I’m not sure exactly what the right words to use here are… I mean a legally or culturally recognized bond between two people who want to spend their lives together, but in a philia rather than eros way.
Is there somewhere, someplace on the globe, where this is a recognized thing?
How and why would a state Need to differentiate between this and normal marriage?
Yes, the Catholic church has part of the rule for marriage that it must be “consumed”*.
But most states don’t have that in the marriage rule. There’s no official coming over once a year to check if you have had enough sex or must catch-up your quota before end of the year.
Some states used to encourage children (e.g. the DDR/GDR helped couples with a loan at the start of the marriage, which got reduced/ canceled if they had children, see “abkindern”), but with overpopulation a Problem for the past decades, this has been reduced.
Read recently somewhere (here?) that in Japan, adults can be adopted originally to pass on Family Business, but recently has been repurposed for gay couples to get rights similar to marriage.
I seem to recall that English isn’t your first language. The term we would use for this would be “consummated.” 
Beyond that, I agree with you. Despite what some religious conservatives say about marriage and sex being for procreation, the law (at least in the U.S.) does not care one whit about it.
I have friends who are in this sort of “philia” marriage, more or less – they love each other, and are best friends, but the romantic attraction between the two of them has always been low, to non-existent. The woman of the couple has a long-term lover, whom her husband knows, and he’s supportive of it, because he knows that her lover gives her something that he can’t, and isn’t interested in.
Nitpick: “Consummated.”
Failure to consummate is a legitimate ground for annulment in the Roman Catholic church, but I always thought it was more of a comment on the couple’s refusal to (as it was put in my marriage vows) “accept children,” rather than any particular official warning for the bride and groom to get jiggy.
IIRC failure to consummate is also grounds for a civil annulment in many states.
That may well be, but it also assumes that one of the participants in the marriage wants the consummation, and isn’t getting it. If neither spouse is looking for it, there’s generally no third-party forcing of the issue, unless family members or a church decides to stick their noses into the situation.
Doh. Thanks for the correction.
Using (as always) Peter deRosas second book on the Evolution of RCC morals about sex and marriage, the “current” view that children are a necessary part of the marriage was not always part.
And since the RCC has not (to my knowledge) officially recanted that the state of virginity is a bit holier than having sex, I wonder if it would be possible to take one of These Medieval “vow of celibacy for x time because it’s holier to not have sex” and then extend the period several times, effectivly infinite (or at least after Menopause)? What would the official moral theological stance of the RCC be on that, after Vaticanum II and the "Pill-Pope"s encyclica?
Really? How do they check? Why do they care? Which states?
I have an entirely platonic relationship with a young man and it is wonderful.
I’m damaged goods, being raised in a very Catholic home and being queer fucked me up royally. I chose celibacy over ten years ago and am much happier as a result.
My buddy has made a commitment to me and I to him.
Strangely enough, I am married to a wonderful woman who lives on the other side of our farm with a very good man. They are my family and both think the world of my guy. We have been “together” for over four years now.
They don’t check and they don’t really care. As stated above , if both parties are fine with the marriage not being consummated, the state doesn’t have a problem with that. It only becomes an issue when one party is not fine with it and files for an annulment in the grounds of non-consummation.
And a civil (non-Catholic) annulment is different from a normal divorce? I didn’t know that civil marriages could be annulled.
But then, I think it’s terrible to have a reason (or fault) for a divorce for a civil marriage at all. If one Partner wants to divorce, obviously it’s not working any longer, so the state should do it.
Legally, there is no real difference. But I would be interested in the cultural part of her question. Are there cultures where platonic marriages are accepted as a normal part of the culture (and not some weird exception to the norm)?
I remember hearing of a some Muslim country where an old man will often marry four unattached women who wish to have the benefits of legal marriage (as an unmarried woman has fewer rights), but wish to remain independent. I don’t know how true that is, or how accepted that is by the culture.
Not an anthropologist/ ethnologist, but I would guess that for 90% of human cultures and history, nobody talked about sex, how much or Little you had in your marriage- or-equivalence.
So if two People married and wanted to stay platonic, as Long as they didn’t tell anybody, nobody would know or care.
Historically, most cultures wanted children, because overpopulation was not yet a Problem and contraceptives not sure. So a platonic couple not having children might be commented on in the village. But there were many medical reasons for couples to be infertile, so if necessary, the platonic couple could act sad that they weren’t blessed.
I’ve read somewhere that in Judaism, Rabbis had a list somewhere on how much sex per time unit a wife could demand of her husband based on occupation: so 2-3 times a week for normal Jobs up to “once every 6 months” for a sailor. But again, if both parts of the couple were happy, nobody checked, it was only if the wife was unsatisfied that she could demand her right (since this was before Vibrators, and being mother raised Status).
A civil annulment is similar to a Catholic annulment in that a civil annulment is essentially a declaration that the marriage was invalid or void. A divorce is the dissolution of a valid marriage. Typically, there are limited grounds for a civil annulment- one or both parties are underage, someone doesn’t have the mental capacity to consent to marriage, consent was obtained by means of fraud or coercion and so on . Some of these grounds are waived after some period of time/under certain circumstances- for example, a 30 year old can’t get an annulment based on the fact that he was 16 when he got married.
If you don’t have grounds for an annulment, you can still get a divorce.
What about in cases of marrying those outside your nationality? Is Immigration o.k. with platonic marriages when it comes to your spouse staying in the country and becoming a citizen?
There are quite a lot of stories, and at least one movie Green Card (1990) - IMDb about marriages for visa and the Need to prove it’s a real marriage to the snoopy bureaucrats, but I don’t know how much of that is exaggeration.
Isn’t EvaLuna a paralegal in Immigration?
Germany just passed a law dissolving marriages of underage-minors, as Response to many refugees from countries with lower Ages for marriage. One of the big Feminist Groups, Terre des Femmes celebrated this, but other experts working with These minors have called it racism* and warned against, since by dissolving underage marriages, all Claims are null, leaving the Young Girls without Claims for alimentary or rights to possible children from this marriage.
I guess that’s more what I was going for. Like if it’s a common enough thing in that culture for the relationship to have its own name.
Another U.S. example: it’s apparently not entirely uncommon for single / widowed retirees to marry for financial considerations, rather than romantic considerations – shared living expenses, and being able to be beneficiaries on each other’s Social Security benefits.
But, again, this doesn’t have its own official name, per se (though it may be referred to informally as a “marriage of convenience”), and it’s more of a case of the parties involved gaming the system a bit for their own financial security, rather than society giving them a special sort of approval for a different sort of union (which seems to be what Malleus, Incus, Stapes! is really looking for).
Well, to find other people. How would you find other people who wanted to join this sort of family if you don’t even have a name to call it by? If there’s not even a word you can Google?
Being in this age group, I’d have to say that it’s more common for seniors NOT to get married for financial reasons – they just move in together and ‘live in sin’.
This is based on stories from my senior friends, but cites are probably easy to find. Terms like ‘marriage penalty’ should get results.
One argument against same-sex marriage is that such a union cannot be consummated.
OTOH, Patty Duke’s annulment to her marriage to Michael Tell was granted on the grounds of non-consummation. Decades later, her son Sean had a DNA test to discover his genetic father, which he thought was a tossed between Desi Arnez Jr. and Jon Asitin. Guess what? The answer is Michael Tell!