What is marriage?

[classy]

Marriage as defined by the federal tax code

http://www.irs.gov/publications/p17/ch02.html


Marital Status

In general, your filing status depends on whether you are considered unmarried or married. For federal tax purposes, a marriage means only a legal union between a man and a woman as husband and wife.

Unmarried persons. You are considered unmarried for the whole year if, on the last day of your tax year, you are unmarried or legally separated from your spouse under a divorce or separate maintenance decree. State law governs whether you are married or legally separated under a divorce or separate maintenance decree.

Considered married. You are considered married for the whole year if on the last day of your tax year you and your spouse meet any one of the following tests.

1. You are married and living together as husband and wife.

2. You are living together in a common law marriage that is recognized in the state where you now live or in the state where the common law marriage began.

3. You are married and living apart, but not legally separated under a decree of divorce or separate maintenance.

4. You are separated under an interlocutory (not final) decree of divorce. For purposes of filing a joint return, you are not considered divorced.

 

[ZzZGuy]

People seem to get confused on this issue.

-Legal marriage.
-Religious Marriage.

Unless you're a member of some weird ass cult, the two usual occur at the same time. All the churches can decide what marriage means and chose to allow or deny a marriage under their banner but have no right to impose their views onto others against their will.

Homosexuals would probably like to be married under their religion if they follow one, but they are not demanding that. They are demanding to be allowed a legal marriage recognized by the sate to allow for the legal rights married couples have.

So if your a religious person, homosexual marriage would have no impact on you as your definition of marriage is left untouched.

I still have yet to see a argument against homosexual marriage that isn't "Ewwwwwww", people trying to force their religion upon others or outright lies.

-edit- Oh and lol at the people who think by denying homosexuals the right to marry that they are not living the same as married couples already.

 

[Mr. Lennon]

How do you define marriage, why, and what do you think marriage is for?

I'm not scared of homosexuals. I don't see the world being taken over by gay boogie-men that want to feminize me. If I thought the redefinition of marriage would stop forever at being between two people regardless of sex, I'd have no issue against it. My problem with gay marriage is that this is not the end or the limit to which marriage will be redefined, and the extent to which marriage loses its exclusive nature is the extent to which it ceases to be marriage.

So what is marriage?

My opinion: An institution in which to foster loyalty to a partnership, the transmission of life, and the rearing and cultivation of those lives brought into the world.

I think it is a grave mistake to hold marriage as abstract from child-bearing, as well as to hold love as the sole prerequisite to marriage.

I realize there are a dozen holes in my argument: Would I deny marriage to those who want no children? Of course not. I only ask that child-bearing be a point of emphasis.

I'd like to know what you think marriage is and what it's for.

Did you know that our population has doubled since the 1960's? Overpopulation is a real problem and is only going to get worse. This argument is just plain stupid and is one of the last remaining arguments the bigoted religious zealots have to offer. The less child-bearing couples the better.

I think it is selfish as fuck to bear children in a time when we have millions of orphans that need to be adopted. Considering that most same sex couples will adopt, I believe they have more to offer to society than heterosexual couples who choose not to.

 

[DaveSimmons]

For the state, marriage is a civil union.

Anything beyond that is tied to a person's religious beliefs, and in America they should have no right to impose those beliefs on anyone else.

Atreus2 seems to take a Judeo-Christian religious view of "marriage" but since American isn't a Christian Theocracy his preferences should be ignored.

 

[Lemon law]

I think in some ways Atreus21 is correct. Absolutely Independent primitive people have evolved similar marriage Customs. And primarily define marriage as a union between two opposite sex individuals for the purpose of bearing children and defining the social rights and obligations of each partner. Also, even primitive cultures prevented the marriage of brothers and sisters. Some cultures permit a man to have multiple wives, others permitted a female to have multiple husbands, some cultures passed property down on the males side and others on the female.

In short, I believe Atreus is correct, the Primary purpose of marriage is social stability
and the rearing of children, and once the question of the parents not being able to simply abandon their children is solved, there is a great deal of room for social experimentation.

So even though I am in a majority for a change, as biological males married to a biological female, I benefit from marriage because it conveys to me a powerful set of legal rights and obligations.

And since gay marriage does not threaten my marriage in any way, why should I deny that same marriage right to same sex couples. I might argue we should not allow brothers and sisters to marry, if they plan to have children, the resulting off spring is likely to be defective and become a burden to society. But if one or both are unable to reproduce, why should we deny even that.

I might also argue that we should not allow multiple marriages for males or females,
because by adulthood, the sex ratio is one to one, messing with that causes social instability.

But once we realize the other purpose of marriage is to promote social stability, then we have a better way of looking at things.

 

[Turin39789]

People seem to get confused on this issue.

-Legal marriage.
-Religious Marriage.

Unless you're a member of some weird ass cult, the two usual occur at the same time. All the churches can decide what marriage means and chose to allow or deny a marriage under their banner but have no right to impose their views onto others against their will.

Or you know, Atheist.

 

[ZzZGuy]

Or you know, Atheist.

Atheist don't seek a religious marriage so I don't see how that applies.. :\

 

[MJinZ]

I think in some ways Atreus21 is correct. Absolutely Independent primitive people have evolved similar marriage Customs. And primarily define marriage as a union between two opposite sex individuals for the purpose of bearing children and defining the social rights and obligations of each partner. Also, even primitive cultures prevented the marriage of brothers and sisters. Some cultures permit a man to have multiple wives, others permitted a female to have multiple husbands, some cultures passed property down on the males side and others on the female.

In short, I believe Atreus is correct, the Primary purpose of marriage is social stability
and the rearing of children, and once the question of the parents not being able to simply abandon their children is solved, there is a great deal of room for social experimentation.

So even though I am in a majority for a change, as biological males married to a biological female, I benefit from marriage because it conveys to me a powerful set of legal rights and obligations.

And since gay marriage does not threaten my marriage in any way, why should I deny that same marriage right to same sex couples. I might argue we should not allow brothers and sisters to marry, if they plan to have children, the resulting off spring is likely to be defective and become a burden to society. But if one or both are unable to reproduce, why should we deny even that.

I might also argue that we should not allow multiple marriages for males or females,
because by adulthood, the sex ratio is one to one, messing with that causes social instability.

But once we realize the other purpose of marriage is to promote social stability, then we have a better way of looking at things.

Indeed, marriage is designed to create stability.

In our day and age however, marriages of any gender combination are capable of procreating (in vitro), or better yet, adopting.

There is essentially no rational argument against it for all practical matters.

Yes, there are rational arguments against it if we lived in 3000 BC and the human population were dwindling and there are no advanced sciences capable of granting biological children to gay parents.

 

[MJinZ]

Atheist don't seek a religious marriage so I don't see how that applies.. :\

Here's a crash course on Atheist Marriages.

1) Get marriage license from State

2) Perform wedding ceremony - no Church required

Of course, if you were thinking you would have thought of that.

 

[HumblePie]

Uhh, you guys are WAYYY off basis here.

Marriage was originally invented by the STATE, ie ruling class at the time, as a contract way back when. It was to bring two families together. Marriage was originally for nobility. As times changed then so did marriage change. Marriage as a ceremony got gobbled up by the Church like just about everything has over time. However, it had nothing to do with divinity in the first place. All one has to do is look at terms related to marriage, like drowry, to realize this fact.

Way, way WAY back, people "married" for two things. Power and wealth. That's it. I am talking well before Christianity and most modern religions. Families chose people who got married and it was never for love or rarely child rearing. It was for merging. The consolidation and propagation of power. Children got be begotten without the need of marriage. But the contract of consolidated power could not.

The fact is, because people need no longer live that way, marriage evolved into its current form. It changed. But the basic premise is the same. Most people can not stand in life on their own two feet. Meaning, without a partner, most people would have a rough time in life financially. But at least now people can chose their own partners instead of having them chosen for them.

However, moonbeams romantic ideal of it is very nice, but that is not what marriage is. That is just merely the ceremony and window dressing.

 

[JSt0rm]

this is marriage

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-YXWl6i2GBg

 

[MJinZ]

Uhh, you guys are WAYYY off basis here.

Marriage was originally invented by the STATE, ie ruling class at the time, as a contract way back when. It was to bring two families together. Marriage was originally for nobility. As times changed then so did marriage change. Marriage as a ceremony got gobbled up by the Church like just about everything has over time. However, it had nothing to do with divinity in the first place. All one has to do is look at terms related to marriage, like drowry, to realize this fact.

Way, way WAY back, people "married" for two things. Power and wealth. That's it. I am talking well before Christianity and most modern religions. Families chose people who got married and it was never for love or rarely child rearing. It was for merging. The consolidation and propagation of power. Children got be begotten without the need of marriage. But the contract of consolidated power could not.

The fact is, because people need no longer live that way, marriage evolved into its current form. It changed. But the basic premise is the same. Most people can not stand in life on their own two feet. Meaning, without a partner, most people would have a rough time in life financially. But at least now people can chose their own partners instead of having them chosen for them.

However, moonbeams romantic ideal of it is very nice, but that is not what marriage is. That is just merely the ceremony and window dressing.

I agree that marriage is about legal tender, ultimately - and the status it involves.

However, couples that lead to marriage are about stability. Rings that bind.

 

[ZzZGuy]

Here's a crash course on Atheist Marriages.

1) Get marriage license from State

2) Perform wedding ceremony - no Church required

Of course, if you were thinking you would have thought of that.

I think you need to stop skimming posts.

 

[HumblePie]

I agree that marriage is about legal tender, ultimately - and the status it involves.

However, couples that lead to marriage are about stability. Rings that bind.

Rings were never part of marriage until much later. And when they were introduced, before Christianity, they were merged house rings. The noble symbol on the rings was changed to reflect the merger and the couple wore it to show the merger. It had nothing to do with love eternal and all that crap until much later. Not that I disagree with the sentiment, I just find it funny that people really think those old customs were always that way. They were not.

 

[her209]

Rings were never part of marriage until much later. And when they were introduced, before Christianity, they were merged house rings. The noble symbol on the rings was changed to reflect the merger and the couple wore it to show the merger. It had nothing to do with love eternal and all that crap until much later. Not that I disagree with the sentiment, I just find it funny that people really thing those old customs were always that way. They were not.

Don't you know you're supposed to spend 3-5x your monthly salary on an engagement ring?

 

[HumblePie]

Don't you know you're supposed to spend 3-5x your monthly salary on an engagement ring?

LOL at the Debeers brainwashing crap! I like your style

 

[JSt0rm]

I'm going to spend 2x my monthly on a ring when I do it.

 

[hal2kilo]

What is love?

Baby don't hurt me...
don't hurt me...

no more...

Puts on night clubing clothes, shakes body, snaps finger, and wags head back and forth with my best buddy who does the same.

 

[zinfamous]

All I know is that no marriage is official until you sign that license and the state says it's official.

Why people seem to think it's an institution of the church, or anything else, is beyond me.

 

[Lemon law]

I wonder if MJinC misses part of the point with "Yes, there are rational arguments against it if we lived in 3000 BC and the human population were dwindling and there are no advanced sciences capable of granting biological children to gay parents. "

Its somewhat of an academic point to note there are now new technologies to allow gay parents to have children, when the technology is less than a century old, yet the homosexual question has been with us even before biblical times.

But if the local population is dwindling, the answer to that has and always has been, free love, keep all the females barefoot and pregnant, makes sure as many fertile males as possible have frequent access to all females, and thus the baby boom is assured.

But no, all societies have basically restricted breeding rights to females with marriage restrictions, that give certain males, or only one males, 100% access to any one given female. Meanwhile certain societies permit or frown on males sowing their wild oats, but almost all human societies have a definition of adultery. With adultery being a non-socially approved sexual union.

What is that old joke about the Polish mother asking her pregnant daughter, Are you sure its yours? Because its the barefoot and pregnant daughter that must raise the child, unless the given society forces the equally culpable male to help raise the resultant child.

But as soon as we remove the resultant child from the equation, then why have the marriage restrictions? But now that we have the new technology to permit same sex couples to reproduce, any gay marriage questions become easily compatable with new technology if we hold both partners equally responsible for raising the resultant rug rat.

 

[glenn1]

this is marriage

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-YXWl6i2GBg

I prefer this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GroDErHIM_0&feature=related
[Somehow we've managed to accommodate the life event of birth in both the religious and secular realms (birth certificate vs. baptism), I don't see why we couldn't do likewise for marriage. While I don't object to same-sex marriage or the term, I think having the government co-opt the marriage concept corrupts it. I wouldn't go to the government to get approval for a Bar Mitzah; likewise I don't see why they should be involved in my wedding.

 

[nobodyknows]

I would define marriage is the ritualized external expression of a spiritual union that exists between two people whose love for each other is so powerful that it lasts for a lifetime.

Sweet dreams are made of this

Who am I to disagree?

 

[ebaycj]

this is not the end or the limit to which marriage will be redefined, and the extent to which marriage loses its exclusive nature is the extent to which it ceases to be marriage.

Why do you think this?

Polygamy has already been made illegal ( via the 1862 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morrill_Anti-Bigamy_Act ) and that act has been ruled on and found to be constitutional by the SCOTUS ( via http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reynolds_v._United_States ).

You really think that super old law will be overturned?

 

[ebaycj]

Marriage is a traditional religious institution that cannot be broken except by death.

The concept has been somewhat secularlized, sure, but the secular version is not the same. A secular "marriage" is not really a marriage, in the traditional sense.

I have no problem with extending the same rights to homosexual couples who go through the same process (civil union). However, I do not think it should be called "marriage". I don't even think that a civil union between heterosexual people should be called "marriage", because it's technically not.

If politicians were smart, they'd call it a "civil union", give it the same rights as a civil marriage, and be done with it. I would bet that if they did that, half the people who are "against" "gay marriage" would be fine with it.

After all, it's about the rights, isn't it? The name shouldn't be important to the people getting those rights.

Of course, taking this logical way out doesn't give politicians on either side talking points or big headlines.

If the name of two strangers' relationship shouldn't be important to either of them, as you say, why on earth is it important to YOU ?

 

[StageLeft]

I would define marriage is the ritualized external expression of a spiritual union that exists between two people whose love for each other is so powerful that it lasts for a lifetime.

You are a sweetheart, Moonbeam. I know you aren't told that enough around here, but you are.