What Should Marriage Be?

[PLC1]

PLC, in the Netherlands people are probably more happy to admit to using the stuff to people - in the USA it will be disproportionatly lower.

That makes sense. Wouldn't that make the actual drug abuse even higher in the US?

I'm still wondering just why we seem to have a drug abuse pandemic in the United States.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Maybe a marriage is a basis for any resulting children to feel stability. Maybe it should be between a man and a woman so that whatever sex the kid turns out to be, there is a parent who understands what it means to be that sex and can give guidance in a way that someone who has never experienced the unique situations of the other sex couldn't possibly understand the same way. I think that a child needs to be exposed to both sexes at home. I must say however, that I don't think I have ever known a child from a same sex home, so everything here is just conjecture, personal preferences for the raising of my own child, and not meant to be judgemental.

There has actually been research done on this subject since there are hundreds of thousands of children who have been raised in same-sex families.
The only measureable difference is that same-sex family kids are more egalitarian and less homophobic, otherwise there wasn't any difference that could be found. Lots of kids are raised in single parent homes due to divorce or death and they turn out alright.

 

[Dr.Who]

I specifically mentioned "basis of European marriage" which comes from the Romans as they were the first to introduce the concept of "consent" from the woman - i.e. the Woman had to specifically agree to the marriage, this is where the "I Do" comes from in the Marriage Ceremony!

Prior to that (I think it's valid for most cultures and relgions?) marriage was a pure business deal where the women was "contracted" or "brought in" on a exclusive "deal" basis to look after the household and breed, simple as that really! The concept of love did not enter into the arrangement - the Greek essayist Plutarch calls love a "frenzy" and believes that "those who are in love must be forgiven as though ill"

I think this passage (genesis 24) may predate the Romans:

"1 Abraham was now old and well advanced in years, and the LORD had blessed him in every way. 2 He said to the chief [a] servant in his household, the one in charge of all that he had, "Put your hand under my thigh. 3 I want you to swear by the LORD, the God of heaven and the God of earth, that you will not get a wife for my son from the daughters of the Canaanites, among whom I am living, 4 but will go to my country and my own relatives and get a wife for my son Isaac."

5 The servant asked him, "What if the woman is unwilling to come back with me to this land? Shall I then take your son back to the country you came from?"

6 "Make sure that you do not take my son back there," Abraham said. 7 "The LORD, the God of heaven, who brought me out of my father's household and my native land and who spoke to me and promised me on oath, saying, 'To your offspring I will give this land'-he will send his angel before you so that you can get a wife for my son from there. 8 If the woman is unwilling to come back with you, then you will be released from this oath of mine. Only do not take my son back there." 9 So the servant put his hand under the thigh of his master Abraham and swore an oath to him concerning this matter.

[]

57 Then they said, "Let's call the girl and ask her about it." 58 So they called Rebekah and asked her, "Will you go with this man?"
"I will go," she said.[]..."

She was not the only person in the story to have input but clearly her input was valued highly and probably above that of others.

 

[Sharon den Adel]

So, with that thought in mind, what do you think marriage should be? How should it be defined? How practiced? By whom? Why?

Marriage should be about love and committment, not sexuality. If two adults are in a loving, committed relationship, and wish to take their relationship to the next level, who are we to protest?
Marriage should be defined as being between two consenting, committed adults. The gender of the couple should not be an issue here.

 

[Here We Go]

Oh, I don't know . . . marriage was a pretty good institution many years ago when the husband was the bread-winner and the wife stayed at home. But maybe there weren't many divorces then because: the wives were not skilled in outside employment so they put up with their husbands; the husbands were married to a good cook and there were no fast-food establishments so they stayed with their wives.

Anyway, these days, women are more educated and can take care of themselves so they don't cook a lot OR put up with their husbands. Husbands will not have a guilt trip leaving their wives since they can support themselves. Alas, a large majority of marriages do not survive . . . some end very quickly and people move on to the next one. Marriage keeps a lot of attorneys rich-a-rooni. I'm not against marriage but I don't see many of them working. Some that stay together are mis-ser-a-ble.

 

[GaiusJuliusCaesarAugustus]

I'll start, I think marriage should be based on the things in the common marriage vows: love, committment, honor, and respect. I think it should be available with all the legal rights and privileges to all consenting adults. And it should be a legal contract and not a religious one. Religion should have no say in which consenting adults can marry or in restricting the legal rights and privileges available to anyone. Equality under the law, plain and simple.

marriage is a cultural thing. traditions change with time. we humans no longer bark at the moon in fright during a lunar eclipse; we humans no longer make human sacrifices to the gods to insure a good crop; we humans no longer look to the church for approval of scientific proofs.

when all is said and done future generations will look back on us like we look back on the practitioners of the inquisition or the defenders of slavery

 

[top gun]

marriage is a cultural thing. traditions change with time. we humans no longer bark at the moon in fright during a lunar eclipse; we humans no longer make human sacrifices to the gods to insure a good crop; we humans no longer look to the church for approval of scientific proofs.

when all is said and done future generations will look back on us like we look back on the practitioners of the inquisition or the defenders of slavery

Dude... you are absolutely right on point!

Why is it that this is something that is so difficult for some people to see. It's like they can't look back when the world was "flat" and see that perceptions change... people evolve.

Doing things that hurt no one else should be kinda a no brainer in 2008... but I guess not for some. It's a shame too because we could all move forward as a people so much quicker without all the petty feet dragging.

 

[GaiusJuliusCaesarAugustus]

Dude... you are absolutely right on point!

Why is it that this is something that is so difficult for some people to see. It's like they can't look back when the world was "flat" and see that perceptions change... people evolve.

Doing things that hurt no one else should be kinda a no brainer in 2008... but I guess not for some. It's a shame too because we could all move forward as a people so much quicker without all the petty feet dragging.

ahhhh, but it is the petty foot dragging that gives meaning to many empty lives

 

[numinus]

marriage is a cultural thing. traditions change with time. we humans no longer bark at the moon in fright during a lunar eclipse; we humans no longer make human sacrifices to the gods to insure a good crop; we humans no longer look to the church for approval of scientific proofs.

when all is said and done future generations will look back on us like we look back on the practitioners of the inquisition or the defenders of slavery

In that case, there is no reason for the law to concern itself with marriage. But we all know that is simply unacceptable.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Marriage should be about love and committment, not sexuality. If two adults are in a loving, committed relationship, and wish to take their relationship to the next level, who are we to protest?
Marriage should be defined as being between two consenting, committed adults. The gender of the couple should not be an issue here.

I went to the wedding of our son this weekend and all through the festivities I thought about the meaning of this tradition and why it might be denied to couples based on gender, but I couldn't find any reason to restrict it. Our son will probably not have children but the marriage is still incredibly valuable to him and his new wife. Nothing in the whole of the ceremony would have been inappropriate for a same sex couple who were in love--the whole thing is about about love and committment, about vows taken publicly in the presence of loved ones, a sharing of the joy one has found in another. Denying this to some on the basis of gender is cruel.

 

[GaiusJuliusCaesarAugustus]

In that case, there is no reason for the law to concern itself with marriage. But we all know that is simply unacceptable.

law is concerned with marriage as a civil contract. law is NOT, concerned with a religious definition of marriage as long as it isn't then forced onto the public as a policy. you are free to marry your dog, cat or horse within your church or temple so long as you then don't demand the state recognize your religious marriage for the purposes of the civil benefits society bestows

 

[numinus]

law is concerned with marriage as a civil contract. law is NOT, concerned with a religious definition of marriage as long as it isn't then forced onto the public as a policy. you are free to marry your dog, cat or horse within your church or temple so long as you then don't demand the state recognize your religious marriage for the purposes of the civil benefits society bestows

Marriage isn't just a contract because no other contract results in the family and the relationships that come with it. And the family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society. That is why homosexual unions ARE NOT marriages.

Nothing religious about that, is there?

 

[Federal Farmer]

The basis of European marriage really came from the Romans. The customs of rings, wedding dress, veil, bridesmaids wedding feast, the whole nine yards comes from the Romans. The principal difference was that Romans married a lot younger (life expectancy was much less then!)

If you read about Rome under the period of Augustus there are some real similarities you can find today - Rome was wealthy and prosperous and adultery and prostitution were rife - and Romans were not producing babies prefering to lead a life of ease rather than go through the bother of marrying and bringing up children therefore the "Noble Roman" population was declining so laws were brought in to curb infidelity and prostetution, tax laws were enacted in favour of married couples and so on - lex Julia de maritandis ordinibus (18BC to 9AD). This law was pretty draconian and was changed a bit in 9AD under the Lex Papia Poppaea which really did promote having kids within lawful marriage.

Hi Scots,

One of the main reasons behind the declining population in Rome was, ironically enough, due to it's abundant water distribution system. The pipes were all lead, as were a lot of the dishes, so slowly, the entire population of Rome proper began suffering from massive lead poisoning, some of the results of which are a severely decreased libido, decrease in semen production, and lower motility of sperm. Simply put, they were poisoning themselves out of existence!

 

[Federal Farmer]

As for the rest, I agree with at least this much of it, get the government completely out of personal relationships. No more "marriages" to be recognized by the government at all. One good thing about this will be, especially since women are now "equal" (in some alternative universe maybe ), when a couple breaks up, if she takes the kids, she keeps the kids, and raises them on her own, with NO CHILD SUPPORT, NO ALIMONY, NO WELFARE, NO FOOD STAMPS, NO WIC, NO NOTHING! Yup, getting the government out of the way will be a REALLY good thing, and will save the taxpayers BILLIONS of dollars every year taking care of a bunch of craven slut brood cows who automatically fall over backwards with their feet in the air every time the conversation dries up.

Now, someone was saying....what?

 

[poptart]

The only people though that are fighting against gay marriage is the fundamentalist churches. So how could this NOT be about religion. Why should not two men, or two woman, be as happy or as miserable as the rest of us.