What is Marriage?

[joe hx]

This is a question I came up with after I finally made an opinion on the gay marriage debate: I don't think the government should recognize marriage at all.

So if there is no government definition, no government regulation, and no government documentation of marriage, then what is marriage? Would it only be defined in a religious context? What about atheists?

Anyways my definition is somewhat like this: Two people who love each other sexually and romantically, living together with shared responsibilities.

[Gravekeeper]

It's largely been either a private, business or political arrangement until religion started butting in. If I recall right. Honestly, religion only provides ceremony, so they should butt out of the civil/legal side of it.

Amusingly, the oldest known marriage law was Babylonian and basically said if you didn't bone your wife, she wasn't your wife. >.>

[Greenday]

Honestly, religion only provides ceremony, so they should butt out of the civil/legal side of it.

How about just separating Church and State? Oh wait, that supposedly already exists...

[MaggieTheCat]

Hmm...I'm not really sure how to answer the OP's question, but this isn't offtopic. My husband and I had about the least religious wedding that we could. It was in a precinct of the courthouse, performed by a justice of the peace. I think there may still have been some mention of God during the ceremony...I don't remember the exact wording. But it still wasn't religious.

As for WHY we got married, insurance was honestly a big part of it. We've known for a long time now that we love each other and want to be together forever, and were basically acting as husband/wife before we actually got married. Sleeping together (including sex), living together, sharing responsibilities, etc. We decided to get married sooner rather than later so I could get under his health insurance. Since I work from home, I don't get employer health insurance and his is really cheap, so it was better than me picking up an independent plan. So if insurance hadn't been an issue, would we still have gotten married? Probably, although maybe not as soon as we did. It's not a big deal to us, we don't believe that two people need to sign a piece of paper to say they're going to be together forever in order for them to be together forever. But we do love each other very much and agreed that our first and foremost reason for getting married was because we love each other, NOT insurance. The insurance factor just helped us determine the timing.

Okay, not sure if that made sense. I'm still pretty tired.

Getting back to the original question, if there was no government involvement in marriage, then I would think a wedding would just be a ceremony of whatever the couple decided (religious or not) and that "marriage" itself would still mean that two people love each other and are dedicated to each other forever. I think atheists or others who didn't want to have a religious wedding could still have a wedding, it would just be more... "generic", like the one my husband and I had. Generic isn't really the word I'm looking for. More like they make up their own vows/ceremony, or use what our JoP used during our wedding, with no religious context.

[Mr Slugger]

I think atheists or others who didn't want to have a religious wedding could still have a wedding, it would just be more... "generic", like the one my husband and I had.

Well I believe it's probably more like a professing love for each other ceremony

[Boozy]

This is a question I came up with after I finally made an opinion on the gay marriage debate: I don't think the government should recognize marriage at all.

It's too convenient not to recognize marriage.

My husband and I are not religious people, but we got married because for one simple piece of paper, we received:

- Recognition by the CRA (like the IRS) that we are a family unit and should be taxed accordingly

- Recognition by hospitals, etc, that we are "next of kin"

- Automatic "right of survivorship" over the other's accounts if something should happen to one of us

- Insurance coverage under each other's plans

etc, etc, etc.

And we don't even have kids. If we do, there's another whole list of benefits.

It's too unwieldy for people to sign separate documents for each and every little thing. Civil unions recognized by the government are a good thing. They just need to be more inclusive so as to recognize gay couples.

[RecoveringKinkoid]

Because of the list of benefits Boozy listed, I think any consenting adult you choose as a domestic partner should be someone who is it is legal to be in a marriage with.

If you want a religious marriage, fine. But that is not the same thing as a legal domestic partnership and a civil contract, which should be open to all people. In fact, it's owed them. Denying that right to anyone is unconstitutional (at least in the US is is...but yet the government continues to do it.).

[smileyeagle1021]

Denying that right to anyone is unconstitutional (at least in the US is is...but yet the government continues to do it.).

That's because we're a "Christian Nation" and God demands we violate our own laws to suit His bigoted desires... and our politicians know if they want to stay in power they have to pander to the religious extremists and it will lead to our nation's downfall (greatly deserved if we continue to follow those nuts).

Anyway, back on topic, marriage is the union of two people who love each other who want to spend their lives together, combining from two individuals into one family... nothing more, nothing less. Of course, there are all the legal and tax ramifications that are included in being one entity rather than two, but that is all a side effect of becoming one.

[RecoveringKinkoid]

Well, sadly, you're right. Unless they stop giving married couples any kind of civil benefits, they cannot deny those same benefits to gay people who want to settle down.

[Lace Neil Singer]

A three ring circus, surely? Engagement ring, wedding ring, and suffering.

*runs away*

[Savannah]

I've thought for a long time that there should be government-issued civil unions, giving all the benefits that marriage currently does, but open to anyone. Straight couples, gay couples, child with an old parent who they want to ensure they have the right to make medical decisions for, etc. (I can't remember which country(s) has that type of system, but I'm pretty sure it exists.)

The religions can have the term "marriage", and do whatever they want with it.

As for what it is, I think it really started as a way to make political alliances and determine inheritance (so I always find the "traditional marriage doesn't include homosexuals" argument amusing).

[RecoveringKinkoid]

Absolutely.

I really started thinking about it years ago when a female friend of mine moved into a bungalow owned by male friend of mine. He owned a business in front of the bungalow, and let her live there to escape an abusive father (she was living with her parents after her husband ran off leaving her with two little kids. Long story.)

But anyway, the relationship was strictly platonic. They helped each other out, she with the business, he with her kids. No sex. Just friends helping each other out.

She wanted to put him on her insurance, since she worked at a job where she got benefits and he was self employed. Well, no go.

Because they weren't sleeping together, I guess.

I mean, why SHOULDN'T they be able to claim each other as domestic partners in a legal sense?