So this is really what it comes down to. What do you think marriage is? What do you think marriage should be?
I say the essential element of any marriage is the publicially made monogamous committment made by two people to share their lives with one another. I think that the sex of the participants in this commitment is irrelevant. However, without that singular committment you do not have a marriage, merely a convenient cohabitation arrangement.
I think it has to be a loving commitment, but not necessarily monogamous. You have to be ready to take care of each other. Even if there are three or for “each others.” You also have to be willing to split things up equally if there should be a divorce. Meaning that if the third person wants to split, the other two have to give up one third of the assets of the union.
Actually ‘what it comes down to’ is what the loudest (and possibly most numerous) voices say marriage is. And right now, sadly, those voices are of Christians, rightwing and ‘middlewing’.
As ignorant and homophobic as I believe them to be.
But always, it is good to hear someone say something rational, like Wrenchslinger.
Bush and his man/woman marriage as ‘foundation of civilization’ stuff will win this one.
That is, unless the opposition can block him on a lot of low roads in creative ways.
I would love to see some ‘foundations’ created to STOP Bush’s rightwing amendment, ‘foundations’ creatively named, like “Americans For The Preservation of Marriage” or “The Foundation To Keep Marriage Holy”.
Hey, it’s the same tactic Bush’s administration uses with crap like the “Healthy Forrest Initiative” which is a guise to fund the logging industry.
(BTW, is there a site or list of these faux ‘foundations’ and lobby groups that do the opposite of what their title implies?)
I see no reason to assume that a marriage is monogamous. The Mormons don’t (well, they do now, but that’s out of political expediency, IMO). Islam doesn’t. Lots of African cultures don’t.
Is an Islamic family consisting of a man, his three wives, and their collected children not a family? Is he not married to each of his wives?
I think fidelity to the specific promises made between spouse and spouse is important, but I don’t think that one of those promises necessarily has to be exclusive monogamy.
Just IMO, but marriage should be whatever X consenting adults say it is.
A man and a woman? Cool.
Two guys? Fine.
A man and six wives? Groovy.
Three men and five women? Hey, it’s your business.
Bottom line: if a group of consenting adults want to say “We consider ourselves married, and a family, and we have a special closeness with each other,” then that’s that. The only role government should play is to recognize their commitment for what it is.
And if the Church/Temple/Synagogue doesn’t like it, TFB. They weren’t so hot on other stuff as well, yet life manages to go on without their antiquated views.
You have to know that you’re going to get a different answer from each person who responds to this.
My answer to the question is that a marriage is an agreement between some number of people to spend their life together in a mutually supportive arrangement.
It’s great that this sometimes entails benefits from the government, because that encourages more people to seek such arrangements. But all of the additional restrictions that various groups put on what is considered a valid marriage are artifacts of the values of thoes groups, not inherent characteristics of marriage itself. The evidence that this is the case is going to be proved by this thread, given how many definitions of marriage you’re going to get. I’ll bet that all of them contain some variation of the above statement, but that the qualifications of validity are hugely varied.
The People for the American Way is definitely engaged in fighting against the Federal Marriage Amendment.
It is a binding financial contract. I am currently thinking of liberating myself from mine.
Marriage is the union in a monogamous, life long relationship between a husband and a wife; all the rest you hear are fairy tales.
I understand that there are a number of polygamists (both in action and in spirit) on this board. I just want to make sure I’m clear about this. As far as I’m concerned people can do whatever to whomever whenever (assuming all parties involved are consenting, responsible adults). If you have a working open relationship with more than one partner, that’s great. I applaud you for making what must be at times an awkward situation work. And I hope that you find the happiness that you seek.
That said. I don’t think you can be married if you “claim” to take more than one partner at a time. It is a fundamentally different relationship than marriage. Do polygamists enjoy lifelong partnerships with their (multiple) spouses. Oftentimes yes. Do they have the right to find just as much happiness as those of us who feel satisfied with one spouse seek? Of course, I do not dispute this.
However, I really, truly feel that once you enter into a marriage agreement with more than one person you have voided the marriage agreement by default. You have entered the realm of something different. Perhaps something more. Certainly something that deserves its own label. But it is not a marriage.
What is fundamentally different? Actually, it’s fundamentally the same. There are multiple people working toward the same goal, that feel closer to each other than to other people. They have their children’s best interests at heart, like interests, and probably fund those interests communally. The only part that is different is the number of participants. I don’t see a difference.
I don’t see on what basis you can claim to have the sure and certain knowledge that polygamous marriage is “fundamentally different” from monogamous marriage. The same feelings are involved. The only difference is the number of people in the relationship. I don’t think that this difference is enough to completely change the character of the relationship.
So I think you’re wrong, and I call on you to provide a solid reason, with justifications, why the committed life relationships within a polygamous union are or should be any less deserving of the sobriquet of “marriage” than those within a monogamous union.
shrug Okay. That does seem to sort of shut down the debate, though. Your OP seemed to ask an open question, but if you’re not willing to accept other people’s viewpoints on the word as valid, we’re not going to get very far.
I do have a question though. I’m not trying any underhanded debating tactics here or anything, I just want to know what you think. Why is the principle of monogamy so central to your definition of marriage? Is it a particular virtue/benefit/principle that is demonstrated? Is it the (possible) reduction of possibilities for friction? Or something else?
I would have to agree with arcana. In addition, despite obvious exceptions, it is for the implied purpose of procreation and the raising of the resulting offspring by a father and a mother. In reality, most of the debate about same sex marriages is a discussion of homosexual rights, not of marriage per se. Do the thousands of gay couples in San Fransico really care if they are married? I seriously doubt it, except for the legal consequences which include the ability to buy homes with T by E, family health benefits, social security benefits, etc. In other words, I see this as a play for the same financial incentives that have evolved to support heterosexual marriage. Give them the ability to do that without the ceremony and I think everyone will be happy.
I never called into question the feelings that anyone has. But emotions have absolutly nothing to do with marriage. They can certainly influence a persons decision as whether or not they want to get married, but they are not what makes a marriage a marriage.
Because, as far as I understand it, the term “marriage” refers to a committment made between two people. It’s a matter of simple definition. I’m not trying to stigmatize anyone, and I’m certainly not trying to demean the committments made by anyone in a polygamous union. I simply feel that marriage is not the correct word to use to refer to those relationships.
Except that the “obvious exceptions” far outnumber your perceived “implied purpose”. There are millions of people who cannot bear children; either they’re too old, infertile, sick…whatever. Those that do have children are frequently divorced, and someone other than the “mother” or “father” is helping to raise the children. Your definition is based in christianity – not reality.
Dauerbach said,
Many of these benefits can be had through employment at the right company, or by other legal arrangements. The issue, as I see it, is marginalization of a huge group of people. They are made to feel as though they are less than everyone else in the country, for a reason that affects no one. They want to be treated as the equal citizens they are.
Point taken. In my defense, however, the open question was asked in the forum entitled “Great Debates”. This would lead me to think that all assertions made under that banner are open to, well… debate.
I don’t see how simply accepting someone else’s viewpoints as established fact can be good for debate. If you think that my point is irrefutable than I geuss I’ve “won” the argument, but that’s not what I’m after. Sure it would be gratifing if everyone who disagreed with me came to their senses and said, “You know what Wrenchslinger, you’re right. I can’t believe I ever doubted you. Here’s a gold-plated 8 inch Crescent for your collection.” But A. - That ain’t gonna happen. And B. - It’d be really boring around here if it did.
I started this thread because I want to hear what other people have to say. I’ve already said that I accept that other people have different points of view than me. And as a matter of fact my feelings about polygamy have been changing as a result of this discussion. If I am polluting the waters too much by shoving my big, fat, obnoxious point of view down everyone’s throats, then I’ll try and be a little quieter.
I really think that there is a danger that we may lessen the importance of marriage if we allow it to be applied to too broad a spectrum of relationships. If a couple spends 30 years living with one another, and never makes a public declaration of their commitment to one another, then I think that that relationship is not a marriage, not matter how strongly those two people may feel for one another. Likewise, if you choose to spend your life in consort with more than one other person, the relationship is something else besides a marriage.
There is a definite risk involved in stating before your peers (and before God, if you so choose) that you want to spend your life in partnership with this one other person. People who take that risk deserve to be reckognized for it, and should be expected to live up to that promise by their peers. I think it’s really important that I made vows to my wife in front of our friends and family that I will be expected to uphold for the rest of my life. The fact that she did the same means that we share something that no one else has a claim to. And I think that that’s really special. Not everyone needs to do that. I certainly don’t look down on the couple who have lived together for 30 years, but I don’t call them husband and wife (or H&H, or W&W).
Marriage, IMO, is a formalized committment of sexual access, financial responsibility and resource sharing, etc, between partners. I usually say ‘pair bonding’ but as has been pointed out, sometimes there are aggregates that form that exceed mere pairs. Thats all ‘Marriage’ EVER was, folks, from the dawn of man.
In various societies we have had ever concievable permutation of this theme from man/woman, man/man, woman/woman, man/women, woman/men, etc etc formalized bonding cerimonies in various cultures and at various times for all of human history. Whats right? Why, all of them of course…they are ALL human created. More specifically, whats right is whatever the people wanting to form the bond THINK is right…and its no one elses FUCKING business. Certainly not the government. The government should just be there to provide the social guidelines and laws to make allow its citizens to make their own choices and have responsibility when/if things go wrong (like death or divorce or such) so that all parties are fairly represented. Trying to narrowly define ‘Marriage’ on purely theological Christian grounds is assinine IMO.
-XT
If that – my relationships are all dyadic (each relationship contains two people). I just happen to have more than one of them.
Personally, I think marriage is the ritual and tradition by which people form families within communities. That’s about the only thing that encompasses all the forms it takes.
Different cultures have different qualifications for entering into this ritual. I believe one of the only common ones is some form of incest tabu, but the forms of that likewise vary wildly; for example, the Old Testament proscribes marrying two sisters and marrying one’s stepmother as incest, which is nonsense to the Western presumption that incest relates to consanguinity; in some cultures the offspring of one’s mother’s brother are tabu for incest reasons but one’s father’s sister’s children are prime marriage material (and in others this is vice versa). (Or something roughly like that; there’s terminology for this, and it extends up the relevant lines, and it’s really complicated.)
Polygyny is a common structure for such families; polyandry, while less common, does happen. “Gay” marriage is respected by at minimum some African, Amerind and Caribbean groups (I believe that one member needs to be socially declared a member of the other sex or, in those groups that have them, the local third sex). Over thirty African tribes are documented to allow women to pay bride-price (thus acquiring marriage rights). (Also, a tribe in South America believes that a pregnant woman should have sex with a large number of men for the healthiest baby possible.) Nominal monogamy with either cheating, semi-official partners on the side, or formal concubinage is also popular.