What is marriage?

[conjur]

Originally posted by: chess9
Here's an idea:

What would the top science fiction writers of our day speculate to be the character of marriage in, say, 2050, or 2100?

I think marriage will die off. It really isn't necessary inasmuch as virtual reality seems to be enough for most people these days. Particularly teenage boys.

Once virtual reality is significantly enhanced to include smell, touch, and taste, well, kiss marriage goodbye. You think vibrators and inflatable dolls are the limit?

Sheezh.....

-Robert

THE MACHINE STOPS

by E.M. Forster (1909)

 

[chess9]

Conjur:

I hate science fiction, so I haven't read it. What is his idea?

-Robert

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: chess9
Conjur:

I hate science fiction, so I haven't read it. What is his idea?

-Robert

Full-text of The Machine Stops

A brief summary:

This short story, written in 1909, predicts a trend that humanity has been headed toward in recent decades. The story was written long before computers were commonly known as they are now. It portrays computers' ability to satisfy humans in ways we do now, as well as ways that we have not developed to perfection yet. Forster's book was one of few of the time that actually foresaw computers and machines take over daily human life.

 

[conjur]

More information that marriages in early America were NOT religious:

http://www.cedarlane.org/03serms/s031130.html

The situation today is similar to that in 18th and early 19th century America. Two hundred years ago people lived far apart on farms. Getting access to an official who could legally perform a marriage was difficult. Before 1750 most people did not even have a marriage ceremony. They just lived together and declared to family and friends that they were married. We know from genealogical records that in colonial America more than 50 percent of the time the official marriage date was less than nine months before the birth of the first child. Pregnancy or childbirth was the signal for a couple to consider themselves married. An Anglican minister in Montgomery County, Maryland said "if no marriage should be deemed valid that had not been registered in the parish book it would, I am persuaded, bastardize nine tenths of the people in the County."

http://www.rootsweb.com/~rwguide/marry_colonies.htm

People in New England soon began to forsake their old English wedding customs. The Congregationalists held that nothing in the Bible designated marriage as a religious rite, so they made it a civil affair officiated by a magistrate, but without the festivities that were part of Southern weddings.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: kage69
Marriage is civilization's endorsement of the pair bond. The pair bond predates both law and religion. Neither can claim to have the final say on what constitutes a "real marriage." By it's very nature, it carries with it an undeniable, intrinsic quality - the goal of reproduction. For obvious reasons, this requires the union to consist of a man and a woman. I'm sorry to say this is the one thing I can't support my gay friends in, as much as I would like to. I've seen gay couples exude far more consideration, love, and fidelity than many hetero couples, but supporting gay marriage (even though I'm liberal) would mean me having to turn a blind eye to nature. As much as it pains me to say it, that I cannot do.


On a somewhat unrelated note, I just got engaged.

Congrats! :beer:

Now on to the rebuttal!

I agree, that was/is the primary purpose of Marriage. However, in practice it is not exactly for Reproduction. This can be seen in how Society has tolerated Marriages where a couple were unable to produce offspring. If Marriage were about offspring, these situations would require the dissolution of the Marriage and possibly the banning of 1 or both from Marrying again. This situation has been the justification behind the dissolution of Marriages though, so for at least some people(King Henry VIII comes to mind) the ability to produce offspring is a very important part of Marriage. IMO, Companionship is and has been the Primary reason for Marriage for a very long time.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: conjur
More information that marriages in early America were NOT religious:

http://www.cedarlane.org/03serms/s031130.html

The situation today is similar to that in 18th and early 19th century America. Two hundred years ago people lived far apart on farms. Getting access to an official who could legally perform a marriage was difficult. Before 1750 most people did not even have a marriage ceremony. They just lived together and declared to family and friends that they were married. We know from genealogical records that in colonial America more than 50 percent of the time the official marriage date was less than nine months before the birth of the first child. Pregnancy or childbirth was the signal for a couple to consider themselves married. An Anglican minister in Montgomery County, Maryland said "if no marriage should be deemed valid that had not been registered in the parish book it would, I am persuaded, bastardize nine tenths of the people in the County."

http://www.rootsweb.com/~rwguide/marry_colonies.htm

People in New England soon began to forsake their old English wedding customs. The Congregationalists held that nothing in the Bible designated marriage as a religious rite, so they made it a civil affair officiated by a magistrate, but without the festivities that were part of Southern weddings.

we also didn't have money wasted on showing your gf that you loved her by buying her an item whose prices is supported by war and insurgency

 

[bozack]

Originally posted by: conjur
More information that marriages in early America were NOT religious:

http://www.cedarlane.org/03serms/s031130.html

The situation today is similar to that in 18th and early 19th century America. Two hundred years ago people lived far apart on farms. Getting access to an official who could legally perform a marriage was difficult. Before 1750 most people did not even have a marriage ceremony. They just lived together and declared to family and friends that they were married. We know from genealogical records that in colonial America more than 50 percent of the time the official marriage date was less than nine months before the birth of the first child. Pregnancy or childbirth was the signal for a couple to consider themselves married. An Anglican minister in Montgomery County, Maryland said "if no marriage should be deemed valid that had not been registered in the parish book it would, I am persuaded, bastardize nine tenths of the people in the County."

http://www.rootsweb.com/~rwguide/marry_colonies.htm

People in New England soon began to forsake their old English wedding customs. The Congregationalists held that nothing in the Bible designated marriage as a religious rite, so they made it a civil affair officiated by a magistrate, but without the festivities that were part of Southern weddings.

pretty weak sources even for you conjur, a unitarian site and some bs family tree site...c'mon, if you're gonna slam my reference to a christian site for a marriage definition I have to call foul on this one....

also your second quote clearly states that there were "old english wedding customs" in place that people began to forsake....

on with the debate on homosexual unions

 

[bozack]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: conjur
More information that marriages in early America were NOT religious:

http://www.cedarlane.org/03serms/s031130.html

The situation today is similar to that in 18th and early 19th century America. Two hundred years ago people lived far apart on farms. Getting access to an official who could legally perform a marriage was difficult. Before 1750 most people did not even have a marriage ceremony. They just lived together and declared to family and friends that they were married. We know from genealogical records that in colonial America more than 50 percent of the time the official marriage date was less than nine months before the birth of the first child. Pregnancy or childbirth was the signal for a couple to consider themselves married. An Anglican minister in Montgomery County, Maryland said "if no marriage should be deemed valid that had not been registered in the parish book it would, I am persuaded, bastardize nine tenths of the people in the County."

http://www.rootsweb.com/~rwguide/marry_colonies.htm

People in New England soon began to forsake their old English wedding customs. The Congregationalists held that nothing in the Bible designated marriage as a religious rite, so they made it a civil affair officiated by a magistrate, but without the festivities that were part of Southern weddings.

we also didn't have money wasted on showing your gf that you loved her by buying her an item whose prices is supported by war and insurgency

right, in the past it was the groom who got paid a dowry...sorry El, but for the most part their has always been some form of material symbolism associated with marriage, while it might not have been the ever popular diamond there has always been something or another....also fail to see the point in griping about the current system, if you don't want to buy a diamond either don't buy anything and see how that goes, or pay four times as much for a nice ruby or something truly rare

 

[Wheezer]

This issue is not about gay marriage?it?s much bigger

The MAIN argument for gay marriage is "equal rights" homosexuals feel that they should have the same rights as others when it comes to marriage. Sorry, no.

If we change the law so that they can get married because it is their right, and not allowing them to get married is discrimination then where does it stop?

If gay marriage laws are changed because they are "discriminatory" wouldn?t the following also be considered discriminatory ?

Mothers and Sons
Fathers and Daughters
Brothers and Sisters
Sisters and Sisters
Brothers and Brothers
Mothers and Daughters
Fathers and Sons
Any inter-family relationship
Men and animals
Women and animals
Bigamy

The whole basis of this argument is ?who is to say what marriage is and what it is not?

I mean just because the majority finds incest offensive if 2 people are truly in love no matter who they are then who is the MAJORITY to deny them their ?right??

So I ask you, if you are for gay marriage are you also for any of the above?

If you are not, aren?t you then denying these people their equal rights?that would be hypocritical wouldn?t it?

 

[BloodInTheStreets]

http://college.hmco.com/history/readerscomp/rcah/html/ah_056600_marriage.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage

http://www.soyouwanna.com/site/pros_cons/gaymarriage/gaymarriage.html

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: BloodInTheStreets
http://college.hmco.com/history/readerscomp/rcah/html/ah_056600_marriage.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage

http://www.soyouwanna.com/site/pros_cons/gaymarriage/gaymarriage.html[/q

Good and interesting links.

 

[jeremy806]

Dude,

That is just a stupid question. Everyone knows what marriage is, but some people now-a-days need to go against thousands of years of history and make up some funny definition to please a small group of whiners.

Not everything in life needs to be equal for everyone.

Jeremy806

 

[Wheezer]

Not everything in life needs to be equal for everyone

ding!!! ding!!! ding!!! Ladies and gentlemen we have a winner!!!!

 

[EXman]

Jeremy is a common sense kinda guy! welcome welcome

Are you saying life isn't fair? OMG newsflash. thanks for the reality check for the whiners!

 

[bozack]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: BloodInTheStreets
http://college.hmco.com/history/readerscomp/rcah/html/ah_056600_marriage.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage

http://www.soyouwanna.com/site/pros_cons/gaymarriage/gaymarriage.html[/q

Good and interesting links.

last link is soooo biased it isn't even funny. Heck, read the first few opening paragraphs and it sets the tone for the rest of it completely. Not at all objective.

 

[Moonbeam]

kage, I think I misunderstood your original quote. Unfortunately now that I think I understand it more I like it less.

"Marriage is civilization's endorsement of the pair bond. [But we will have to think about what that means and why] The pair bond predates both law and religion. [Yes, but we need to understand what that has to do with the price of bananas] Neither can claim to have the final say on what constitutes a "real marriage." [good reason to suspect that the notion that gays can't marry isn't etched in stone and is open to evolution.] By it's very nature, it carries with it an undeniable, intrinsic quality - the goal of reproduction. [You are here making a blanket statement as if it were fact, but you don't offer any proof of that position. Certainly infertile couples are allowed to marry, which implies that the goal of marriage may lie elsewhere than just procreation. We know two things, one that marriage isn't necessary to procreate and two that marriage is open to those men and women who can't. We know also that marriage is an announcement to the world of a bonding, a legal right, often a dowry and transfer of title. All this and there are no kids yet in the picture. Clearly marriage is a complex social structure meaning many things. When it is arranged it isn't even about love.] For obvious reasons, this requires the union to consist of a man and a woman. [Hehe, please don't use 'obvious' as though it confers some sort of credence. What you are saying is as obvious as mud, or better yet obviously way way too narrow. I can see that it's not obvious at all.] I'm sorry to say this is the one thing I can't support my gay friends in, as much as I would like to. I've seen gay couples exude far more consideration, love, and fidelity than many hetero couples, but supporting gay marriage (even though I'm liberal) would mean me having to turn a blind eye to nature. [I don't understand what you mean by nature and what do you mean by turn a blind eye. I of course understand the expression. You seem to be turning a blind eye to the fact that the statements you offer here are unsubstantiated opinion and you know where that leads us.] As much as it pains me to say it, that I cannot do. [But I think you just did.]

 

[0roo0roo]

well according to some... marriage is for propagation..and thats about it.

so marriages should be arranged by experts with the personalities/financial taken into consideration for the creation of stable households. romantic love is irrelevant.
marriages should be permanent at all costs
the infertile should be banned from marriage
vasectomy should be a crime.
if one or both people in a marraige are found to be infertile, the marriage is null and void.
those who do not make enough to support a family should be inelligible for marriage.
marriages lasting for more then one year without a pregnancy should incure large fines or possible jail time for abusing the institution as a sex pass.
contraception should be banned.
those who fail to marry by age 30 should be assigned a partner by government experts.
priests and other non propagating citizens should be castrated.

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: Wheezer

Not everything in life needs to be equal for everyone

ding!!! ding!!! ding!!! Ladies and gentlemen we have a winner!!!!

how so? because the world is unfair, we should go out of our way to make sure it remains so? some things are unfair due to things we can control, others, because people are intolerant, hateful, cruel, or indifferent. with your way of thought i could justify any type of discrimination...lifes not fair...

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: Wheezer
This issue is not about gay marriage?it?s much bigger

The MAIN argument for gay marriage is "equal rights" homosexuals feel that they should have the same rights as others when it comes to marriage. Sorry, no.

If we change the law so that they can get married because it is their right, and not allowing them to get married is discrimination then where does it stop?

If gay marriage laws are changed because they are "discriminatory" wouldn?t the following also be considered discriminatory ?

Mothers and Sons
Fathers and Daughters
Brothers and Sisters
Sisters and Sisters
Brothers and Brothers
Mothers and Daughters
Fathers and Sons
Any inter-family relationship
Men and animals
Women and animals
Bigamy

The whole basis of this argument is ?who is to say what marriage is and what it is not?

I mean just because the majority finds incest offensive if 2 people are truly in love no matter who they are then who is the MAJORITY to deny them their ?right??

So I ask you, if you are for gay marriage are you also for any of the above?

If you are not, aren?t you then denying these people their equal rights?that would be hypocritical wouldn?t it?

its only bigger if you go down the slippery slope. its like saying that if we give arnold the ability to run for president by amending the constitution, we might as well let illegal immigrants run for president too. and if we let illegals, why not criminals, and if criminals, why not animals. to go down such slippery slopes you must ignore the very real differences between things.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: jeremy806
Dude,

That is just a stupid question. Everyone knows what marriage is, but some people now-a-days need to go against thousands of years of history and make up some funny definition to please a small group of whiners.

Not everything in life needs to be equal for everyone.

Jeremy806

You are probably one of life's failures at the bottom of the pile self-justifying your position there. We at the top have a have so much we can afford to extend our charity to others. It's called being big.

 

[kage69]

"Marriage is civilization's endorsement of the pair bond. [But we will have to think about what that means and why]

Ok.

The pair bond predates both law and religion. [Yes, but we need to understand what that has to do with the price of bananas]

We were asked to define marriage, not in a religious view, but in a legal one. Marriage is just a label, a socially sanctioned title for something more primal. I think attempting to define this natural union within the confines of human culture (afterall, we made law and religion) doesn't work to well.

Neither can claim to have the final say on what constitutes a "real marriage." [good reason to suspect that the notion that gays can't marry isn't etched in stone and is open to evolution.]

Ok, they can claim whatever they want I suppose, but nature cares nothing for the fleeting styles of mankind.

By it's very nature, it carries with it an undeniable, intrinsic quality - the goal of reproduction. [You are here making a blanket statement as if it were fact, but you don't offer any proof of that position. Certainly infertile couples are allowed to marry, which implies that the goal of marriage may lie elsewhere than just procreation. We know two things, one that marriage isn't necessary to procreate and two that marriage is open to those men and women who can't. We know also that marriage is an announcement to the world of a bonding, a legal right, often a dowry and transfer of title. All this and there are no kids yet in the picture. Clearly marriage is a complex social structure meaning many things. When it is arranged it isn't even about love.]

Again, I wasn't speaking of marriage, but of the pair bond. Nature drives two members of the opposite sex together in order to further the line. Would nature truely drive same sex members together in an attempt to conceive? Marriage is society's stamp of approval on the individuals desire for companionship. I see what your getting at though, and I think you're right. Neither of us can say for sure how many couples know they're infertile before attempting to conceive - it's seems individual circumstance and timing could work against us both in this light, so when in doubt, I'll opt for the liberal path. Congrats moon, I think you just changed my view.

For obvious reasons, this requires the union to consist of a man and a woman. [Hehe, please don't use 'obvious' as though it confers some sort of credence. What you are saying is as obvious as mud, or better yet obviously way way too narrow. I can see that it's not obvious at all.]

Successfull procreation requiring the err, 'input' of a male into female is way, way too narrow? You obviously have some explaining to do! I wasn't aware same sex couples were able to create children, pardon my lack of credence.

I'm sorry to say this is the one thing I can't support my gay friends in, as much as I would like to. I've seen gay couples exude far more consideration, love, and fidelity than many hetero couples, but supporting gay marriage (even though I'm liberal) would mean me having to turn a blind eye to nature. [I don't understand what you mean by nature and what do you mean by turn a blind eye. I of course understand the expression. You seem to be turning a blind eye to the fact that the statements you offer here are unsubstantiated opinion and you know where that leads us.]

What exactly there do you consider 'unsubstantiated opinion' ? The gay couples I know adoring each other? Me being a liberal? By 'turning a blind eye to nature' I was refering to the pair bond and subsequent offspring that such unions are 'supposed' to produce, and by that I mean through society's translation of it, i.e. marriage. But don't worry about it, I pretty much take it back. Maybe it's from debating with all the churchies over this that I somehow got their position engrained in my head (ahhhhh! evil demons out!!!) and thought for awhile that kids would be the natural result of marriage - it suddenly occured to me, "Hey wait a minute, I'm getting married, and we don't want kids!" It's completely ok for a marriage not to result in kids, despite whatever the church says or your mom wants.

As much as it pains me to say it, that I cannot do. [But I think you just did.]

Um, d'oh?

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: bozack

right, in the past it was the groom who got paid a dowry...sorry El, but for the most part their has always been some form of material symbolism associated with marriage, while it might not have been the ever popular diamond there has always been something or another....also fail to see the point in griping about the current system, if you don't want to buy a diamond either don't buy anything and see how that goes, or pay four times as much for a nice ruby or something truly rare

at least a dowry isn't supported by bloodshed and war (well, except in india)

and yes, i'd much rather have something truly rare rather than a merely uncommon diamond

 

[Wheezer]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo

Originally posted by: Wheezer
This issue is not about gay marriage?it?s much bigger

The MAIN argument for gay marriage is "equal rights" homosexuals feel that they should have the same rights as others when it comes to marriage. Sorry, no.

If we change the law so that they can get married because it is their right, and not allowing them to get married is discrimination then where does it stop?

If gay marriage laws are changed because they are "discriminatory" wouldn?t the following also be considered discriminatory ?

Mothers and Sons
Fathers and Daughters
Brothers and Sisters
Sisters and Sisters
Brothers and Brothers
Mothers and Daughters
Fathers and Sons
Any inter-family relationship
Men and animals
Women and animals
Bigamy

The whole basis of this argument is ?who is to say what marriage is and what it is not?

I mean just because the majority finds incest offensive if 2 people are truly in love no matter who they are then who is the MAJORITY to deny them their ?right??

So I ask you, if you are for gay marriage are you also for any of the above?

If you are not, aren?t you then denying these people their equal rights?that would be hypocritical wouldn?t it?

its only bigger if you go down the slippery slope. its like saying that if we give arnold the ability to run for president by amending the constitution, we might as well let illegal immigrants run for president too. and if we let illegals, why not criminals, and if criminals, why not animals. to go down such slippery slopes you must ignore the very real differences between things.

If we change the law so that they can get married because it is their right, and not allowing them to get married is discrimination then where does it stop?

did you not read that part? that is exactly part of my point.

so tell me exactly what is the difference? between gay marriage and the the list i gave above?

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo

Originally posted by: Wheezer
This issue is not about gay marriage?it?s much bigger

The MAIN argument for gay marriage is "equal rights" homosexuals feel that they should have the same rights as others when it comes to marriage. Sorry, no.

If we change the law so that they can get married because it is their right, and not allowing them to get married is discrimination then where does it stop?

If gay marriage laws are changed because they are "discriminatory" wouldn?t the following also be considered discriminatory ?

Mothers and Sons
Fathers and Daughters
Brothers and Sisters
Sisters and Sisters
Brothers and Brothers
Mothers and Daughters
Fathers and Sons
Any inter-family relationship
Men and animals
Women and animals
Bigamy

The whole basis of this argument is ?who is to say what marriage is and what it is not?

I mean just because the majority finds incest offensive if 2 people are truly in love no matter who they are then who is the MAJORITY to deny them their ?right??

So I ask you, if you are for gay marriage are you also for any of the above?

If you are not, aren?t you then denying these people their equal rights?that would be hypocritical wouldn?t it?

its only bigger if you go down the slippery slope. its like saying that if we give arnold the ability to run for president by amending the constitution, we might as well let illegal immigrants run for president too. and if we let illegals, why not criminals, and if criminals, why not animals. to go down such slippery slopes you must ignore the very real differences between things.

if the logic applies the logic applies. yes, slippery slope is a logical fallacy, but usually the slippery slope doesn't use the exact same argument for each step on down the line. so maybe it isn't actually a slippery slope. saying adding the income tax is the first step to communism is definitely slippery slope, but the arguments for income tax aren't necessarily the same as for communism. (though i'm not sure how animals can consent)

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: ElFenix


if the logic applies the logic applies. yes, slippery slope is a logical fallacy, but usually the slippery slope doesn't use the exact same argument for each step on down the line. so maybe it isn't actually a slippery slope. saying adding the income tax is the first step to communism is definitely slippery slope, but the arguments for income tax aren't necessarily the same as for communism. (though i'm not sure how animals can consent)

One bark/meow/baaa is sufficient.