Marriage- a non-religious consideration

[Qoeleth]

Its seems that the defining features of marriage it is a public and legally binding life-long commitment, between a man and woman. It is given ‘official’ status and legal recognition, because it is a fundamental until of society.

Now, in the context that it is not simply a ‘private bond’, it seems that granting of divorce is wrong. One might argue, that in some cases the contract was made invalidly (e.g. under compulsion). Fair enough, like any other legal contract. But the fact that one of the parties does not uphold their side (such as infidelity) does not seem to invalidate the obligations of the other party- since the contract is not worded with that condition.

Therefore, it seems that a ‘second (or third, etc.) marriage’ is actually legally impossible, while the current partner still lives.

Therefore, except in the cases of legal invalidity, it seems divorce should not be granted. People could separate legally by mutual consent (provided they fulfil their responsibilities), but are not free to remarry, since a ‘re-marriage’ is per se incompatible and contradictory to the commitments of the first, which were explicitly permanent.

Since, also, marriage is a public and legal commitment, it seems that infidelity to the commitment could be considered, not only an immoral action, but also an ‘illegal one’.

Note that none of this depends upon Christian teaching, but rather the legal nature of marriage.

 

[on_the_hill]

I’m not a lawyer. But isn’t it accepted law that when a party breaks a contract the other party may receive some sort of payout, and then the contract is over.

If Cargill contracts to sell wheat to King Arthur Flour, and then doesn’t provide the wheat, Cargill may have to pay damages to King Arthur, but neither one is obligated to continue the contract thereafter.

Also, marriage is not legally life long if a divorce can be granted. Otherwise the divorce couldn’t be legally granted. But it can be legally granted. Therefore the marriage contract is not an unbreakable life long legal contract.

 

[Qoeleth]

I’m not a lawyer. But isn’t it accepted law that when a party breaks a contract the other party may receive some sort of payout, and then the contract is over.

If Cargill contracts to sell wheat to King Arthur Flour, and then doesn’t provide the wheat, Cargill may have to pay damages to King Arthur, but neither one is obligated to continue the contract thereafter.

Also, marriage is not legally life long if a divorce can be granted. Otherwise the divorce couldn’t be legally granted. But it can be legally granted. Therefore the marriage contract is not an unbreakable life long legal contract.

So, the marriage contract is kind of condition…But what about “I promise to love, to honor and to obey till death do us part.” Is this still the words?

What I am suggesting is that, in fact, divorce is, technically, illegal. A contract of sale is conditional (“I will pay you $x, in return for whatever service or product”), but a contract of marriage seems unconditional. That is, it is not worded thus: “I will love, honor, you, till death do us part, IF you love, honor and obey me”.

This is not to dismiss the possibility of an invalid contract taking place. But, in itself, it seem essentially unbreakable, if it is validly made.

 

[Gilly_flower]

Legal contracts may also be absolved not just by one party reneging on their obligations, but by mutual consent. Partners in an enterprise may come to realise that unforeseen circumstances render their agreement untenable in the long run, and agree to absolve each other of further obligation.

 

[rossum]

Its seems that the defining features of marriage it is a public and legally binding life-long commitment, between a man and woman.

If you are bringing “legally” into this, then marriage is what is defined by the current state of the law. It is not lifelong, since divorce is legal, and it is not just between a man and a woman since same sex marriage is also legal.

You need to be clear what you are talking about here. There are two different things in play. First the actual state of legal marriage in the US and second, your idealised version of marriage. It is clear that the two are not the same.

rossum

 

[Rau]

…You need to be clear what you are talking about here. There are two different things in play. First the actual state of legal marriage in the US and second, your idealised version of marriage. It is clear that the two are not the same.

It is clear that what the law, and as a consequence, society at large is prepared to consider marriage today is no longer that which was overwhelming the understanding of the term (and the institution) in the loooong period prior. But it is not right to now characterise the latter as “your idealised version of marriage”.

If fact, it would be more appropriate to apply a characterisation (such as “your contemporary version of marriage”) to the more recent variant - not because it is recent or of limited longevity, but because it abandons any reference to the objective basis for the sexual relationship called marriage - which is the sexual nature of man and woman as evident in their bodies.

 

[rossum]

It is clear that what the law, and as a consequence, society at large is prepared to consider marriage today is no longer that which was overwhelming the understanding of the term (and the institution) in the loooong period prior. But it is not right to now characterise the latter as “your idealised version of marriage”.

If fact, it would be more appropriate to apply a characterisation (such as “your contemporary version of marriage”) to the more recent variant - not because it is recent or of limited longevity, but because it abandons any reference to the objective basis for the sexual relationship called marriage - which is the sexual nature of man and woman as evident in their bodies.

For a long time the law in the US forbade interracial marriage. You would do well not to idealise the former version of civil marriage, prior to 1967 (1967!) when the USSC overturned the remaining miscegenation laws.

rossum

 

[Rau]

…You would do well not to idealise the former version of civil marriage, prior to 1967 (1967!) when the USSC overturned the remaining miscegenation laws.

Thanks for the advice, but I’ve not done that, I’ve just pointed out the unchallenged reality of male and female, the relevance of which has only recently been abandoned in the context of marriage.

I can’t speak for why US society viewed racial origins as relevant at one time.

 

[fisherman_carl]

Its seems that the defining features of marriage it is a public and legally binding life-long commitment, between a man and woman. It is given ‘official’ status and legal recognition, because it is a fundamental until of society.

I would not define marriage that way. Looking at the bigger picture I think marriage is more than a life long commitment. Marriage is fundamentally a family that grows. That to me is the defining feature of marriage. Marriage isn’t simply a contract between 2 people who want to commit to each other. The actual marriage covenant is just one aspect of marriage. It provides part of a foundation for the family in terms of promises made. The permanence of marriage provides a more stable foundation for the family to grow upon. But, that marriage must continue to grow and evolve from there if it is to survive. If all you had was a commitment with promises made but never acted on the commitment it would never survive. Because it is a relationship that grows. But, it can also be damaged. So marriage is more than some kind of contract. It is organic and must be nurtured.

The marriage covenant is just a means to an end. It is not the end itself. The end for marriage is family. This is why same sex marriage can never really be a marriage because the end of such a relationship can never be a family. Since procreation is naturally impossible.

 

[Qoeleth]

If you are bringing “legally” into this, then marriage is what is defined by the current state of the law. It is not lifelong, since divorce is legal, and it is not just between a man and a woman since same sex marriage is also legal.

You need to be clear what you are talking about here. There are two different things in play. First the actual state of legal marriage in the US and second, your idealised version of marriage. It is clear that the two are not the same.

rossum

Doesn’t the wording explicitly say it is lifelong?

 

[Rau]

Marriage is a sexual relationship, and sexual relationships are incongruous between members of the same sex.

 

[rossum]

Doesn’t the wording explicitly say it is lifelong?

Are you talking about the wording on legal divorce papers?

rossum

 

[rossum]

Marriage is a sexual relationship, and sexual relationships are incongruous between members of the same sex.

You are implicitly assuming a “hetero-” in front of the word “sexual”. How many gay couples do you know? Is their relationship sexual?

rossum

 

[Rau]

You are implicitly assuming a “hetero-” in front of the word “sexual”.

No. Sexual relationships between members of the same sex are incongruous. Heterosexual relationships between persons of the same sex…cannot exist!

 

[rossum]

No. Sexual relationships between members of the same sex are incongruous. Heterosexual relationships between persons of the same sex…cannot exist!

Thank you for confirming your implicit assumption.

For more complete coverage we need to add, “Homosexual relationships between persons of the opposite sex… cannot exist!”

True, but not very useful.

rossum

 

[Rau]

Thank you for confirming your implicit assumption.

For more complete coverage we need to add, “Homosexual relationships between persons of the opposite sex… cannot exist!”

True, but not very useful.

rossum

Perhaps I see in our very bodies a screaming statement about the nature of sexual relationships that means no assumptions are necessary. Sexual acts between persons of the same sex are incongruous. Two men exchanging their gametes is…incongruous.