# What makes a marriage?



## maquiscat (Aug 20, 2019)

By this I am not asking what makes it successful or anything like that. What I want to know is what makes it an actual marriage?

Is it being registered with the government? And yes, to receive the legal benefits you do have to be registered. But do those legal benefits make the relationship a marriage? Can you have a marriage without that piece of paper (virtual as it might be nowadays).

Is it only a marriage if one had a ceremony done by a cleric of one's chosen deity? Or does only your own deity count, and theirs doesn't? Can atheist be married outside of government recognition?

What are the criteria that makes any given relationship the status of marriage?

Or are there various types of marriages that each have their own criteria?


----------



## BigDaddyNY (May 19, 2021)

To me marriage at it's root is a formal recognition of a committed, romantic/sexual and monogamous relationship between two people. Government recognition isn't needed, nor is church recognition IMO. It is between the two people making the commitment. 

How you go about that formal recognition doesn't matter much to me, so long as the two people involved make that commitment. Some would say it is a commitment before God. Although I am pretty much in alignment with Christian beliefs I am not a religious person, so I think you can still make that commitment even if you are atheist. 

The paperwork and legal recognition by the government is important to get the legal benefits associated with marriage. However, I don't think that is a requirement to be called a marriage.


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

To us it's the making of promises to be committed and faithful to each other. To love and care for each other. All legally done according to the laws of the country we live in. In front of witnesses. 
We didn't get married in a church but were very much aware that God was there when we made these vows and that He is with us in our marriage.


----------



## rugswept (May 8, 2019)

The original vows define most of it quite well.


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

rugswept said:


> The original vows define most of it quite well.


Yes and they are what we used.


----------



## Angie?or… (Nov 15, 2021)

I think it’s the making a formal and public commitment that makes it a marriage. Could be legal and/or religious, something bigger than yourself.

I knew a couple who said vows alone together on a beach one night and called themselves “married” for a while, but they weren’t. He was just trying to shut her up, and eventually she realized it wasn’t real and went on her way without the trouble of a divorce.

If you haven’t in some way declared yourself accountable to keep your commitment (to your church, family and friends, or the state), then it may well be a loving and committed relationship, but it isn’t a marriage.


----------



## oldshirt (Apr 1, 2017)

rugswept said:


> The original vows define most of it quite well.


verbal vows are one thing - but the legalities of lawful marriage are what gives the government some legal teeth to back it up. 

Anyone can say anything. And they may even mean it at the time. But people can and do change their mind. 

The legal contract of marriage is protect people's rights while in the marriage and to formally pass down assets and properties to rightful heirs in the event of death. 

And it is also to provide some legally binding structure in dividing up the assets and properties and insure the continued care and provisioning of minor children in the event one decides to end the relationship. 

Right now there is kind of a big push in the manosphere and red pill community discouraging men from marrying because since women initiate 80% of divorces and in a divorce he would presumably lose half of the stuff. 

But without marriage, someone could potentially take ALL of it while he was at work and his only legal recourse would be to file a theft report and hope the police and courts actually do something about it. At least with a lawful marriage the courts will have to follow procedure in dividing assets and support of the children through legal channels. 

Legal marriage isn't really there for when people are happy and loving and things are going well. Marriage is there for when people get sick, die or split up.


----------



## leftfield (Mar 29, 2016)

oldshirt said:


> verbal vows are one thing - but the legalities of lawful marriage are what gives the government some legal teeth to back it up.
> 
> Anyone can say anything. And they may even mean it at the time. But people can and do change their mind.
> 
> ...


You just explained almost every reason I think government should have nothing to do with marriage.


----------



## LisaDiane (Jul 22, 2019)

I think it really matters personally to each individual, and also how they define it as a couple. And I think it also depends on what the purpose of their relationship is.

I certainly don't believe that a legal, government recognized marriage guarantees any more commitment from either person, or success for the relationship.


----------



## Al_Bundy (Mar 14, 2021)

oldshirt said:


> But without marriage, someone could potentially take ALL of it while he was at work and his only legal recourse would be to file a theft report and hope the police and courts actually do something about it. At least with a lawful marriage the courts will have to follow procedure in dividing assets and support of the children through legal channels.


I have to disagree there. Most assets aren't going to be sitting around your house. Rental property, stock, bonds, bank accounts, crypto..........you get the point. If anything marriage gives the other person more financial access.


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

LisaDiane said:


> I think it really matters personally to each individual, and also how they define it as a couple. And I think it also depends on what the purpose of their relationship is.
> 
> I certainly don't believe that a legal, government recognized marriage guarantees any more commitment from either person, or success for the relationship.


Far more people who live together break up than people who marry.


----------



## LisaDiane (Jul 22, 2019)

Diana7 said:


> Far more people who live together break up than people who marry.


There are too many variables at play for those couples to be able to make any solid judgment about the reasons for that, though. That fact, in and of itself, implies nothing.


----------



## oldshirt (Apr 1, 2017)

Al_Bundy said:


> I have to disagree there. Most assets aren't going to be sitting around your house. Rental property, stock, bonds, bank accounts, crypto..........you get the point. If anything marriage gives the other person more financial access.


perhaps yes, perhaps no. 

My point is that marriage provides a legally obligated means of asset division in the event of break up. 

It's complex and contentious for sure, but in a marriage the two parties are legally required to come to the table and divide assets in a legally prescribed manner. 

Some assets and properties will be considered marital and some will be considered personal. if you are not married to someone and you have a joint account (which is insane IMHO) there is nothing stopping that person from taking every last cent and hitting the road with her new BF. You can file a civil lawsuit and hope the jury sides with you, but there is otherwise no other legal recourse. 

If she takes golf clubs and gun collection with her, you can file a theft report with the police and see if they so much as lift a finger to find her or get the stuff back. 

If her name is on any of the other properties and assets, she can basically do with them as she pleases and your recourse will all be AFTER the fact and will all be contingent on how well you present your case to civil lawsuit in front of a civil trial jury. 

In a legal marriage, the asset division is at least somewhat preemptive and you are going into it with the legally supported presumption of at least getting around half. 

If someone runs off with everything without that preemptive assumption, you'll pay out the wazoo in hopes getting something back but run the risk of getting nothing.


----------



## oldshirt (Apr 1, 2017)

LisaDiane said:


> I certainly don't believe that a legal, government recognized marriage guarantees any more commitment from either person, or success for the relationship.


I does not guarantee more happiness or more likelihood of success, but it does guarantee more work and more expense in leaving the relationship. 

That can be a good thing or a bad thing depending on your perspective.


----------



## oldshirt (Apr 1, 2017)

leftfield said:


> You just explained almost every reason I think government should have nothing to do with marriage.


At it's core, the primary role of government is to prevent Darwinism. It's for the children (some sarcasm, but a lot of truth to it)

Pregnant and nursing women and their offspring are in a very vulnerable position. It's difficult for a pregnant/nursing mother of infants to hunt animal protein and historically relied on the father to provide meat for a gestating or nursing baby. 

Many males will do this if they are reasonably certain that the offspring is their own progeny. But some won't. Some will abandon putting both the mother's and the offsprings life at risk. 

Many males will often not support the mother and offspring if he finds out the offspring is not his biological child, and if the biological father will not bring them meat or protect them from predators, then again their lives are in peril. 

And finally, people wanted a system to where their tools, weaponry and property and assets were passed down to their rightful progeny and not up for grabs by the rest of the tribe or an invading tribe. 

Thus the system of legally recognised mating, provisioning and protecting in sickness and health and legally recognised channels of passing down wealth was born. 

Otherwise we resort back to Darwinism and whoever was the strongest and most vigorous on that particular day clubs the other other the head first and wins.


----------



## maquiscat (Aug 20, 2019)

rugswept said:


> The original vows define most of it quite well.


Which original vows? There have been many different sets over many different cultures across many different eras


----------



## maquiscat (Aug 20, 2019)

leftfield said:


> You just explained almost every reason I think government should have nothing to do with marriage.


Wait. You think it should be that there is no legal recognition and if someone looses all their worldly goods, as described, then too bad so sad, go whine to the police?


----------



## LisaDiane (Jul 22, 2019)

oldshirt said:


> I does not guarantee more happiness or more likelihood of success, but it does guarantee more work and more expense in leaving the relationship.
> 
> That can be a good thing or a bad thing depending on your perspective.


Well, it doesn't guarantee the most important part of a committed romantic partnership -- the commitment and emotional interest. Feelings that are given under duress and/or because my partner has no other choice are worthless to me.

Trapping someone in a relationship with me is the LAST thing I want to do. I only want someone who freely chooses to be with me.

And it does guarantee more work and expense to dissolve the legal contract, but it doesn't guarantee any more work or expense in physically and emotionally leaving the relationship. Anyone who feels a sense of security in that guarantee is clinging to a ghost.


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

LisaDiane said:


> There are too many variables at play for those couples to be able to make any solid judgment about the reasons for that, though. That fact, in and of itself, implies nothing.


We will have to agree to disagree.


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

oldshirt said:


> I does not guarantee more happiness or more likelihood of success, but it does guarantee more work and more expense in leaving the relationship.
> 
> That can be a good thing or a bad thing depending on your perspective.


I believe that those who have made the effort to legally make a public committment in marriage will put more effort into keeping that marriage.


----------



## oldshirt (Apr 1, 2017)

Diana7 said:


> I believe that those who have made the effort to legally make a public committment in marriage will put more effort into keeping that marriage.


There are those that believe that And for some it may be true. 

I think the narative in many of the religious communities is if you are committed until death or burn in hell, that people will put forth their best effort and find a way to make it work. 

For some, that has probably worked out like that. 

But for others it has likely created a tortured dungeon and created a living hell here on earth.


----------



## Cletus (Apr 27, 2012)

I will be attending two weddings this summer.

One is my daughter's, where she will take a secular vow (she is an atheist), stand up in front of her friends and family, and become a traditional male/female monogamous couple. The government will recognize this marriage as legitimate.

The other is a thruple made up of (I think) two non-binary individuals and a third whose particulars I don't recall at the time. That ceremony will be the same as my daughter's but it will lack the blessing of the local government.

I will consider all five people married, since that is what they call it themselves. Works for me as they are all consenting adults who are publicly stating their intent and doing so in front of those who would nominally hold them accountable.


----------



## oldshirt (Apr 1, 2017)

LisaDiane said:


> Well, it doesn't guarantee the most important part of a committed romantic partnership -- the commitment and emotional interest. Feelings that are given under duress and/or because my partner has no other choice are worthless to me.
> 
> Trapping someone in a relationship with me is the LAST thing I want to do. I only want someone who freely chooses to be with me.
> 
> And it does guarantee more work and expense to dissolve the legal contract, but it doesn't guarantee any more work or expense in physically and emotionally leaving the relationship. Anyone who feels a sense of security in that guarantee is clinging to a ghost.


I tend to see it that way as well personally. 

But see my response to Diana on post # 21. 

For some, the thought of going through the trouble and expense of a legal divorce might bring some to the negotiation table to work things out. 

But for others it will just create a living hell on earth.


----------



## LisaDiane (Jul 22, 2019)

oldshirt said:


> I tend to see it that way as well personally.
> 
> But see my response to Diana on post # 21.
> 
> ...


I see what you mean. I suppose that's possible, but I can't say for sure (to my understanding) if that happens because people who are willing to marry are more committed in general, or if it's the actual bind of legal marriage that forces them to commit.


----------



## LisaDiane (Jul 22, 2019)

Diana7 said:


> We will have to agree to disagree.


That's fine with me...as long as @maquiscat agrees with me!!


----------



## Cletus (Apr 27, 2012)

LisaDiane said:


> I see what you mean. I suppose that's possible, but I can't say for sure (to my understanding) if that happens because people who are willing to marry are more committed in general, or if it's the actual bind of legal marriage that forces them to commit.


Someone with an excellent grasp of the difference between correlation and causation.


----------



## Al_Bundy (Mar 14, 2021)

oldshirt said:


> perhaps yes, perhaps no.
> 
> My point is that marriage provides a legally obligated means of asset division in the event of break up.
> 
> ...


I guess it would depend on which side of the fence you're sitting as to whether the fact marriage grants rights to assets is a good or bad thing. As you pointed out, a non-married couple have to give access to accounts. In marriage, the other person has a claim regardless. For me that's not a perk.

Probably depends on where a person is at in life too, in my 20s all my worldly possessions actually were located at my crappy apartment.


----------



## leftfield (Mar 29, 2016)

oldshirt said:


> At it's core, the primary role of government is to prevent Darwinism. It's for the children (some sarcasm, but a lot of truth to it)
> 
> Pregnant and nursing women and their offspring are in a very vulnerable position. It's difficult for a pregnant/nursing mother of infants to hunt animal protein and historically relied on the father to provide meat for a gestating or nursing baby.
> 
> ...


This is a false dichotomy. Those are not the only two possibilities.

I have never heard your definition of government before and I doubt you have historical evidence to support it. Many people have written about government. One common descriptions of government is that a government is about who is legally allowed to use force . Funny thing is people that are given power to use force fight to keep that power. And throughout history governments have caused more problems and killed more people than any other institution. Of course it is always done for a good cause (sarcasm).

You also cover the idea that marriage is a contract (or at least that inheritance is). In the USA marriage is considered contract law. So in light of that people should have to hire layers and bash out the nuances of the contract before they can get married and the state should have no right to change that contract with out the participates agreeing to the change. 

Better yet, just keep goverment out of marriage and let people decide what marriage is to them.


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

oldshirt said:


> There are those that believe that And for some it may be true.
> 
> I think the narative in many of the religious communities is if you are committed until death or burn in hell, that people will put forth their best effort and find a way to make it work.
> 
> ...


Yet so many leave a marriage for very selfish reasons rather than keep promises made.


----------



## leftfield (Mar 29, 2016)

maquiscat said:


> Wait. You think it should be that there is no legal recognition and if someone looses all their worldly goods, as described, then too bad so sad, go whine to the police?


If someone other than your spouse steals all your worldly possessions what are you going to do? If someone steals your life what are you going to do then?

If government is your answer; you probably have a poor question.


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

LisaDiane said:


> That's fine with me...as long as @maquiscat agrees with me!!


If that makes you happy!


----------



## oldshirt (Apr 1, 2017)

leftfield said:


> This is a false dichotomy. Those are not the only two possibilities.
> 
> I have never heard your definition of government before and I doubt you have historical evidence to support it. Many people have written about government. One common descriptions of government is that a government is about who is legally allowed to use force . Funny thing is people that are given power to use force fight to keep that power. And throughout history governments have caused more problems and killed more people than any other institution. Of course it is always done for a good cause (sarcasm).
> 
> ...


One of the wisest people I have ever known was my mom. She used to basically say the same thing, that it should be a lot harder to get married on the front end to make it less destructive to get out on the back end. 

I can't say that I disagree with that principle. 

In terms of the use of force, that is still supporting what I said about Darwinism. It is turning the power over to the larger collective rather than the strongest individual. 

We hand over the power to divide assets to the collective (aka the elected government rule) rather than the strongest individual taking what he/she wants.


----------



## oldshirt (Apr 1, 2017)

Diana7 said:


> Yet so many leave a marriage for very selfish reasons rather than keep promises made.


That depends on how you want to look at it. I really don't believe that legions of people are leaving marriages simply because they don't have anything better to do. 

What you consider selfish to you may be something critical to them. 

We live long lives and forever is a long time. Things change over decades. I don't think society has the right to hold people in marriage against their will because others do not think their reason for leaving is good enough.


----------



## Talker67 (Apr 7, 2016)

it really is impossible to say. there are so many variations of "mariages", and so many variations in the two people married, to draw too many obvious conclusions.

I suppose at least ONE of the spouses has to be pretty accepting and non confrontational, or it does not last too long.

It helps if you live within your financial means, so there is not the stress of bill collectors pounding on the door.

but that is all i've got. I have seen marriages where the two were like peas in a pod, and other marriages where the two were complete opposites.

there are some couples in politics where one is a staunch republican, and the other is a staunch democrat! I wonder how THEY cope with that, especially in an election year. i am thinking kellyanne conway, for example


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

oldshirt said:


> That depends on how you want to look at it. I really don't believe that legions of people are leaving marriages simply because they don't have anything better to do.
> 
> What you consider selfish to you may be something critical to them.
> 
> We live long lives and forever is a long time. Things change over decades. I don't think society has the right to hold people in marriage against their will because others do not think their reason for leaving is good enough.


Where did I say they left because they have nothing better to do? Please don't put words into my mouth. 
People have no staying power or perseverance. They will leave because they are bored. Or they want to 'find themselves'. Or because they want to date others. Usually very selfish reasons.


----------



## oldshirt (Apr 1, 2017)

Diana7 said:


> Where did I say they left because they have nothing better to do? Please don't put words into my mouth.
> People have no staying power or perseverance. They will leave because they are bored. Or they want to 'find themselves'. Or because they want to date others. Usually very selfish reasons.


Is that really any different than what I said? 

I wasn't putting words in your mouth because you've done a fine job of that yourself. Are you or are you not saying that you don't find a lot of other people's reasons for divorcing valid?


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

oldshirt said:


> Is that really any different than what I said?
> 
> I wasn't putting words in your mouth because you've done a fine job of that yourself. Are you or are you not saying that you don't find a lot of other people's reasons for divorcing valid?


I think most of us know others who divorced for selfish reasons. I certainly do. And yes, you did put words into my mouth. 
People have far less of a sense of responsibility or committment. No staying power. No putting others first. Its all about me me me.


----------



## Al_Bundy (Mar 14, 2021)

Diana7 said:


> Where did I say they left because they have nothing better to do? Please don't put words into my mouth.
> People have no staying power or perseverance. They will leave because they are bored. Or they want to 'find themselves'. Or because they want to date others. Usually very selfish reasons.


I think the options available today shows that people never had that much staying power or perseverance. Previous generations simply didn't have the choices we have today.


----------



## LATERILUS79 (Apr 1, 2021)

maquiscat said:


> By this I am not asking what makes it successful or anything like that. What I want to know is what makes it an actual marriage?
> 
> Is it being registered with the government? And yes, to receive the legal benefits you do have to be registered. But do those legal benefits make the relationship a marriage? Can you have a marriage without that piece of paper (virtual as it might be nowadays).
> 
> ...


My preference is that no government be involved in marriage..... at all. 

Marriage is a vow to one or more people depending on how one sees things. Obviously, the various religions and traditions will fill in those vows for you and for the most part, those work very well for me. I promise to give myself to you and only you through good and bad for the remainder of my life. Then, I expected my spouse to give to me the same thing. 

While traditional works for me, I think universally there should simply be some vows said. A solemn promise you intend to keep with one person if you are monogamous or to multiple people if you are poly. Regardless, a promise one intends to keep for life. I mean, if the stakes aren't high, then what's the point? I think the high stakes (assuming one takes them seriously) forces someone to work hard to make the marriage work.


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

Al_Bundy said:


> I think the options available today shows that people never had that much staying power or perseverance. Previous generations simply didn't have the choices we have today.


I would say that 
previous generations had much more staying power and perseverance generally. Not just in Marriage. Much more of a sense of keeping promises made and of taking responsibilites seriously.


----------



## maquiscat (Aug 20, 2019)

LisaDiane said:


> That's fine with me...as long as @maquiscat agrees with me!!


I'll agree that there are a lot of factors that are simply not tracked. It's not like we track who live together and break up without marriage, like we do marriage and divorce. So honestly she has no way to support her claim.


----------



## maquiscat (Aug 20, 2019)

Diana7 said:


> Where did I say they left *because they have nothing better to *do? Please don't put words into my mouth.
> People have no staying power or perseverance. They will leave* because they are bore*d. Or they want to 'find themselves'. Or because they want to date others. Usually very selfish reasons.


Pretty much the same thing. That's not putting words in your mouth. Be more specific, otherwise you leave your self open to this type of valid rephrasing.


----------



## maquiscat (Aug 20, 2019)

LATERILUS79 said:


> My preference is that no government be involved in marriage..... at all.
> 
> Marriage is a vow to one or more people depending on how one sees things. Obviously, the various religions and traditions will fill in those vows for you and for the most part, those work very well for me. I promise to give myself to you and only you through good and bad for the remainder of my life. Then, I expected my spouse to give to me the same thing.
> 
> While traditional works for me, I think universally there should simply be some vows said. A solemn promise you intend to keep with one person if you are monogamous or to multiple people if you are poly. *Regardless, a promise one intends to keep for life*. I mean, if the stakes aren't high, then what's the point? I think the high stakes (assuming one takes them seriously) forces someone to work hard to make the marriage work.


Would you think a marriage less valid if it was not for life? Given the rises in life expectancy, especially compared to what we used to have, could not life be an excessive expectation? I'm not sure if you've ever read Heinlein, but one of the things in his future universe is that people live at least a couple of centuries. And they have term marriages, where the couple is only married for a given number of years. Does that make their marriage any less valid?


----------



## maquiscat (Aug 20, 2019)

Diana7 said:


> I would say that
> previous generations had much more staying power and perseverance generally. Not just in Marriage. Much more of a sense of keeping promises made and of taking responsibilites seriously.


Did they have staying power or did they simply not have a way out? There is a major difference. Especially when you look at how affairs were not uncommon, especially among the upper class. Hell, they didn't even marry for love, but for practical matters, or business or even politics.


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

maquiscat said:


> I'll agree that there are a lot of factors that are simply not tracked. It's not like we track who live together and break up without marriage, like we do marriage and divorce. So honestly she has no way to support her claim.


There have been studies done.


----------



## MarmiteC (Jun 28, 2021)

Interesting question. 

I've read many of the other points, and I believe marriage is about holding you accountable to the other person. I guess it's like going to a diet club and getting weighed every week rather than saying you're dieting and instead slipping in a few cream cakes and wondering why the weight isn't coming off. The fear of stepping up to those scales infront of everyone each week keeps you on track. 😆


----------



## LATERILUS79 (Apr 1, 2021)

maquiscat said:


> Would you think a marriage less valid if it was not for life? Given the rises in life expectancy, especially compared to what we used to have, could not life be an excessive expectation? I'm not sure if you've ever read Heinlein, but one of the things in his future universe is that people live at least a couple of centuries. And they have term marriages, where the couple is only married for a given number of years. Does that make their marriage any less valid?


lol. That's a damn good question, maquiscat. 

I don't know how to answer that one. I don't think I can put myself in the mindset of a person that would live that long. It's hard for me to conceptualize. 

Can't say I've read the books you've mentioned, but then again, I don't read books. I have a hard time paying attention to anything. Regardless, I could see a term marriage working. Some set amount of time where the stakes are still high. Does that make sense? Make the term be a very significant portion of the person's life so that they truly understand they are making a commitment to one other person (or persons).


----------



## maquiscat (Aug 20, 2019)

Diana7 said:


> There have been studies done.


Point me to them, then.


----------



## oldshirt (Apr 1, 2017)

Diana7 said:


> I think most of us know others who divorced for selfish reasons. I certainly do. And yes, you did put words into my mouth.
> People have far less of a sense of responsibility or committment. No staying power. No putting others first. Its all about me me me.





Al_Bundy said:


> I think the options available today shows that people never had that much staying power or perseverance. Previous generations simply didn't have the choices we have today.


What Al Bundy said. 

In previous generations people were often simply stuck no matter how miserable they were. For most people divorce simply wasn't financially feasible. The upper classes always had divorce (or just lopped off their heads if you were the king of England) but the masses couldn't afford to. 

And the social and religious persecution were such that people were simply trapped in all but the most dire and life threatening circumstances. 

It's not that recent generations are less moral or less responsible. Its that they have seen the folly and harm of your system and have rejected it and declared that system the greater evil and that it is less moral and less responsible, They are rejecting a system where people are trapped in a union against their will and are unable to get out of it.


----------



## oldshirt (Apr 1, 2017)

Diana7 said:


> I would say that
> previous generations had much more staying power and perseverance generally. Not just in Marriage. Much more of a sense of keeping promises made and of taking responsibilites seriously.


Or are they simply smarter and can step out of a building that they can see is burning down around them.


----------



## Ragnar Ragnasson (Mar 4, 2018)

oldshirt said:


> Or are they simply smarter and can step out of a building that they can see is burning down around them.


Combined with it seems the fire grows hotter faster today, with social media communication immediately available as at least one accelerant.


----------



## oldshirt (Apr 1, 2017)

maquiscat said:


> Would you think a marriage less valid if it was not for life? Given the rises in life expectancy, especially compared to what we used to have, could not life be an excessive expectation? I'm not sure if you've ever read Heinlein, but one of the things in his future universe is that people live at least a couple of centuries. And they have term marriages, where the couple is only married for a given number of years. Does that make their marriage any less valid?


A work colleague and I had a similar discussion awhile back on whether divorce necessarily means failure of the marriage. 

If my wife were leave today, yes I would be sad and I would mourn the loss of the relationship and mourn the loss of the future I had expected. 

But would it have been a "failure?" Or as you put it, would it have been invalid or less valid?

To invalid I would say no, not at all. It accomplished many of the things marriages are meant to do. We created a home of love and support, we raised children. We supported each other in sickness and in health, supported each others careers, I can go on and on. Those things would not be null and void if we divorced. 

Would it be less valid??? Well, that's more debatable. It would have been nice if it had continued forever and forever was our original intent so in that sense we would have fallen short. 

But the reason for the divorce would also have to be taken into account. If we simply no longer like each other and no longer wish to be together, then staying together because we said we wanted to 26 years ago, really doesn't make any sense NOW does it. 

Unlike @Diana7 , I do not believe most people divorce for no reason or for frivolous reasons. Divorce is hard and costly and always comes with a degree of sadness and consternation. I don't think people actually take it lightly and I do not believe the reasons she thinks are frivolous actually are frivolous. If someone does not like someone and does not want to be with them, I think that is a valid reason. 

If the other person still likes them and still wants to be with them, yes they are going to be very sad initially. But in the end, do we really want to be with someone that doesn't like us and doesn't want to be with us??

I would rather someone leave me that did not like me and did not want to be with me, vs having that person feel forced and obligated to stay with because the said they'd stay with me decades ago back when they did like me. 

I may have tears in my eyes as I sign my name on the divorce papers. But I'd rather do that and wipe the tears and move on vs being stuck with someone that didn't want to be with me because they weren't allowed to leave.


----------



## oldshirt (Apr 1, 2017)

Ragnar Ragnasson said:


> Combined with it seems the fire grows hotter faster today, with social media communication immediately available as at least one accelerant.


Truth.


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

I think there are two groups of marriage types: the official, and the unofficial. What matters for success, IMO, is that couples should seek to satisfy their partners in whatever manner seems comfortable, making the effort to learn what desires and needs may be unaddressed or latent. Marriage and deep emotional-bonding isn't about laying down rules—it's about fulfilling your lover's wants and needs to the best of your abilities. Some people will never be satisfied, and will still cheat, or at least take and not give back. It requires TWO giving people for a good marriage, IMO.


----------



## sokillme (Jun 10, 2016)

maquiscat said:


> By this I am not asking what makes it successful or anything like that. What I want to know is what makes it an actual marriage?
> 
> Is it being registered with the government? And yes, to receive the legal benefits you do have to be registered. But do those legal benefits make the relationship a marriage? Can you have a marriage without that piece of paper (virtual as it might be nowadays).
> 
> ...


The vows you give to each other and God in my mind.


----------



## maquiscat (Aug 20, 2019)

sokillme said:


> The vows you give to each other and God in my mind.


So then those who only marry before the state and not your God are not actually married?


----------



## sokillme (Jun 10, 2016)

maquiscat said:


> So then those who only marry before the state and not your God are not actually married?


You asked what my opinion is. I believe God exists whether you believe or not, just like atheist believe God doesn't exist whether I believe or not. 

My point was the vows, State, Church, back yard BBQ. At it's core marriage is about vows. Vows that I think God is listening too, but even if I am wrong. You know you said them.


----------



## LATERILUS79 (Apr 1, 2021)

maquiscat said:


> Would you think a marriage less valid if it was not for life? Given the rises in life expectancy, especially compared to what we used to have, could not life be an excessive expectation? I'm not sure if you've ever read Heinlein, but one of the things in his future universe is that people live at least a couple of centuries. And they have term marriages, where the couple is only married for a given number of years. Does that make their marriage any less valid?


Sooooooo..... you gonna keep me waiting? How long are these marriage terms where people live for centuries?! 🤣


----------



## maquiscat (Aug 20, 2019)

sokillme said:


> You asked what my opinion is. I believe God exists whether you believe or not, just like atheist believe God doesn't exist whether I believe or not.
> 
> My point was the vows, State, Church, back yard BBQ. At it's core marriage is about vows. Vows that I think God is listening too, but even if I am wrong. You know you said them.


I did ask your opinion and you initially gave me something that left other questions. You have now expended on that. Thank you.

So to further expand, is it your position that some sort of vows need to be exchanged before it's a marriage? Or can the marriage be a state of being, vows of action to turn a phrase? I am further guessing that you would say that even if the couple said their vows to Thor (which is a deity some pagans still worship to this day), given your belief in your God, He hears it and it is still a valid marriage?

Again, I am not criticizing your opinion, but exploring it.


----------



## maquiscat (Aug 20, 2019)

LATERILUS79 said:


> Sooooooo..... you gonna keep me waiting? How long are these marriage terms where people live for centuries?! 🤣


Sorry, either I missed the question or got distracted by family matters.

Well in the stories I've read, they have been as little as a year to as long as a set number of decades. There were aspects of couples talking about renewing the marriage, and others who departed on good terms when it was up. It would definatly require an entire different legal system for such things.


----------



## Cletus (Apr 27, 2012)

maquiscat said:


> So to further expand, is it your position that some sort of vows need to be exchanged before it's a marriage? Or can the marriage be a state of being...


It appears that currently at least 7 states still recognize common law marriage.


----------



## maquiscat (Aug 20, 2019)

Cletus said:


> It appears that currently at least 7 states still recognize common law marriage.


I know Utah is one, because there was talk of using it against the Browns of Sister Wives fame.

Sent from my cp3705A using Tapatalk


----------



## LisaDiane (Jul 22, 2019)

Cletus said:


> It appears that currently at least 7 states still recognize common law marriage.


I think North and South Carolina are two others, and maybe Virginia


----------



## Cletus (Apr 27, 2012)

LisaDiane said:


> I think North and South Carolina are two others, and maybe Virginia



Colorado—(Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann. §14-2-109.5.)
Iowa—(Iowa Code Ann. §§252A.3 and 1A.)
Kansas—(Kan. Stat. §§23-2502 and 23-2714.)
Montana—(Mont. Code Ann. §40-1-403.)
New Hampshire—(N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. §457:39.)
Oklahoma
Rhode Island
Texas —(Tex. Fam. Code §2.401.)
Utah—(Utah Code Ann. §30-1-4.5.)
And it's not exactly like people think. 









No, You're Not In A Common-Law Marriage After 7 Years Together


It's a pervasive myth of common-law marriage. And for a status assumed to kick in by something as passive as the passage of time, it can be complicated to prove.




www.npr.org


----------



## Ragnar Ragnasson (Mar 4, 2018)

Cletus said:


> Colorado—(Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann. §14-2-109.5.)
> Iowa—(Iowa Code Ann. §§252A.3 and 1A.)
> Kansas—(Kan. Stat. §§23-2502 and 23-2714.)
> Montana—(Mont. Code Ann. §40-1-403.)
> ...


Not Florida? Durn, I've filed so many tax returns jointly. Gotta check my files.

Obviously just kidding 🤣🤣🤣


----------



## LisaDiane (Jul 22, 2019)

Cletus said:


> Colorado—(Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann. §14-2-109.5.)
> Iowa—(Iowa Code Ann. §§252A.3 and 1A.)
> Kansas—(Kan. Stat. §§23-2502 and 23-2714.)
> Montana—(Mont. Code Ann. §40-1-403.)
> ...


That is SO strange because I was certain someone told me NC was a common-law marriage state if you lived together!!

Wow, that's for looking that up, it's very interesting!


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

maquiscat said:


> By this I am not asking what makes it successful or anything like that. What I want to know is what makes it an actual marriage?
> 
> Is it being registered with the government? And yes, to receive the legal benefits you do have to be registered. But do those legal benefits make the relationship a marriage? Can you have a marriage without that piece of paper (virtual as it might be nowadays).
> 
> ...


Hmmm. I don't acknowledge any man or man made construction when it comes to marriage. It's kind of funny because I fully believe God made marriage and all that entails but that also means that I believe men should butt the hell out when it comes to unions because that isn't anyone's business but those involved as long as everyone is a empowered and consenting adult.

It might seem contradictory, but I'm an advocate for government getting the hell out of marriage. If the government decided I wasn't married tomorrow they would have their brains in their laps tomorrow.

I'm actually for everyone determining their own status and power of attorney and everything that entails. The government couldn't run a lemonade stand so they can stay the hell away from personal choices and arrangements.

I'm basically labeled an alpha male, conservative Christian but I'm friends with people from across many spectrums without any compromise in my life.

I have good friends that do not practice anything close to what I do but we exchange recipes and wine advise and I don't, and have never, hidden who I am nor do they feel the need.


----------



## LisaDiane (Jul 22, 2019)

ConanHub said:


> Hmmm. I don't acknowledge any man or man made construction when it comes to marriage. It's kind of funny because I fully believe God made marriage and all that entails but that also means that I believe men should butt the hell out when it comes to unions because that isn't anyone's business but those involved as long as everyone is a empowered and consenting adult.
> 
> It might seem contradictory, but I'm an advocate for government getting the hell out of marriage. If the government decided I wasn't married tomorrow they would have their brains in their laps tomorrow.
> 
> ...


I agree mostly...I'd like government out of EVERYTHING!!! Lol!!

However, if you want the tax credits for being married, the government will always insist on keeping record and holding you to THEIR rules.

Years ago when I was homeschooling my kids, there was a ballot item about homeschoolers getting a tax credit from each county for the fact that we were all considered "schools" in my state, and the argument was that we should get a similar amount of money for our "students".

However, a group of us lobbied AGAINST that, because we predicted that if we took government money, we would need to follow their rules and answer even more to them with how to educate our children. And none of us wanted that!


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

LisaDiane said:


> I agree mostly...I'd like government out of EVERYTHING!!! Lol!!
> 
> However, if you want the tax credits for being married, the government will always insist on keeping record and holding you to THEIR rules.
> 
> ...


Yup. I think a lot of us need to wake up and tell the government to go to hell.😉


----------



## sokillme (Jun 10, 2016)

maquiscat said:


> I did ask your opinion and you initially gave me something that left other questions. You have now expended on that. Thank you.
> 
> So to further expand, is it your position that some sort of vows need to be exchanged before it's a marriage? Or can the marriage be a state of being, vows of action to turn a phrase? I am further guessing that you would say that even if the couple said their vows to Thor (which is a deity some pagans still worship to this day), given your belief in your God, He hears it and it is still a valid marriage?
> 
> Again, I am not criticizing your opinion, but exploring it.


I was not being defensive, it's just my style.

Anyway exactly. It's the promise, it's not the God part. Though I think there is a God part. If you don't make the promise, you're just living together.


----------



## maquiscat (Aug 20, 2019)

sokillme said:


> I was not being defensive, it's just my style.


Being a written forum with no visual or audio cues, one can never be certain. So I try to play it safe.



> Anyway exactly. It's the promise, it's not the God part. Though I think there is a God part. If you don't make the promise, you're just living together.


I have one more question after this, but I want the answer to this one first. Do you just accept the word of those claiming that they are married, or do you make your own judgement as to whether they actually are or not?


----------



## sokillme (Jun 10, 2016)

maquiscat said:


> Being a written forum with no visual or audio cues, one can never be certain. So I try to play it safe.
> 
> 
> 
> I have one more question after this, but I want the answer to this one first. Do you just accept the word of those claiming that they are married, or do you make your own judgement as to whether they actually are or not?


Generally speaking I accept peoples word about most things until there behavior causes me to question their sincerity. It's too hard to live otherwise.


----------



## maquiscat (Aug 20, 2019)

sokillme said:


> Generally speaking I accept peoples word about most things until there behavior causes me to question their sincerity. It's too hard to live otherwise.


To follow this up, and understanding that you have your own personal religious/spiritual beliefs, do you accept marriages outside those beliefs as valid? For example, and not automatically assuming these are against your beliefs, same sex marriages or poly marriages. For the sake of the question assume no coercion or abuse.

Sent from my cp3705A using Tapatalk


----------



## LATERILUS79 (Apr 1, 2021)

maquiscat said:


> Sorry, either I missed the question or got distracted by family matters.
> 
> Well in the stories I've read, they have been as little as a year to as long as a set number of decades. There were aspects of couples talking about renewing the marriage, and others who departed on good terms when it was up. It would definatly require an entire different legal system for such things.


Lol. Sorry. I didn’t ask the question. I was just really curious and thought you were going to fill in more information. 😁

the longer lifespan makes it more perplexing to say the least, but I guess humans 400 years ago could say the same about us.

I like your original question better in this way looking at the long lifespan. Time is the “high stakes” factor for us in our current situation, so I guess if I broke it down to base level, there needs to be some other sort of high stakes factor. Reason being, why get married at all then? There needs to be some level of commitment so that one person doesn’t just screw over the other(s), you know?

the next best thing I can think of is children. I know a lot of people think we are not meant to be monogamous. I think arguments for that are very reasonable. On the flip side of that, we need to have children if we care to keep our species going, correct? No children, no humans. Human children are about as helpless as it gets. Sure, there are plenty of helpless infants in the animal kingdom, but our offspring are by far and away the most helpless, and it is for MANY years. I personally believe this is why we are monogamous…. Or arguably, polygamous. One way or the other, our offspring have the best chance to survive to adulthood and be able to take care of themselves if they have multiple parents (preferably good male and female role models). If we take away our current technology, I’m going to say that parental help and “training” would be required until at least the age of 14-15. That is A LOT of commitment when compared to the animal kingdom.

so, it makes sense to me to have a stable marriage (monogamous or polygamous) until the children are capable of taking care of themselves. So let’s use the children as the new high stakes commitment term. Any child had in the marriage makes the term 15 years. Any subsequent child after the first restarts the 15 year timer.

your thoughts, @maquiscat?


----------



## sokillme (Jun 10, 2016)

maquiscat said:


> To follow this up, and understanding that you have your own personal religious/spiritual beliefs, do you accept marriages outside those beliefs as valid? For example, and not automatically assuming these are against your beliefs, same sex marriages or poly marriages. For the sake of the question assume no coercion or abuse.
> 
> Sent from my cp3705A using Tapatalk


I mean that depends. As far as this marriage thing, if someone believes they are married then I accept that they are married. Not sure if it matters what I think anyway. I guess if I was trying to date the person? But generally speaking if your asking if they get married by the satanic church do I accept they are married? Like I said if they make the promise then in my mind they are married. My point about God is, I believe when you make the promise of marriage it's in front of God even if you don't believe in him or think he is a puppy. I think God is God and no one really has the ability to understand that he just is, in my mind. The point is there is more weight to that promise, it's not about not eating a cookie or something. 

Poly marriage in my mind is a different thing then monogamous marriage (whatever the gender that is ). There is a lot more logistics in the promise, but I would say when you make a commitment to someone, keep your word. I certainly think there can be cheating or vows broken. I mean even in the bible there are poly marriages and it's pretty clear that there is still adultery. So there should be no reason for my belief system to not still see it that way. 

Can you marry your dog or a cucumber. No.

So my turn, why are you asking the questions? Are you doing a paper or something?


----------



## maquiscat (Aug 20, 2019)

sokillme said:


> So my turn, why are you asking the questions? Are you doing a paper or something?


No, and I can think of some other things I would rather do research on if I could have the funding to back me. Mostly curiosity, and a desire to know not only what people believe but why. These kind of topics fascinate me.


----------



## sokillme (Jun 10, 2016)

maquiscat said:


> No, and I can think of some other things I would rather do research on if I could have the funding to back me. Mostly curiosity, and a desire to know not only what people believe but why. These kind of topics fascinate me.


So what do you believe?


----------



## maquiscat (Aug 20, 2019)

sokillme said:


> So what do you believe?


That there is no one institution of marriage. Marriage comes in several forms, and we can engage in which ones we want according to our needs and wants. 

Legal marriage is all about the legal benefits, and love or kids not required. Quite honestly, if two people are planning on making a long term go of things, then there is no reason why they should not be able to obtain a legal marriage. A stable household for a long term, even if it is not forever, is an advantageous thing for society. And given that sex is not a requirement for legal marriage, and that legal marriage is not a requirement nor permission for sex, nor the lack of it a denial for sex, I also have no problem with this form being allowed to even related people. While there are many legal benefits already in place simply by being related, not all marriage benefits are also ones for related people. So those extra benefits could be advantageous to a stable long term household.

Religious marriage is all about what your deity says marriage is. If He/She says it's about love then don't marry for the children. If it's about business, find the most financially advatagous spouse (as it used to be in many cultures (The reason for marriage, not a religion's edict). As you marry before a government official (or approved substitute) for the law, so too do you marry before your Deity's clergy for said Deity.

Social marriage, while really vague and subjective, is very important to a lot of people, whether they realize it or not. To most people it's important to them that their friends and family recognize their marriage. It is the social marriage that leads to the local community support, however that develops out. These are the kinds of marriages where neither the government nor a Deity (at least according to Its adherents) might recognize it, but their neighbors, family, and/or other social members do. My mother, a few months before she passed showed this to me. While she had been calling my husband and other wife (the ones I do not have the legal ties to) her son and daughter in law. But then one day when talking about my other wife said, "speaking of _name_, or should I say your other wife." I damn near cried. But that is a perfect example of social marriage, or at least the recognition of one.

And then there is personal marriage. In the end that is defined by the ones in the marriage. Think of all the people who used to (and still are in some countries) be placed in arranged marriages. Do you really think that they think they are married simply because their god, government or parents say they are? I doubt it. Maybe they grow to feel that way later, maybe they don't. I was married to my wife long before we went to the court or had a ceremony. Granted, we had many friends and family who agreed with us giving us the social marriage as well. But that followed us being in a state of marriage first before they saw it.

All these of course are boiled down generalizations. I'm sure we could get into further specifics, but those would seem to me to be sub-categories, not specific types. It should also be noted that with all these, save maybe personal marriage, that there are multiple groups of each type; government, religion, social groups. As such, simply because one of the group recognizes that type of marriage, it does not automatically mean others of that type will. There are Christian religions who won't recognize a Wiccan marriage, save maybe by its legal aspect. A US marriage isn't necessarily recognized by say Zimbabwe (making an example. Don't know the actual status).

Does that answer your question?


----------



## BigDaddyNY (May 19, 2021)

@maquiscat

Damn dude, I don't know about @sokillme , but that answered the question for me. I've never seen such a clear and concise description of all that. And those last couple sentences in Social marriage genuinely brought a tear to my eye. Those small moments like that can mean so much and have such a huge impact. That is a mother's unconditional love and acceptance right there.


----------

