Your views on MARRIAGE

[Dystopia]

As a law student, I know that when consent is not "true" consent then the contract is actionable but it depends on the State.


The issue I see here is not so much about morality, because everyone can have as many partners as they wish to, but the purpose of legalizing polyamorous marriage - People seem to not understand that marriage, like any other, is a contract that discriminates and has requirements for a variety of reasons - It isn't about love, or happiness, it is about legal benefits in society and the social status it provides, as well as economic benefits - Culturally (and culture matters a lot) it doesn't make sense to legalize marriage between more than 2 people because the whole foundation of marriage is based on monogamy - Even though in theory you can consent in things like swing and having other partners, in most States it is a valid cause for divorce the lack of monogamy and cheating - Obviously in Muslim countries and some asian ones it makes sense for people to marry more than one person, for cultural reasons as well, but there's no useful purpose in society in legalizing marriage between more than 2 people - It's like saying we should legalize a contract of purchase and sell where the purchaser doesn't need to pay anything.

As a law student I know for a fact that at least in civil law systems/legal systems (I don't know much about the commonlaw aside from a few basic stuff) is very very complicated and complex, and family/marriage law is very strict and has lots of requirements and duties for parties that vary depending on the state - Complicating it even more is a huge burden specially for people actually studying law and courts.

The problem with widening too much what marriage means and even diminishing the duties and rights of participants is that eventually a marriage can be just about anything at all and therefore it is indistinguishable from other similar contracts so it's best to abolish it right away - I could support that measure it someone made a compelling case

[Catholic_Lady]

The part that really matters to me is my promise to God and to my spouse. The government contract is just practical and convenient for tax breaks, hospital visits, etc. Also, being in the military, my husband actually get's paid more if he has a spouse... and as a "dependent" I get special privileges that I would not get if I was just a girlfriend.

Those small perks shouldn’t make someone want to get married. It is respectable that you want to keep your promise to your spouse, but I don’t understand the point of marriage. To me, it just seems like something that everyone goes along with, because of peer pressure or what is socially acceptable in a given culture. Then, you get judged by most people if you’re 40 years old, and have never been married. Trying to explain this type of logic to people, just makes me seem more crazy, even though it is perfectly rational, to me anyways.

Even if you believe in a god, why include god in your marriage? I see that you want to have a relationship with this deity, but why the need to promise god that you will be together forever? In our reality, god isn’t here living our daily problems. God doesn’t pay your bills, settle your arguments, or cook dinner for your kids. These, and many others, are problems that are dealt with here in reality, by real people, not god. All of the good and bad things that happen in a marriage, or any relationship for that matter, are dealt with by the people in that relationship. I know you believe in god, and respect him, and probably think he blesses you moreso for including him in your marriage (speculating, forgive me if I’m wrong), but what about the catholic marriages that end in divorce? Is that god’s will? Did god bless them for including him in their lives? I think that you know deep down, god won’t solve every one of your problems. He’s not going to pay your bills, he’s not going to feed your children. Just look at the homeless people on the streets and the starving children all over the world that cry out to him everyday.

Basically, after all of those examples, why include god in your relationship with your significant other(s)? (taking into account, the examples I've given you. Unless you don't agree with me, then you can let me know why.)

Well just to clarify, I didn't get married for those "perks".

I got married because I wanted to become one as a family with the man I loved and I wanted God to unite us in that sacrament. I don't believe marriage is simply a government contract, I believe marriage is the very real spiritual unity between a man and a woman. A spiritual unity that is made by God and that can never be undone.

What I meant was that that part of it, to me, was the real marriage... and that is what mattered. My husband and I got our marriage license 2 weeks before our actual wedding, but we didn't consider ourselves married until we actually made those promises to each other before God. The government contract was just for the sake of being recognized that way by the law for practicality and convenience... and to tell you the truth, I'm pretty sure the Church doesn't marry people unless they are legally married as well anyway.

[The Grand Nudger]

Because the ceremony is window-dressing.  The contract with the government was probably a -little- more important to you than you're letting on.  There's no need to play pious round us, you realize? 

You were married as soon as the paperwork was filed - and so the responsibilities of your marriage existed regardless of whether or not you recognized them, or chose to defer them to some "god" character who has no say in the matter. That's the trouble with this jesus business of yours though, isn't it? Perpetually deferring or otherwise not recognizing ones own responsibilities.......availing one's self of the benefit of this earthly life and these earthly authorities but refusing to recognize them as such in spite of your own utilization, whenever it pleases, and often enough in a silly and absurd way; such as this prattling on about how little marriage meant to you relative to a promise to god. If your husband finds himself some extra-marital companionship...will you be reminding him of his promise to king of the fae, or the particulars of your marital contract?

[Catholic_Lady]

Because the ceremony is window-dressing.  The contract with the government was probably a -little- more important to you than you're letting on.  There's no need to play pious round us, you realize? 

You were married as soon as the paperwork was filed - and so the responsibilities of your marriage existed regardless of whether or not you recognized them, or chose to defer them to some "god" character who has no say in the matter.  That's the trouble with this jesus business of yours though, isn't it?  Perpetually deferring or otherwise not recognizing ones own responsibilities.......availing one's self of the benefit of this earthly life and these earthly authorities but refusing to recognize them as such in spite of your own utilization, whenever it pleases, and often enough in a silly and absurd way; such as this prattling on about how little marriage meant to you relative to a promise to god.  If your husband finds himself some extra-marital companionship...will you be reminding him of his promise to king of the fae, or the particulars of your marital contract?

(my bold)

You are incorrect in your assertion of me. When my husband and I got married, he was still a college student, and I had a restaurant job. We didn't start making any real money until my husband joined the Air Force as a pilot 3 years after we got married. Our reason for getting married had nothing to do with financial gain because neither one of us had any money at the time.

---

If your husband finds himself some extra-marital companionship...will you be reminding him of his promise to king of the fae, or the particulars of your marital contract?

Um, if my husband cheated on me (which he never will, btw), the last words to come out of my mouth would be: "but how could you cheat on me? We had a government contract!"

[Aoi Magi]

Sorry haven't read all the posts, but just to throw in my two cents, I don't care much as long as the involved consenting adults are willing and capable of handling the outcome by themselves.

Many small tribes around the world already form polyamorous relations, sometimes with periodic partner swiping rituals just to keep things fresh, and they do make it work, maybe because they don't have as many complicated rules and laws to deal with. Marriage as we understand is just a contract detailing the responsibilities of the involved parties, and we already have laws for contracts between multiple parties so it shouldn't be too hard to extend those to the marriage contracts, right?

[Dystopia]

Sorry haven't read all the posts, but just to throw in my two cents, I don't care much as long as the involved consenting adults are willing and capable of handling the outcome by themselves.

Many small tribes around the world already form polyamorous relations, sometimes with periodic partner swiping rituals just to keep things fresh, and they do make it work, maybe because they don't have as many complicated rules and laws to deal with. Marriage as we understand is just a contract detailing the responsibilities of the involved parties, and we already have laws for contracts between multiple parties so it shouldn't be too hard to extend those to the marriage contracts, right?

Most laws regarding multiple parties are about other contracts like regular obligations, debts and so on - Marriage, kinda like employment, is an institution that has a specific contract with specific/different rules, so it's a bad analogy. Marriage and family law are not contract law, and both work differently - In the latter there's more freedom to privately decide what you want, while in marriage there are a priori rules you can't refuse like the commitment it requires to the other person.

I can see where the tribes argument comes from, but honestly if I based my sociery on what tribes do in some remote location I could justify horrible things like cannibalism as well. I'm not concerned about what other cultures do but what about my culture tells me.

[Aoi Magi]

Sorry haven't read all the posts, but just to throw in my two cents, I don't care much as long as the involved consenting adults are willing and capable of handling the outcome by themselves.

Many small tribes around the world already form polyamorous relations, sometimes with periodic partner swiping rituals just to keep things fresh, and they do make it work, maybe because they don't have as many complicated rules and laws to deal with. Marriage as we understand is just a contract detailing the responsibilities of the involved parties, and we already have laws for contracts between multiple parties so it shouldn't be too hard to extend those to the marriage contracts, right?

Most laws regarding multiple parties are about other contracts like regular obligations, debts and so on - Marriage, kinda like employment, is an institution that has a specific contract with specific/different rules, so it's a bad analogy. Marriage and family law are not contract law, and both work differently - In the latter there's more freedom to privately decide what you want, while in marriage there are a priori rules you can't refuse like the commitment it requires to the other person.

I can see where the tribes argument comes from, but honestly if I based my sociery on what tribes do in some remote location I could justify horrible things like cannibalism as well. I'm not concerned about what other cultures do but what about my culture tells me.

Marriage and family isn't the same thing actually, and as far as our legal system is considered, marriage too is about the "obligations" between the involved parties, so I don't see how it is so different than other contracts. Could you please illustrate with an example?

Also I am not suggesting we do the same stuff the tribes do, rather I am saying it's not a new idea and it happens and the world hasn't ended

[Dystopia]

Most laws regarding multiple parties are about other contracts like regular obligations, debts and so on - Marriage, kinda like employment, is an institution that has a specific contract with specific/different rules, so it's a bad analogy. Marriage and family law are not contract law, and both work differently - In the latter there's more freedom to privately decide what you want, while in marriage there are a priori rules you can't refuse like the commitment it requires to the other person.

I can see where the tribes argument comes from, but honestly if I based my sociery on what tribes do in some remote location I could justify horrible things like cannibalism as well. I'm not concerned about what other cultures do but what about my culture tells me.

Marriage and family isn't the same thing actually, and as far as our legal system is considered, marriage too is about the "obligations" between the involved parties, so I don't see how it is so different than other contracts. Could you please illustrate with an example?

Also I am not suggesting we do the same stuff the tribes do, rather I am saying it's not a new idea and it happens and the world hasn't ended

What do you mean by our system? Do you mean commonlaw? Or legal system?

Yes marriage is a contract, but it is a very specific one because it requires more obligations than the average contract and it is far more complex - Signing a contract where you swear to buy something for X value is not the same in terms of effects on your life as signing a contract sharing yourself and your goods with somebody until divorce (or for eternity) - Each contract has its regulations, so obviously what applies to other contracts doesn't apply necessarily to marriage.

Do you want an example? Well in my country regular contract law gives you immense freedom to sign what you want with whom you want, whether it's to buy or sell, donate, buy property, etc - The law makes general statements and then parties decide what to do - But when it comes to marriage, the law says with precision what you can and can't do and unlike other contracts you can't make shit up - Either you accept what the law proposes as a marriage or you don't, there are regulations you can't change - For other civil contracts freedom is higher and usually the law does not force you to many things, you can simply make shit up and do as you please. This is only true for legal systems based on Roman law and not commonlaw ones. I think in the latter legalising poligamy is much easier.

[Aoi Magi]

I am not saying to apply the same existing law, I am saying to extend them. No law is perfect, they all allow freedom in some aspects and restrict in others, and all of them are open to experienced law-benders (read advocates) to make shit up....

[vorlon13]

I have no problem with the 'state' recognizing and respecting religious constraints freely entered into by marrying couples.  If they forever forsake all others in a ceremony, I see a compelling 1st Amendment argument in prohibiting either of them from from ever remarrying another as long as they both shall live.

That the courts have not gone that way is a bitter disappoint to me.