Definition of marriage

jmac2112 · Post by **jmac2112** » Wed Nov 12, 2008 8:42 pm

With all the talk about gay marriage and regular marriage and incestuous marriage, I thought maybe I'd ask for definitions of marriage. In particular, I'm interested in definitions given by those who support gay marriage, although of course anyone can jump in.

I would ask that any time your definition includes a restriction (e.g. regarding age, ties of kinship, number of participants, etc.), please include an explanation for that restriction.

Thank you in advance for humoring me.

Fallibleone · Post by **Fallibleone** » Thu Nov 13, 2008 4:52 am

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage

If a union is recognised by the state or religious authority, it is a marriage. So if the state or religion recognises gay unions, they are marriages.

Evales · Post by **Evales** » Thu Nov 13, 2008 6:40 am

Marriage is a union between two ______.
Yes it depends on what the people of the country believe, what the states decide.

Personally I await the day where marriage is the union between two people.
And it will happen

McCulloch · Post by **McCulloch** » Thu Nov 13, 2008 9:41 am

According to the Constitution of Canada, the definition of marriage is the exclusive responsibility of the federal government.

Marriage, for civil purposes, is the lawful union of two persons to the exclusion of all others.
Marriage requires the free and enlightened consent of two persons to be the spouse of each other.
No person shall marry another person if they are related lineally, or as brother or sister or half-brother or half-sister, including by adoption. A marriage between persons who are related in the manner described is void.

Article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights declares that "Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution. Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses."

JoeyKnothead · Post by **JoeyKnothead** » Thu Nov 13, 2008 11:19 am

As long as the government is involved, then marriage between adults should be allowed. I don't care how many wanna, don't care their sex, I don't care their politics. All I ask is don't expect me to get married again.

jmac2112 · Post by **jmac2112** » Fri Nov 14, 2008 7:29 pm

Not a whole lot of action on this topic. I would guess that those who do not believe in God or a human nature that reflects a divine purpose are not much interested in defining the matter too closely.

Can anyone think of a reason for marriage not to include three partners? Four? Twelve? Six hundred and twenty three? Where would you draw the line, and why?

JoeyKnothead · Post by **JoeyKnothead** » Fri Nov 14, 2008 8:36 pm

jmac2112 wrote:Not a whole lot of action on this topic. I would guess that those who do not believe in God or a human nature that reflects a divine purpose are not much interested in defining the matter too closely.

Can anyone think of a reason for marriage not to include three partners? Four? Twelve? Six hundred and twenty three? Where would you draw the line, and why?

As I said above, I see no reason to restrict marriage. As long as all parties are capable of making the decision, let 'em. What good reason is there for telling people, "Your love is unacceptable"?

Zzyzx · Post by **Zzyzx** » Fri Nov 14, 2008 8:41 pm

.

jmac2112 wrote:Not a whole lot of action on this topic. I would guess that those who do not believe in God or a human nature that reflects a divine purpose are not much interested in defining the matter too closely.

Did you notice that five Non-Theists have now replied and ZERO Theists. Who is it that is not interested?

I will hazard a definition of marriage that is my own wording constructed from wide ranging sources.

A contractually committed partnership sanctioned by society, government and/or church, usually consisting of a male and a female, usually assumed to be more or less permanent, often involving physical and sexual intimacy, cohabitation, shared property and possibly childbearing / raising.

onefaith · Post by **onefaith** » Fri Nov 14, 2008 9:10 pm

A union between a man and woman.

Or, a union between two people of the same sex

Although I disagree with homosexuality, who am I to say they can't be married if they are together anyway? They're people and they should be treated equally.

Cephus · Post by **Cephus** » Fri Nov 14, 2008 9:24 pm

jmac2112 wrote:Can anyone think of a reason for marriage not to include three partners? Four? Twelve? Six hundred and twenty three? Where would you draw the line, and why?

In theory, no. If you can find six hundred people who want to legally commit their lives to each other, it's fine by me. The only real issue I see, especially given the realities of polygamous relationships, is how to determine property rights. When a three-partner relationship starts, then someone else comes in a year later, then someone else leaves, etc. determining who gets what based on how long they stick around is going to be a nightmare. Until we can figure out a way to really make those determinations, it's certainly easier on the courts not to permit it, but that's practical, nothing more.