# What is marriage?



## maquiscat (Aug 20, 2019)

Given some of the things that have come up on some recent threads, I feel that this is a topic that is demanding to be had.

So what is the defining factor of marriage? Or are the various forms of marriage?

My personal view:

Marriage can be boiled down into 3 types, or 2, with a subtype to one.

First there is legal marriage. This is the marriage that the government recognizes, regardless of whether or not it is recognized by anything else.

Then there is social marriage, and religious marriage. Arguments can be made that these two are completely separate, or that religious is a subset of social.

Religious marriage is that which takes place per the religious tenants of a given religion, recognized by that religion (or specific denomination/sect as the case may be), regardless of whether or not it is recognized by anything else.

Social marriage is a lot more nebulous, but works under the same principles as religious marriages. It is accepted and recognized by a not necessarily religious group of people regardless of whether or not it is recognized by anything else.

While all three of these marriages are typically found coexisting simultaneously, none require the existence of the others to exist. You can get married in a church and never have the paperwork for the legal marriage done. You have a religious marriage, but not a legal one. Likewise, you can go before the legal official (specific person various by location) and never go before a cleric. As such, there is no expectation for any religious institution to recognize your marriage. For that matter, one religion might not recognize a marriage under a marriage. For example, being married by a Wiccan priestess does not require the Catholic church to recognize your married. Likewise, if it's not a direct legal matter, the Catholic church (or any other religious institution) does not even have to recognized your legal marriage, in many locations.

So what are you views on what defines a marriage?


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

For me legal, social and Christian marriage are the same thing. One man and one woman joining together in a faithful partnership and becoming One. For Christians its supposed to represent Jesus and the church. As a Christian you dont have to be married in a church or by a cleric to be properly married. God is everywhere and sees you make those promises, as long as we are married according to the laws of the country we live in then we are married.


----------



## Personal (Jan 16, 2014)

Diana7 said:


> For me legal, social and Christian marriage are the same thing. One man and one woman joining together in a faithful partnership and becoming One.


Just in case you missed it in the news, legal marriage in the United Kingdom includes same sex marriage, with Royal assent being granted on 17 July 2013. So you are mistaken in believing that legal marriage is the same thing as one man and one woman joining together in a faithful partnership and becoming One.



maquiscat said:


> So what are you views on what defines a marriage?


I think marriage is a moving feast, which varies between different societies and different localities. As it has always been thus throughout history and will no doubt continue variably going forward.

At the end of the day for the most part, marriage can be a choose your own adventure kind of thing, because it can come in many different forms.

So it depends upon where you live, what community you associate with, which legal restrictions apply to you and your own determination. So pick your flavour, whether it be polygamous, monogamous, same sex or otherwise, forced or otherwise, it goes on and on. Since the world is a rich place if one is looking for diverse marital practices.

Funnily enough anthropologists are now classifying serial monogamy (remarriage), as a form of polygamy as well. Especially when households are often still linked via association and contact, for financial, family, dependant relationships or other reasons post divorce. Which is fair enough since having more than one spouse in ones lifetime, doesn't technically qualify as monogamy.

As for myself I have had two legal marriages and two church marriages that were coincident with the before mentioned legal marriages. Although the Christian denomination that conducted my first marriage, might still consider me to be still married to my first wife. Which is why my wife and I chose another Christian denomination, to conduct our marriage ritual.

While I've happily mostly done my sexual relationships by way of serial monogamy. Yet there have been times times when I briefly participated in a few active non-monogamous sexual relationships as well. So in that respect I am flexible on such things. Of which I would love to see polygamous marriage (polyandry/polygyny and group marriage), become legal in more countries (especially in Western societies) than it is today.


----------



## Laurentium (May 21, 2017)

Personal said:


> Funnily enough anthropologists are now classifying serial monogamy (remarriage), as a form of polygamy as well.


That's very interesting. Does it depend on whether the marriage ended by death or by divorce? When my first wife died, I felt I was free to re-marry when I wished to. Whereas I am now divorced, and feel much less so.

My particular religion doesn't actually have much of a concept of marriage, or marriage vows, as it happens.

To me, the main difference of opinion on marriage is between

those who see it as a lifelong commitment - you stay even if you're not currently enjoying it;
those who see it like employment - you can move on if it's not working for you.

Both of those ideas have pros and cons. Vital to discuss before getting married whether you agree on this.


----------



## maquiscat (Aug 20, 2019)

Diana7 said:


> For me legal, social and Christian marriage are the same thing. One man and one woman joining together in a faithful partnership and becoming One. For Christians its supposed to represent Jesus and the church. As a Christian you dont have to be married in a church or by a cleric to be properly married. God is everywhere and sees you make those promises, as long as we are married according to the laws of the country we live in then we are married.


So if the (theoretical) country you live in didn't have any legal marriage, are you saying that one cannot ever be married? For the purpose of the question, ignore the ability to go to another country to get married.

Also, I found it quite interesting that.you changed religious marriage to Christian marriage. Are you claiming that one cannot obtain a Wiccan marriage? Is a Wiccan marriage the same or different from a Christian marriage? How does a Wiccan marriage interact with a legal marriage?

Sent from my cp3705A using Tapatalk


----------



## maquiscat (Aug 20, 2019)

Personal said:


> Funnily enough anthropologists are now classifying serial monogamy (remarriage), as a form of polygamy as well. Especially when households are often still linked via association and contact, for financial, family, dependant relationships or other reasons post divorce. Which is fair enough since having more than one spouse in ones lifetime, doesn't technically qualify as monogamy.



I think I have to disagree with this assessment. With monogamy having long been a default marriage (not limited to Christian or Jewish religions), and remarriage being a common practice after being widowed, I can't really see it as a form of polygamy



> Of which I would love to see polygamous marriage (polyandry/polygyny and group marriage), become legal in more countries (especially in Western societies) than it is today.


So would most of the poly community, however, it would take a massive rewriting of the laws to accommodate that, and some good long term planning for the new laws. While typical polygamous marriages don't frequently go beyond 5 or 6 (marriages and not polyamourous groups/chains), we would have to account for such a possibility or impose a different arbitrary marriage participant limit. As I have said before, looking _strictly_ at the legal logistics, it would be much easier to get incest marriage made legal than it would polygamy.

Sent from my cp3705A using Tapatalk


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

maquiscat said:


> So if the (theoretical) country you live in didn't have any legal marriage, are you saying that one cannot ever be married? For the purpose of the question, ignore the ability to go to another country to get married.
> 
> Also, I found it quite interesting that.you changed religious marriage to Christian marriage. Are you claiming that one cannot obtain a Wiccan marriage? Is a Wiccan marriage the same or different from a Christian marriage? How does a Wiccan marriage interact with a legal marriage?
> 
> Sent from my cp3705A using Tapatalk


As a Christian I can only talk about a Christian marriage. If a wiccan couple get married legally then they are married. Nearly all countries have some sort of marriage ceremony.


----------



## maquiscat (Aug 20, 2019)

Diana7 said:


> As a Christian I can only talk about a Christian marriage. If a wiccan couple get married legally then they are married. Yes of course I know that same sex marriages are legal now, I am talking about marriage between a man and a woman.
> Nearly all countries have some sort of marriage ceremony.


What I am trying to determine is whether you feel that a legal marriage has an impact on whether or not a religious marriage occurs. IOW, can a person be married religiously without being married legally?

Sent from my cp3705A using Tapatalk


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

Personal said:


> Just in case you missed it in the news, legal marriage in the United Kingdom includes same sex marriage, with Royal assent being granted on 17 July 2013. So you are mistaken in believing that legal marriage is the same thing as one man and one woman joining together in a faithful partnership and becoming One.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Of course I know that same sex marriage is legal now, we are largely a secular country now.

I do think that polygamous marriage will become legal at some point sadly. I often wonder what men who have severel 'wives' think about the fact that that leaves other men with no wife. Seems pretty selfish to me. In some groups the young men are thrown out when they reach adulthood so that the older men can have the young women, nice.


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

maquiscat said:


> What I am trying to determine is whether you feel that a legal marriage has an impact on whether or not a religious marriage occurs. IOW, can a person be married religiously without being married legally?
> 
> Sent from my cp3705A using Tapatalk


I can say my vows in front of a pastor but if its not legally done I wouldn't be married.


----------



## joannacroc (Dec 17, 2014)

I look at my parents and some of my friends who are married and am heartened by how dedicated they are to their partners. It makes it easier to bear the failure of my marriage. Because I do think of marriage as a committed partnership that involves loyalty from both parties, both financial and sexual. It's as much an economic or financial partnership as it is a romantic one, because you are at least in many cultures, putting all your assets from both partners into one pot and pitching in together to make things work. Marriage should probably be partnership with someone you would nurse through a terminal disease or old age and vice versa.


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

joannacroc said:


> I look at my parents and some of my friends who are married and am heartened by how dedicated they are to their partners. It makes it easier to bear the failure of my marriage. Because I do think of marriage as a committed partnership that involves loyalty from both parties, both financial and sexual. It's as much an economic or financial partnership as it is a romantic one, because you are at least in many cultures, putting all your assets from both partners into one pot and pitching in together to make things work. Marriage should probably be partnership with someone you would nurse through a terminal disease or old age and vice versa.


I agree completely. While there have been quite a few divorces in my family, I also know of loads and loads of really good, strong, long and faithful marriages and its lovely to see. Many of them as well started when they were in their teens and they have been each others one and only love, I think thats so wonderful.


----------



## maquiscat (Aug 20, 2019)

Diana7 said:


> Of course I know that same sex marriage is legal now, we are largely a secular country now.
> 
> I do think that polygamous marriage will become legal at some point sadly. I often wonder what men who have severel 'wives' think about the fact that that leaves other men with no wife. Seems pretty selfish to me. In some groups the young men are thrown out when they reach adulthood so that the older men can have the young women, nice.


You're stereotyping again. Many poly groups have more males in them than females. My personal one is balanced at two each. Add to that, how many bisexual women going monogamous with another woman is depriving a man of a woman?

Most polys are not in large geographical communities like the FLDS are. There are no young men kicked out because there is nothing to kick them out from.

Sent from my cp3705A using Tapatalk


----------



## maquiscat (Aug 20, 2019)

Diana7 said:


> I can say my vows in front of a pastor but if its not legally done I wouldn't be married.


So, to be clear, you are asserting that one must be married by secular law, otherwise their marriage before God isn't real. Is this correct?

Sent from my cp3705A using Tapatalk


----------



## oldshirt (Apr 1, 2017)

Diana7 said:


> Of course I know that same sex marriage is legal now, we are largely a secular country now.
> 
> I do think that polygamous marriage will become legal at some point sadly. I often wonder what men who have severel 'wives' think about the fact that that leaves other men with no wife. Seems pretty selfish to me. In some groups the young men are thrown out when they reach adulthood so that the older men can have the young women, nice.


That kind of happens in a de facto manner anyway. 

I grew up in a small midwestern farming community. When I was in my upper teens, all of the girls my age were with older guys anyway and didn’t give me the time of day. 

It wasn’t until I had gone out into the world and faced Darth Vader and blew up the Death Star that I deemed ‘worthy’ of their attentions.

That is the normal order of things anyway. 

Now I don’t agree with those cults that keep girls locked up and marry them off to 35 year old cousins when they are 14 years old. 

But young men do often have to go out into the world and blow up their own Death Stars before they can take a mate anyway.


----------



## Ragnar Ragnasson (Mar 4, 2018)

oldshirt said:


> That kind of happens in a de facto manner anyway.
> 
> I grew up in a small midwestern farming community. When I was in my upper teens, all of the girls my age were with older guys anyway and didn’t give me the time of day.
> 
> ...


You mean you actually had to have some worldly masculine activities under your belt?

Egads! Don't say that too loud! How terribly unPC of you.

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣


----------



## oldshirt (Apr 1, 2017)

Ragnar Ragnasson said:


> You mean you actually had to have some worldly masculine activities under your belt?
> 
> Egads! Don't say that too loud! How terribly unPC of you.
> 
> 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣


Yeah it’s crazy. It’s almost like I wasn’t entitled to female affections just for existing. 

It’s almost like I was invisible as a scrawny, baby faced 18 year old that hadn’t left the nest yet. 

The young women my age all seemed to flock to the older guys that had jobs and cars and homes and did things with their lives.

Those guys spun plates and got with multiple women while I had none - totally unfair.

And the shocking part is once I had faced Darth Vader and blew up the Death Star and I was well into my 20s, then women just started coming around and I found myself spinning plates and getting with multiple women.

Anyone care to venture a guess how much I cared about the guys playing Dungeons and Dragons in their mom’s basement that were whining about not getting any chicks????


----------



## maquiscat (Aug 20, 2019)

oldshirt said:


> Anyone care to venture a guess how much I cared about the guys playing Dungeons and Dragons in their mom’s basement that were whining about not getting any chicks????


And then there are those of us who still play D&D and also get the chicks. Of course it helps that tabletop RPG's are an in thing nowm

Sent from my cp3705A using Tapatalk


----------



## RandomDude (Dec 18, 2010)

I didn't need to blow up no death star.
But that's because...


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

maquiscat said:


> You're stereotyping again. Many poly groups have more males in them than females. My personal one is balanced at two each. Add to that, how many bisexual women going monogamous with another woman is depriving a man of a woman?
> 
> Most polys are not in large geographical communities like the FLDS are. There are no young men kicked out because there is nothing to kick them out from.
> 
> Sent from my cp3705A using Tapatalk


I thnk its pretty well known that most of these so called 'marriages' have one man and several women rather than other combinations. Yes young men are kicked out, I have read reports from people who have left these groups. How else can the older men have 2, 3 4 or more 'wives?'


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

maquiscat said:


> So, to be clear, you are asserting that one must be married by secular law, otherwise their marriage before God isn't real. Is this correct?
> 
> Sent from my cp3705A using Tapatalk


In most countries like mine and yours marriage laws are based on Gods laws anyway, except they have now added same sex marriage which God forbids. So there is no problem with being legally married and married in Gods eyes.


----------



## As'laDain (Nov 27, 2011)

Diana7 said:


> I thnk its pretty well known that most of these so called 'marriages' have one man and several women rather than other combinations. Yes young men are kicked out, I have read reports from people who have left these groups. How else can the older men have 2, 3 4 or more 'wives?'


Not even close to accurate.


----------



## maquiscat (Aug 20, 2019)

Diana7 said:


> I thnk its pretty well known that most of these so called 'marriages' have one man and several women rather than other combinations. Yes young men are kicked out, I have read reports from people who have left these groups. How else can the older men have 2, 3 4 or more 'wives?'


I am not denying that when groups, such as FLDS, gather in a single geographical location, and practice exclusive polygyny, that young men are not cast out of the geographical community. What I am saying is that such groupings are but a fraction of the overall poly community, but are disproportionately used as an example of the poly community as a whole. Using them to judge poly as a whole is no different than using WBC to judge Christianity as a whole.

Sent from my cp3705A using Tapatalk


----------



## maquiscat (Aug 20, 2019)

Diana7 said:


> In most countries like mine and yours marriage laws are based on Gods laws anyway, except they have now added same sex marriage which God forbids. So there is no problem with being legally married and married in Gods eyes.


That's not what I asked. Allow me to reword the question. Are you saying that without a civil marriage, a marriage before God is impossible? Or can you be married in the eyes of God, without having to go through the government's red tape?

Sent from my cp3705A using Tapatalk


----------



## As'laDain (Nov 27, 2011)

As far as I am concerned, marriage is a social contract between individuals, defined by the individuals. 

Governments don't define what a marriage is, though they certainly try. 

I find it incredibly stupid and unjust that any government would imprison someone, or worse, just because of how they structure their lives.


----------



## maquiscat (Aug 20, 2019)

As'laDain said:


> As far as I am concerned, marriage is a social contract between individuals, defined by the individuals.
> 
> Governments don't define what a marriage is, though they certainly try.
> 
> I find it incredibly stupid and unjust that any government would imprison someone, or worse, just because of how they structure their lives.


I will say that governments do indeed define marriage _within the context of_ legal rights and responsibilities. In other words, IF a government chooses to have civil marriage, then they have the right to define within their civil structure. They do not have a right to define what it means in other context.

Sent from my cp3705A using Tapatalk


----------



## sokillme (Jun 10, 2016)

maquiscat said:


> Given some of the things that have come up on some recent threads, I feel that this is a topic that is demanding to be had.
> 
> So what is the defining factor of marriage? Or are the various forms of marriage?
> 
> ...


I would change the title of Religious Marriage to "Spiritual Marriage"


----------



## maquiscat (Aug 20, 2019)

sokillme said:


> I would change the title of Religious Marriage to "Spiritual Marriage"


I admit that I am doing some conflating in that all religion, in this context, is spiritual, but not all spirituality is religion. But in the same vein, some might see the "spiritual marriage" and being more equivalent to the social marriage than the religious marriage. I think for the context of the discussion, the given three labels suffice, but I do acknowledge where your logic is coming from.

Sent from my cp3705A using Tapatalk


----------



## sokillme (Jun 10, 2016)

I feel you will get as many answers as their are people, particularly now a days.

Here is how I see it. Whatever you call it, and whatever it may be to you. Keep your commitments and your vows. Who cares what you call it or who it is with. Do that for yourself as much as who you are married to. 

It doesn't have to be that hard.


----------



## sokillme (Jun 10, 2016)

maquiscat said:


> I admit that I am doing some conflating in that all religion, in this context, is spiritual, but not all spirituality is religion. But in the same vein, some might see the "spiritual marriage" and being more equivalent to the social marriage than the religious marriage. I think for the context of the discussion, the given three labels suffice, but I do acknowledge where your logic is coming from.
> 
> Sent from my cp3705A using Tapatalk


Some may but I don't. I believe there is the spirit and the spiritual category lives in that realm. I can't explain it but I know it when I feel it.


----------



## oldshirt (Apr 1, 2017)

As'laDain said:


> Not even close to accurate.


No @Diana7 is correct, there are a variety of cults and religious sects that practice plural marriage that basically do cast out young men and then marry off young girls to be some 35 year old cousin’s 3rd or 4th ‘wife.’ It is real. 

Sometimes these young men are allowed to come back to the community later if they have done enough good deeds for the church and then they are allowed to marry their 14 year old cousins too. Sometimes.

My point earlier is that in many ways this does go on anyway as just part of the natural order. 

But what these groups have done is formalize it and make it into a religious and community standard.


----------



## Hiner112 (Nov 17, 2019)

@sokillme kind of stole my thunder as I had to wait to reply until a teleconference was over. In most most time periods and cultures marriage implied a certain amount of sexual and financial fidelity. It has often been seen as a lifelong commitment with significant repercussions and stigma for breaking it for one or both of the participants. When I say "both" the relationships have overwhelmingly been either one to one or one to many. Of the one to many relationships, a large majority have been one man married to many women. The expectation of fidelity and loyalty was between the one and each of the opposite sex individuals and not necessarily between the sister-wives or whatever. Many to many / communal relationships have historically been very rare. The methods of testing for and preventing the spread of STIs is a relatively recent invention / development and the communication and social interaction complexity make them impractical except for very limited situations and personalities.

Legal marriage is a economic construct. It is basically a huge number of legal / economic agreements rolled into one contract so that a family can act as a unit and dissolve in an orderly way when the participants don't know how to accomplish these things on their own. It does a ton of things like make sure children are provided for and the economically weaker participant (or the one that for whatever reason sacrificed their professional development) can have standardized compensation. There's really no "stigma" legally to being divorced unless you consider spousal / child support stigma. The government doesn't really care how many times you form or break the unions.

The social / religious marriage is much older and more common. There's some kind of public acknowledgement of the relationship (marriage ceremony) and a display of your unavailability for further relationships (rings, tattoos, special makeup, etc). A bit of social stigma like I mentioned before for not living up to expectations or breaking the union. Making and breaking them repeatedly would lead to fewer people wanting to make that commitment to you.

There has been some discussion about how in areas with polygyny (young) men are expelled but we don't have that in our society which I'm not sure about. They are certainly much, much more disposable. Incarceration rates, homelessness rates, suicide rates, workplace injury rates, etc all show that the lives of these men just isn't that important. In a similar vein, there was a question about whether legal polygamy would result in men being left out of romantic relationships. In some sense we already have pseudo-polygyny happening online since the statistics I've seen have said that 1/10 to 1/5 of the men participating in online dating get 80% of the responses. If the relationships become permanent instead of temporary, I would still expect the same decision to accept or pursue a smaller slice of attention from a "better" man instead of all of the attention from someone not "worthy".


----------



## oldshirt (Apr 1, 2017)

Hiner112 said:


> There has been some discussion about how in areas with polygyny (young) men are expelled but we don't have that in our society which I'm not sure about. They are certainly much, much more disposable. Incarceration rates, homelessness rates, suicide rates, workplace injury rates, etc all show that the lives of these men just isn't that important. In a similar vein, there was a question about whether legal polygamy would result in men being left out of romantic relationships. In some sense we already have pseudo-polygyny happening online since the statistics I've seen have said that 1/10 to 1/5 of the men participating in online dating get 80% of the responses. If the relationships become permanent instead of temporary, I would still expect the same decision to accept or pursue a smaller slice of attention from a "better" man instead of all of the attention from someone not "worthy".
> [/QUOTE]
> 
> This kind of goes along with what I was saying above.
> ...


----------



## JustTheWife (Nov 1, 2017)

maquiscat said:


> Given some of the things that have come up on some recent threads, I feel that this is a topic that is demanding to be had.
> 
> So what is the defining factor of marriage? Or are the various forms of marriage?
> 
> ...


Why are YOUR personal views on what marriage is articulated in terms of how OTHERS recognize marriage? Not picking on you, just an observation. And interesting to me how much of this thread has approached the question in the same way.


----------



## maquiscat (Aug 20, 2019)

oldshirt said:


> No @Diana7 is correct, there are a variety of cults and religious sects that practice plural marriage that basically do cast out young men and then marry off young girls to be some 35 year old cousin’s 3rd or 4th ‘wife.’ It is real.
> 
> Sometimes these young men are allowed to come back to the community later if they have done enough good deeds for the church and then they are allowed to marry their 14 year old cousins too. Sometimes.
> 
> ...


I believe what @As'laDain is saying, is not that these groups don't exist, but that they are an, albeit highly visible, tiny minority of the overall practitioners of polygamy, yet alone the overall ENM community. As I noted earlier, she is doing the equivalent of using Westboro Baptist Church as the example of all Christians.

Sent from my cp3705A using Tapatalk


----------



## maquiscat (Aug 20, 2019)

JustTheWife said:


> Why are YOUR personal views on what marriage is articulated in terms of how OTHERS recognize marriage? Not picking on you, just an observation. And interesting to me how much of this thread has approached the question in the same way.


Do you deny that legal marriage is what the government does or does not recognize? Or that religious marriage is what a given religion does or does not recognize? Or that one religion may not recognize a marriage made under a different religion?

What I gave were the various types of marriage that I have observed. Not everyone agrees with those observations. I had one person on another forum, insist that religious marriage no longer exists in the USA.

Sent from my cp3705A using Tapatalk


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

As'laDain said:


> Not even close to accurate.


Its easy to read up on it.


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

maquiscat said:


> That's not what I asked. Allow me to reword the question. Are you saying that without a civil marriage, a marriage before God is impossible? Or can you be married in the eyes of God, without having to go through the government's red tape?
> 
> Sent from my cp3705A using Tapatalk


Its really not hard, as Christians we are told to get married and not shack up or have sex outside marriage. We all have marriages in our own country that we take part in so that we are married.


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

maquiscat said:


> I believe what @As'laDain is saying, is not that these groups don't exist, but that they are an, albeit highly visible, tiny minority of the overall practitioners of polygamy, yet alone the overall ENM community. As I noted earlier, she is doing the equivalent of using Westboro Baptist Church as the example of all Christians.
> 
> Sent from my cp3705A using Tapatalk


There are many such large communities/sects who live that way. Westboro is basically just one family, not many large communities.


----------



## Mr. Nail (Apr 26, 2011)

maquiscat said:


> IOW, can a person be married religiously without being married legally?


I'll start with this very specific question.
In my particular Sect. The formal religious community that I am most familiar with. a person cannot be married religiously without being married legally. for 2 reasons.
a) Adultery is defined as sexual relations without "legal" marriage. A ban on extramarital sex. We are very organized / codified and this is consistent across congregations and even nations. So a religious official in this church would not perform a non legal marriage.
b) In the united states these religious leaders are routinely licensed to perform legal marriages. So they file the paperwork as well. 

Legal marriage in the USA is simply an agreement to pay taxes together, the option to buy health insurance together, and permission to share each others medical information. That's it. Divorce is much more complicated, and when measured against the benefits of marriage, it is a wonder anyone gets married, unless they have the rare extramarital sex prohibition.

As far as polygamy, it was outlawed in the USA in 1890. It was practiced among Gods chosen people in the old testament. I will not say that God has never forbidden it because I can think of one specific prohibition.


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

Mr. Nail said:


> I'll start with this very specific question.
> In my particular Sect. The formal religious community that I am most familiar with. a person cannot be married religiously without being married legally. for 2 reasons.
> a) Adultery is defined as sexual relations without "legal" marriage. A ban on extramarital sex. We are very organized / codified and this is consistent across congregations and even nations. So a religious official in this church would not perform a non legal marriage.
> b) In the united states these religious leaders are routinely licensed to perform legal marriages. So they file the paperwork as well.
> ...


God permitted it even though his desire was always for one man and one woman, as in Genesis 1, but those who practised it usually suffered bad consequences with their children and in other ways. For us now as Christians its not allowed.


----------



## Mr. Nail (Apr 26, 2011)

Diana7, when you catch up to me we can discuss religion.


----------



## maquiscat (Aug 20, 2019)

Diana7 said:


> Its really not hard, as Christians we are told to get married and not shack up or have sex outside marriage. We all have marriages in our own country that we take part in so that we are married.


You are still dodging the question. Is a marriage, where you went before a priest, invalid before the eyes of God, because you did not get the civil marriage paperwork?

Sent from my cp3705A using Tapatalk


----------



## maquiscat (Aug 20, 2019)

Diana7 said:


> There are many such large communities/sects who live that way. Westboro is basically just one family, not many large communities.


Did you fail to understand the comparison?

Sent from my cp3705A using Tapatalk


----------



## maquiscat (Aug 20, 2019)

Mr. Nail said:


> I'll start with this very specific question.
> In my particular Sect. The formal religious community that I am most familiar with. a person cannot be married religiously without being married legally. for 2 reasons.
> a) Adultery is defined as sexual relations without "legal" marriage. A ban on extramarital sex. We are very organized / codified and this is consistent across congregations and even nations. So a religious official in this church would not perform a non legal marriage.


Where are you getting this specific definition from? Most definitions that I can find do not specify whether the marriage is legally recognized or not. It only notes marriage or spouse. The only exception would be the legal definition of adultery, which then moves into circular reasoning. Especially since in some denominations even if you get legally divorced, you are still married in the church and thus commit adultery even if it is not legal adultery.

However, this seems to indicate that God's law is being overridden by man's law, since man's law is required before God's law can be fulfilled.



> b) In the united states these religious leaders are routinely licensed to perform legal marriages. So they file the paperwork as well.


While I will concede for the moment that your specific denomination/sect requires a civil marriage before it will perform a religious one, that doesn't make it true of all religions. Before it was allowed to be legally recognized, priests were known to perform interracial marriages and same sex marriages, despite no legal paperwork. The ability of the clergy to sign the paperwork does nothing to address the question of whether the two types are actually separate or not.



> Legal marriage in the USA is simply an agreement to pay taxes together, the option to buy health insurance together, and permission to share each others medical information. That's it. Divorce is much more complicated, and when measured against the benefits of marriage, it is a wonder anyone gets married, unless they have the rare extramarital sex prohibition.


I disagree, as marriage bestows a lot more rights and benefits. I agree that divorce can get more complicated (save maybe when a prenup negotiations comes into play for marrying), but then it is always easier to merge assets than divide them justly.



> As far as polygamy, it was outlawed in the USA in 1890. It was practiced among Gods chosen people in the old testament. I will not say that God has never forbidden it because I can think of one specific prohibition.


While outlawed legally, the law can only use legal marriages as their basis for determining whether or not the law against polygamy is violated. The case brought by Cody Brown and family against Utah showed how any such attempt to charge polygamy against anyone without multiple legal licenses/certificates would play out. The case was initially judged that the state could not impose common law marriage upon the family to place them in a state of legal polygamy for the express purpose of charging them with polygamy/bigamy, especially since the Browns never sought such legal status. Now ultimately the case was overturned, however, the reason it was is significant. It was overturned and dismissed because the Browns did not have standing since the state never actually tried to so charge the Browns. The judge that overruled the case did not say that the lower courts were wrong in their judgement. Only that the case should never have come before the judicial system in the first place.


----------



## Mr. Nail (Apr 26, 2011)

maquiscat said:


> Where are you getting this specific definition from? Most definitions that I can find do not specify whether the marriage is legally recognized or not.


Well of course I am getting this specific definition from my religion, which I know very well. You did not ask for a general definition of marriage you asked for individual definitions.
As to god being bound to recognize man's law, well we do believe in order. and of course the rendering unto Ceaser that which is Ceasers. Unlike some we recognize the marriages performed elsewhere as being equally as valid as our own. We believe in freedom of conscience. 

The outlawing of polygamy was a tricky task for congress and they made many missteps. in the end they accomplished as much as they could. It is interesting that you bring up the cohabitation proof. The story is that when that bill was brought up the more experienced legislators took the author aside and asked if he was trying to send them all to jail. 

The important point is that when they wring hands over masking polygamy legal it should be pointed out that what is really happening is returning polygamy to it's earlier legal status.


----------



## LisaDiane (Jul 22, 2019)

I guess I'm not really sure why it matters.

I know I've posted a thread about this, but I'm still not sold on the actual benefit of being "married". I mean, if you take away any financial benefits (and religious reasons), WHY does it really matter if you are recognized as a...WHAT? An official couple, or monogamous, or committed...?? Marriage didn't create any of those definitions in either of my relationships. It didn't make me more committed, or give me any sense of possession over my partner (which I would reject anyway)...and neither did "being married" make me more dedicated to working things out when they got bad - my LOVE for my partners gave me my sense of commitment and loyalty and desire to work things out. Marriage did NOTHING extra at all, except give financial benefits.

Now that my relationship is over, and the love is gone, and I've given up, I don't even care if I'm ever legally divorced...as long as I'm not with him and don't have to deal with him, our "marriage" just doesn't matter.

I understand the government and religions needing to define it, but for people who don't care about those things, WHY does it matter...? They should be free to define their relationships the way that suits them.


----------



## maquiscat (Aug 20, 2019)

Mr. Nail said:


> Well of course I am getting this specific definition from my religion, which I know very well. You did not ask for a general definition of marriage you asked for individual definitions.


I wasn't sure. The wording was such that you could have been asserting such was the general definition as opposed to your specific religion/sect's definition. I'm good with such, as long as it is not asserted to be the definition for all.

Sent from my cp3705A using Tapatalk


----------



## Mr. Nail (Apr 26, 2011)

Well it certainly is an unusual definition. Especially the definition of adultery. In current western thinking there is little need for the term extramarital sex, as has been pointed out recently. Your thread is pointing out an interesting social dichotomy. Where one group of people who have the privilege of free access to marriage have little interest in it and another group who is banned from marriage is fighting for the opportunity. If government got out of the marriage business, would it allow both groups the freedoms they seek? Or would there be chaos and confusion as no legal standard of marriage would exist?


----------



## As'laDain (Nov 27, 2011)

Mr. Nail said:


> Well it certainly is an unusual definition. Especially the definition of adultery. In current western thinking there is little need for the term extramarital sex, as has been pointed out recently. Your thread is pointing out an interesting social dichotomy. Where one group of people who have the privilege of free access to marriage have little interest in it and another group who is banned from marriage is fighting for the opportunity. If government got out of the marriage business, would it allow both groups the freedoms they seek? Or would there be chaos and confusion as no legal standard of marriage would exist?


I love that this is the question you are asking. And I'm not being sarcastic. This is exactly the question that we should be asking. 

Personally, i believe that the parties involved should write their own marriage contracts. The people involved should be the ones that decide what it means. 

Not the government. 

Take for instance one of my partners. She lives in another state, and i will likely never be able to live with her full time until after i retire. In our case, i would find it unreasonable if the state were to evenly split our resources if we "broke up". But, i would also find it unreasonable that she would be barred from accessing my medical information in the event that i am incapacitated. 

I would prefer to be able to discuss with my partners all the implications of a marriage contract and spell those things out ourselves. 

It wasn't very long ago that gay couples were getting charged with incest because they would legally adopt their partner. They often did this in order to give their partner the ability to make medical decisions for them. When the gay communities were suffering from AIDS, they would often do this to allow their partner the right to visit them in the hospital, make medical decisions, etc. It made their partner their legal next of kin instead of actual blood relatives that were often hostile to them. 

If you were going back and forth between your deathbed and being healthy(hello HIV virus) you might understand why they would go to such extreme measures to put their health care decisions in the hands of someone that actually cares about them.

Sometimes, they were charged with incest because of this arrangement. 

Honestly, the government should allow i divisible to decide what marriage is for them. 

There is nothing immoral or wrong with adults deciding how to live their lives. A bigger problem is actually legal in the US...

Child marriages.


----------



## manowar (Oct 3, 2020)

A legal union between a man, woman and the state.


----------

