Page 2 of 14 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 132
Thanks Tree31Thanks

Thread: Definition of Marriage

  1. #11
    Spock of Vulcan Ian Jeffrey's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    54,733
    Thanks
    26253

    From
    Vulcan
    Quote Originally Posted by Rasselas View Post
    "Twelve years doesn't make you a happy couple. It makes you a LONG couple." -- Neil Simon
    Source?

  2. #12
    quichierbichen
    Joined
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    63,158
    Thanks
    34741

    From
    in my head
    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Jeffrey View Post
    Source?
    The Odd Couple Act I.

    It's Murray's line. Look on page 18: http://www.aaronbooth.info/uploads/7...ple_script.pdf
    Thanks from Ian Jeffrey

  3. #13
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    29,950
    Thanks
    3773

    Quote Originally Posted by RNG View Post
    Marriage is a legal contract mandated by a government between two people defining asset division and responsibilities in case of a divorce.
    And after all, governments tell us what it means....

    People have been cohabiting and calling it whatever they like forever.

    Here's a nice parable about how it once failed to get established .......

    General Semantics - The Parable of Red Eye the Atavism

    Red-Eye and the Woman Problem

    Once, long ago, tens of thousands of years before history began, people were worried, as they have often been since, about the chaotic condition of their lives. For in those days men took by force the women they desired. There was no way of stopping them.

    If you wanted a woman but found that she was already the partner of another man, all you needed to do was to kill him and drag her home. Naturally, someone else might slug you a little later to get her away from you, but that was the chance you took if you wanted a woman at all.

    Consequently there wasn't much of what you could call family life. The men were too busy suspiciously watching each other. And time that might have been spent fishing or hunting or otherwise raising the general standard of living was wasted in constant and anxious measures to defend one's woman.

    Many people saw that this was no way for human beings to live. As they said among themselves: "Truly we are strange creatures. In some ways we are highly civilized. We no longer eat raw flesh, as did our savage ancestors. Our technical men have perfected stone arrowheads and powerful bows so that we can slay the fastest deer that runs. Our medicine men can foretell the running of the fish in the streams, and our sorcerers drive away illnesses. At the Institute for Advanced Studies at Notecnirp, a group of bright young men are said to be working out a dance that will make the rain fall. Little by little, we are mastering the secrets of nature, so that we are able to live like civilized men and not like beasts.

    "Yet," they continued, "we have not mastered ourselves. There are those among us who continue to snatch women away from each other by force, so that every man of necessity lives in fear of his fellows. People agree, of course, that all this killing ought to be stopped. But no one is stopping it. The most fundamental of human problems, that of securing a mate and bringing up one's children under some kind of decent, orderly system, remains unsolved. Unless we can find some way of placing the man-woman relationship on a decent and human basis, our pretensions to civilization are hollow."

    For many generations the thoughtful men of the tribe pondered this problem. How could men and women, living peacefully together with their children, be protected from the lusts of the few, who went around killing other men in order to possess their women?

    Slowly, and only after centuries of groping discussion, they evolved an answer. They proposed that men and women who have decided to live together permanently be bound by a "contract," by which they meant the uttering, before the priests of the tribe, of solemn promises, binding on their future behavior. This contract was to be known as "marriage." The man in the marriage was to be known as a "husband," the woman as a "wife."

    They further proposed that this contract be observed and honored by all the people of the tribe. In other words, if a given woman, Slendershanks, was known to be the "wife" of a given man, Beetle brow, everyone in the tribe was to agree not to molest their domestic arrangements. Furthermore, they proposed that if anyone failed to respect this contract and killed another man to possess his "wife," he was to be punished by the collective force of tribal authority.

    In order to put these proposals into effect, a great conference was called, and delegates arrived from all branches of the tribe. Some came with glad hearts, filled with the hope that humanity was about to enter a new era. Some came with faint hearts, not expecting much to come out of the conference, but feeling that it was at least worth a try. Some came simply because they had been elected delegates and were getting their expenses paid; they were willing to go along with whoever proved to be in the majority.

    All the time the conference was going on, however, a big, backward savage called Red-Eye the Atavism, who was so loud-mouthed that he always had a following in spite of his unprepossessing personality, kept shouting scornful remarks from the sidelines. He called the delegates "visionaries," "eggheads," "impractical theorists," "starry-eyed dreamers," "crackpots," and "pantywaists." He gleefully pointed out that many of the delegates had themselves been, at an earlier date, women-snatchers. (This, unfortunately, was true.)

    He shouted to Hairy Hands, who was one of the delegates, "You don't think Brawny Legs is going to leave your woman alone just because he makes an agreement, do you?" And he shouted to Brawny Legs, "You don't think Hairy Hands is going to leave your woman alone just because he makes an agreement, do you?" And he poured derision on all the delegates, referring to their discussion as "striped-pants kind of talk, like who ever heard of `husband,' and `wife,' and ,marriage' and all that double-dome Choctaw!"

    Then Red-Eye the Atavism turned to his following, the crowd of timid and tiny-minded people who always found their self-assurance in the loudness of his voice, and he yelled, "Look at those fool delegates, will you? They think they can change human nature!"

    Thereupon the crowd rolled over with laughter and repeated after him, "Haw, haw! They think they can change human nature!"

    That broke up the conference. It was another two thousand years, therefore, before marriage was finally instituted in that tribe-two thousand years during which innumerable men were killed defending their women, two thousand years during which men who had no designs on their neighbors' women killed each other as a precaution against being killed themselves, two thousand years during which the arts of peace languished, two thousand years during which people despaired as they dreamed of a distant future time when a man might live with the woman of his choice without arming himself to the teeth and watching over her day and night.

    * * *

    Perhaps you find this little fiction depressing. Whether or not you find it so depends on what you abstract from it as the most important point. Red-Eye the Atavism, it is true, scored a victory on that occasion. But it is also true that marriage (however imperfect an institution that may be) was finally established.

    However, as for instituting the social agreements to prevent international violence in today's world, we don't have two thousand years to find the solution. Indeed, we don't have two hundred years. Nor even twenty. Perhaps not even two.

    And that's our problem.

    Last edited by kmiller1610; 16th January 2018 at 01:35 AM.

  4. #14
    Established Member
    Joined
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    6,963
    Thanks
    300

    From
    Irrelevant
    Quote Originally Posted by Spookycolt View Post
    There is no definition for it anymore, its whatever someone wants it to be.

    Its pretty much irrelevant now.
    How can the government imbue it with legal force if it cannot be defined?

  5. #15
    Established Member
    Joined
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    6,963
    Thanks
    300

    From
    Irrelevant
    Quote Originally Posted by RNG View Post
    Marriage is a legal contract mandated by a government between two people defining asset division and responsibilities in case of a divorce.
    How is your definition different from this:

    https://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=337

    contract
    1) n. an agreement with specific terms between two or more persons or entities in which there is a promise to do something in return for a valuable benefit known as consideration. Since the law of contracts is at the heart of most business dealings, it is one of the three or four most significant areas of legal concern and can involve variations on circumstances and complexities. The existence of a contract requires finding the following factual elements: a) an offer; b) an acceptance of that offer which results in a meeting of the minds; c) a promise to perform; d) a valuable consideration (which can be a promise or payment in some form); e) a time or event when performance must be made (meet commitments); f) terms and conditions for performance, including fulfilling promises; g) performance, if the contract is "unilateral". A unilateral contract is one in which there is a promise to pay or give other consideration in return for actual performance.

  6. #16
    Human Bean KnotaFrayed's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    13,962
    Thanks
    11554

    From
    Here
    To some people, it would appear "marriage" is all about cheating and hypocrisy.

    Take a VOW and promise all kinds of things, then break your promise, once, twice, thrice or more.

    To others, it means committing to the vow they actually thought seriously about, before taking it and accommodating and tolerating one another's errors and mistakes, up to a point few, if any, people would consider that anyone should tolerate.

    But change is one thing in life, that seems a certainty, along with death and taxes. For some, divorce is not about one person cheating on their vows or being unfaithful. For some, it is about a change or a revelation in the person someone married, from their cheating ways to their violent ways. No one should be forced to stay in a marriage where their spouse causes unwarranted or violent harm to them or any member of their family, nor should they be forced to tolerate and inequitable level of faith, love and responsibility to a partnership.

    Also, some people learn from making mistakes, some people do not. Some people get married again after a marriage that does not work out and are totally happy the rest of their lives, some people keep marrying others that cheat, lie or steal from them and never learn to think about or check into character, before they pledge to marry.

    Some people have longer unwed loving, sexual and cohabitant relationships for longer than the average legal marriage lasts in America, or anywhere.

    Some people in the world notice we are all different and make accommodation for others doing their own thing, as long as it does no harm to those doing their own thing or to anyone else.

    Some people seem to want everyone else to be a clone of them and to want or dislike all the things they want or dislike, and when they find out people are different, try to herd and force them into conforming and all being the same.
    Last edited by KnotaFrayed; 16th January 2018 at 05:36 AM.
    Thanks from MeBelle

  7. #17
    Spock of Vulcan Ian Jeffrey's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    54,733
    Thanks
    26253

    From
    Vulcan
    Quote Originally Posted by Rasselas View Post
    The Odd Couple Act I.

    It's Murray's line. Look on page 18: http://www.aaronbooth.info/uploads/7...ple_script.pdf
    Thanks. I haven't seen that one in a long time.

  8. #18
    Spock of Vulcan Ian Jeffrey's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    54,733
    Thanks
    26253

    From
    Vulcan
    Quote Originally Posted by kingrat View Post
    How is your definition different from this:

    https://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=337

    contract
    Marriage, as a legal institution, is only partially a "contract," and to that extent RNG's definition is incomplete. Certain rights and responsibilities are defined by law, but mostly those do not come into play until the divorce. A marital settlement agreement, identifying division of assets and debts, and child custody/visitation/support, is more analogous to an enforceable contract, but it still must meet legal standards before the court will enforce it. An antenuptial (or prenuptial) agreement, which sets forth these rights and responsibilities before the marriage is entered into, is more analogous to a marriage contract; however, even this must meet certain legal standards to be upheld, else the court will revert to the same legal standards applying to a divorce without such an agreement.

    To that extent, RNG's definition does not quite work.

  9. #19
    Member LT Greenbean's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    2,822
    Thanks
    510

    From
    south area
    Quote Originally Posted by Idiocracat View Post
    Marriage is a covenant, a sacred bond between a man 3rd wife (pregnant), instituted by and publicly entered into before God and normally consummated by sexual intercourse while having intercourse with hookers and bisexual porn stars.
    Marriage is when two people who live together start pooping with the door open

  10. #20
    Established Member
    Joined
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    6,963
    Thanks
    300

    From
    Irrelevant
    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Jeffrey View Post
    Marriage, as a legal institution, is only partially a "contract," and to that extent RNG's definition is incomplete. Certain rights and responsibilities are defined by law, but mostly those do not come into play until the divorce. A marital settlement agreement, identifying division of assets and debts, and child custody/visitation/support, is more analogous to an enforceable contract, but it still must meet legal standards before the court will enforce it. An antenuptial (or prenuptial) agreement, which sets forth these rights and responsibilities before the marriage is entered into, is more analogous to a marriage contract; however, even this must meet certain legal standards to be upheld, else the court will revert to the same legal standards applying to a divorce without such an agreement.

    To that extent, RNG's definition does not quite work.
    So, a marriage is not what the parties say it is and it is not merely a contract.

    It is an agreement between a man and a woman to live their lives as husband and wife.

Page 2 of 14 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 388
    Last Post: 13th June 2015, 11:56 AM
  2. Replies: 54
    Last Post: 11th September 2014, 05:47 PM
  3. Replies: 22
    Last Post: 26th August 2012, 11:26 AM
  4. Replies: 6
    Last Post: 17th August 2012, 08:41 AM
  5. What is the definition of a RIGHT?
    By The_Bear in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 24th February 2009, 01:03 PM

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed