/brother? Again, all adults of course.

[pintobean]

21. More

sister/sister(s) or brother/brother(s)?

[mondo joe]

22. About mother/father or sister/brother, or more than 2

1. Society has a real interest in discouraging incest as it heightens the liklihood of heritable defects.

That said, I don't think much needs to be done to prevent it - if you made sibling marriage legal tomorrow you wouldn't see a massive rush of brothers and sisters exchanging vows.

2. The number two.

Personally I don't care if 2 people or 20 people want to marry - and certainly the bible god didn't care in the old days. But for the civil function of marriage, it has to be a system that can be administered within reason. Marriage and divorce law is complex enough with 2 partners - more than 2 would increase the complexity and make it unmanageable.

[Muddleoftheroad]

26. Continuing

Well, I agree society has an interest in preventing incest, so my definition would still prevent that.

I do care about the number of parents. I don't think our society is ready to cope with polygamy on any scale and I think it would be massively disruptive.

[mondo joe]

32. What is your concern about the number of parents?

Many kids effectively have 4 parents now - 2 biological parents and 2 step parents.

Is that a problem for you?

[Muddleoftheroad]

34. The time delay

Helps clarify the situation both for the child and under the law. However, I do think parents are often more concerned about their own happiness rather than their children's.

[ulysses]

23. oh for fuck's sake.

How is the comparison between gay marriage and incest or polygamy *not* a complete straw man and totally dishonest?

[Muddleoftheroad]

25. This thread is about defining marriage

It relates 100%.

[ulysses]

27. it would relate

if anyone was talking about legalizing incest or polygamy. Since no one is, it doesn't relate at all.

[Muddleoftheroad]

28. You are dodging the whole topic

The topic is our definitions of marriage. The original post said:

"Marriage is the legal union and social right of two people. This right is a choice of the individual to marry whom that individual pleases and requires a consenting second party."

Clearly, that definition allows for incest. I object to that idea and it is a worthy point to make. Also, since the definition clearly states "two people," my question was why.

[mondo joe]

29. I answered you

See above.

[Muddleoftheroad]

35. "I answered you"

Also see above.

[ulysses]

33. ok, then

Maybe mb won't mind an addendum:

"Marriage is the legal union and social right of two people. This right is a choice of the individual to marry whom that individual pleases and requires a consenting second party not genetically related any more closely than (fill in the blank - not sure how far the relation should be)."

Better?

As to why two, I like the Socratic idea that we're all split in two (not three or five) at birth and spend our lives searching for our other half, personally.

[Muddleoftheroad]

36. Close

"Marriage is the legal union and social right of two adults. This right is a choice of the individual to marry whom that individual pleases and requires a consenting second party not genetically related any more closely than second cousin."

[ulysses]

37. works for me.

:shrug:

[arewethereyet]

38. why adults and what IS an adult ?

[Muddleoftheroad]

39. Adults

Why adults? Because kids can't marry. As for what is an adult, I would say age 18, though I know the state laws vary on this topic.

[arewethereyet]

48. so then kids CAN marry

[Muddleoftheroad]

51. No

[arewethereyet]

53. why ?

I know people under 18 far more capable of understanding life choices than some others well past 18.

Is age not kind of arbitrary ?

[mondo joe]

54. Age limits are, to some degree, arbitrary

Society must define some age of reason at which children are competent to provide informed consent.

It's got to be SOME age - so we have the age limits we have.

It should, however, be noted that age limits create only a temporary limitation on citizens.

[arewethereyet]

57. why does it have to ?

why must there be some arbitrary limit ? Who is to say if they are competent or not apart form the couple and whatever family they might have ?

[Muddleoftheroad]

61. Because that is the only way to sort it out

We set age limits for all sorts of things -- drinking, driving, military service, sex and, yes, marriage.

[arewethereyet]

62. why does love require sorting out ?

[Muddleoftheroad]

63. To prevent perverts from preying on those who are young

And taking advantage of those who are not ready to make major life decisions.

[arewethereyet]

77. so its the sex then

you disapprove of that sex

[Muddleoftheroad]

80. Huh?

I disapprove of taking advantage of those who are not ready to make major life decisions. Those include sex, money and marriage and ALL three fall under marriage.

[arewethereyet]

81. but young men take advantage of older women via marriage

and golddiggers to older men all trading sex for money.

So its really the sex at issue in age related marriage thinking.

So who's opinion of what OK sex is should prevail ?

[Muddleoftheroad]

82. Adults can make all the choices they wish

Children cannot. Those include choices of marriage, sex, money, where to live, etc.

[mb7588a]

47. I'll agree to that adendum. Well done.

[Muddleoftheroad]

52. Thanks

It's a damn civil rights issue. Boy I wish more African-Americans saw that.

[ulysses]

64. Wow.

You're going to take credit? Wow.

[Muddleoftheroad]

66. Not taking credit

Glad to reach agreement. The issue is bigger than any of us.

[RainDog]

42. answers to muddle's questions

the reason that incest is not allowed is because of the problems of inbreeding, combined with the acknowledged problem of muddling the relationship of parent and child...incest prohibition, except in ancient Egypt, as far as I remember...they did marry brothers and sisters in the royal line over generations...anyway, incest prohibition has been a pretty consistent issue.

unlike Greece, our democratic predecessor, which honored the homosexual relationships as "true love" while the marriage between a man and a woman was a necessity to produce children.

as far as why two...because that has been the tradition in western society except for some cases, like the mormons.

the Chinese and the Arab cultures have long had polygamy as an accepted policy. However, this policy only applies to the very, very rich, because they were the only ones who could afford to maintain such a large household.

many times brothers would marry the widows of siblings in order to provide for nephews and nieces.

if you remember your bible, ruth's mother-in-law, Naomi, told ruth to go sleep with boaz in order to have protection (aka marriage). I think I remember that boaz was also a relative of some sort.

I also think that traditionally, Jewish men were supposed to marry the widows of their brothers, too, if they weren't yet married, but I could be wrong about that one.

So, again, marriage has been a way to provide support for family members which need "protection" when they have no legal or civil rights of their own. women couldn't own property or vote for a long time in this nation. marriage was a way to give women "rights" by their association with a man.

sort of like slaves who were a percentage of a human being, as far as their masters were concerned, when it came time to vote.

[Muddleoftheroad]

46. I am sure not advocating it

Just seeking clarity.

[Nikia]

24. Two people joined legally and socially

For the purpose of starting a new family. I don't mean that they have to have children as conservatives suggest to have a new family. I mean that their partnership is recognized legally and socially as a family. If they have children, the children belong to that family and the families of both partners.
This is why it is important that marriage should continue and it should include same sex partners.

[DU GrovelBot]

31. ## Support Democratic Underground! ##

RUN C:\GROVELBOT.EXE
 
This week is our first quarter 2004 fund drive.
Please take a moment to donate to DU. Thank you
for your support.
 
- An automated message from the DU GrovelBot

Click here to donate.

[Beaker]

40. you'll never know the meaning of true happiness until you're married-

but then it's too late.

[RainDog]

41. marriage is many things. to the state...

marriage enforces certain rights, obligations and privleges between consenting adults.

if I remember correctly, back in puritan times, no one got married unless they were going to have a baby, otherwise, why was marriage useful or needed, accordint to these religious people.

they would "bundle" a couple in a bed and if the female got preggers, then marriage would ensue.

the chief use of marriage, traditionally, has been to claim paternity for children, since mothers, unless they are rich enough to be able to afford a nanny, need support in order to survive with small children, and beyond, since the time someone takes to raise a child makes that person lower down on the economic scale.

and before this, of course, marriage was a privlege reserved for the aristocracy, since they were the ones so concerned with paternity with the issues of inheritance of property.

no one cared if the poor got married because they had no property to pass along, no power to vest in an inheritor, and thus no reason for state recognition of a union.

in those times, of course, people didn't get married for love, either. they got married to cement power relationships, alliances between countries or principalities, and it had nothing to do with love and even less to do with any religious idea of god joining a man and woman together.

if two men or two women could have had children, no doubt they would have had the right to marry when the issue was who got the dough.

when some men couldn't spit out viable seed, of course, women would also have a little bit on the side to produce an heir.

of course, most Americans want to romanticize marriage, but the truth of the matter was, and remains, the dispersion of property and rights of one individual to another both within and after that person's lifetime.

[alcuno]

43. Marriage is a sacrament.

Personally, I think that the states should get out of the marriage business and leave it up to the churches. People could them enter into a contract through the state if they wanted to.

[RainDog]

44. marriage is only a sacrement

if you belong to a church.

the church added marriage as a sacrement, but it didn't begin that way.

so what right do you have to say that people who are not religious are not entitled to marry, if the state acknowledges the concept of marriage?

if you were only married in a church, your marriage would not be a legal and binding entity.

I think the church should get its nose out of the biz of people who are not religious and stop acting like it invented marriage.

[alcuno]

72. In the Catholic Church, you'd still be married.

I'm sorry that we can't agree, but I believe that marriage is a sacrament. It doesn't really matter when it was added. The legal question is not a relevant one for the Church. If you get married in the Church, you're married whether the state recognizes it or not.

This is the fundamental problem; we can't all agree on what constitutes marriage. I never said that people who are not religious are not entitled to marry. The question from the original poster was to "Define Marriage." I did. It's just not your definition.

[dawn]

45. Marriage is only a sacrament in the church

I don't need a church telling me how to get married. I'm Buddhist and my husband is Christian...we decided to marry via a justice of the peace. No Christian church would marry us unless I agreed to their terms. I also didn't want to force everyone attending my wedding to hear about the dharma. :)

[JasonDeter]

49. For this reason

The Bible:

Genesis 2:24
For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh.

Genesis 2:25
And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed.

......
Couldn't be put any better than that.

[mondo joe]

50. What makes you think the bible is the law?

The bible is an appropriate guide to marriage for Christians - or at least it's appropriate for them to debate it.

It has no place in US law or US civil rights.

[JasonDeter]

55. mb7588a put the question outl; Define marriage.

I did. What the Bible says has been the definition of marriage for (at least!) hundreds of years! Just because a few people want to change the definition doesn't negate the origional definition of marriage! Again, what the Bible has defined marriage to be IS WHAT has been the norm for hundreds of years! You can't deny that!

[arewethereyet]

56. thousands of years but who's counting ?

[mondo joe]

59. Sorry - I thought the point was a useful definition, not...

Sorry - I thought the point was a useful definition, not an extralegal one.

[JasonDeter]

76. Well according to arewethereyet,

it has been a useful one for 1000's of years! hehe

[arewethereyet]

78. yes, thats the case.

[ulysses]

60. except that civil law isn't, and shouldn't be,

based on Genesis.

[OhioStateProgressive]

65. my definition

marriage is the biggest social construct ever created

either we allow all, from all walks of life, to take part so should they choose...or we deconstruct the institution entirely

[Muddleoftheroad]

67. Or not

That's a pretty absolutist view and I think 90% of people in U.S. would disagree. Take a look at the definitions we came up with above and see what you think.

[OhioStateProgressive]

68. the question was asked to give an opinion

I gave mine

[Muddleoftheroad]

69. That's fine

But your post is an unrealistic goal then.

[OhioStateProgressive]

70. i don't believe it is

I believe two people, not related previously have the right to marry

the construct can either be changed to allow those conditions, or it can wither and die

[Muddleoftheroad]

71. Your follow-up post seems to disagree with your previous

Your previous post said, "either we allow all, from all walks of life, to take part so should they choose...or we deconstruct the institution entirely"

That's decidedly different. So it appears we are in agreement then. Two people, no incest.

[OhioStateProgressive]

73. who here is proposing incest?

no one

my first post assumes the debate is about two gay people wanting to get married...and since the concrete debate before us as a nation is about gay marriage, I think my post is the same in each instance

[Muddleoftheroad]

74. My posts were based on the thread at that point

Which had also covered polygamy and incest. But it doesn't matter. We agree and let's leave it on that good note.

[OhioStateProgressive]

75. it's all good:)

:toast:

[CityZen-X]

79. Who Cares...

it is not an issue that will determine the outcome of our world and our Future Vision what so ever. Love one another, and don't be a curse the other, for their love!
LOVE IS ALL WE NEED!

[mb7588a]

83. I'm truly amazed!

I think the most important lesson we can take from this thread is that support for or against gay marriage/unions is not along party lines, assuming 90% of this forum is Democrats. It's a strange question i posed, that crosses into a person's religion, life experiences, and maybe even geography - rarely their politics.