This might get interesting. For the most part I try not to go against certain beliefs, but this might be close.
Thank you for sharing!
Would that definition be open to accommodating relationships with more than two partners? I don’t see anything based on your definition which would necessarily exclude that.
As a “legal marriage”? No. But what a marriage is or isn’t is inherently personal. If 3 or more can coherently put together a lifelong relationship and wish to call that marriage, fine. That’s their call but the state doesn’t have to get involved.
What would your stance on pre-nuptial agreements be given that it undermines the declaration and promise of continuing the relationship forever plus?
I think couples should get a prenup. I compromised on this of course, but I believe in plan for the worst but work towards the best. I think the conflict is that I don’t see it as preparing for a divorce, but actually disincentiving it by spelling out concrete consequences. Besides, assuming the marriage lasts as it should the prenup becomes a moot point. This is one thing I disagree with the church on and her logic on this.
Also, do you think people should get married if they feel that they won’t be together forever plus, given that they don’t necessarily keep their promise or vow?
No. My understanding is that the church feels the same way.
Since “marriage opens up other possibilities such as having children” , what is the relationship between child rearing and marriage?
A stable marriage is the best situation for raising children imo.
Finally, would this differ from a long term, committed, non-married relationship. Is there a fundamental difference between, say, individuals in a long term sexual relationship and individuals who are married.
I suppose those in a long term relationship are a simulation of being married if you consider the practical aspects of how their lives merge and that they do intend to remain together. But without vows to each other there is no marriage.
It yes, then why, and if no, then should the government recognize any long term sexual relationship in the same way as a marriage?
If it benefits society I guess so. Marriage in the “traditional” sense is about raising the future generations to pay taxes, sustain a nation, and so forth. But a legitimate argument could be made for recognition of other relationships such as reduced STD transmission or improved economic output.
Though to be honest, I’m still on the fence over whether or not the government believing it has anything to do with my marriage is actually a positive. The marriage penalty is a real possibility at tax time each year, especially if either of us attain a higher position at work. Plus it seems like very low income individuals would lose out on benefits if they married as it would increase their household income.
What would the purpose of marriage then be?
Must everything have a purpose? If so, then it would be split into three. All 3 can coexist.
- marriage - a personal commitment between those involved to remain together for the purpose of achieving whatever they decide to pursue.
- legal marriage - a legal contract or registration with the government as a 3rd party for the purpose of qualifying for benefits towards raising children. Though this is questionable in practice.
- religious marriage - I have nothing to say here.
Lots of questions. Feel free to answer all of them or none of them!
That was long. Basically at the point in history that marriage be came optional it changed from what we think the traditional purpose was.
