How would you define Marriage?

Meh, and the women they have stock of are of the low quality type. No thanks.

:lol: Way to reinforce the mysoginistic and patently ******** opinion of women certain cultures have!
 
But marriage isn't just a religious concept. Not all cultures see it as a religious ceremony at all. In some parts of the world you can still trade live stock for a woman.


So? The question is "How do you define marriage?" In my opinion, all other definitions are wrong, thus I discard them.

I choose to separate the religious and legal aspects of contemporary marriage because that's how I view them. Note, however, that my definition does not preclude the practice you mention.

-- Ravensfire
 
A union between two adults in whatever is religiously gratifying (before god, in nirvana, spiritual union) to them.

Government should be concerned with civil unions for all. Leave marriage to religions....
 
How would you define Marriage?
bailbond-handcuffs.jpg
 
legal union between two consenting adults.
 
Eternal damnation?

The legal bonding between one being of the female sex and one being of the male sex works for me, or at least that is what comes to mind when someone mentions marriage.
 
a cash cow for divorce lawyers.

or a union between 2 idiots that will statistically end 7 years later.

I know i'm such a hopeless romantic.
 
Marriage is between Abaddon and 4543534534 women.
 
a way to get laid or get away with a bastard child in the backwards south
 
1 word "hell"
 
The legal union between one adult man and one adult woman.
What if one of them was a intersexual (as in has both sex organs?), could that person marrige any one person (as in male or female?)
Or what if the women was born a man and got a sex change (would that be legal)?
If that one person was a intersexual could he/she/it marriage itself??
 
Two consenting adults.

I know two couples in a civil union, and everyone refers to them as "married".
 
A legal union between two consenting adults

Two at a time anyway ;)

Government should get involved when children enter the picture, not because of marriage but because of legal guardianship, inheritance, etc. Other than that it aint some politician's place to tell us who we can or cannot marry.

Marriage, to me, is a religious concept and should remain exactly that - a religious concept.

Then the the government should stay out of the picture or not only is it respecting an establishment of religion, it is legislating religion. I just cant see Jesus going around raising a ruckus about people making such a commitment.

On the other hand, this is also about money and opens the door to lawsuits. If gays can marry then they can sue people who dont treat them like they're married. A business with a gay employee who wants marriage benefits for his/her "spouse" may be looking at an equal rights gripe when the practice ostensibly exists to help employees starting families.
 
"When two people have shared bed for three years, they are to be considered married." - Jyske Lov (the Danish equalent of Magna Carta)

Seems reasonable.
 
Then the the government should stay out of the picture or not only is it respecting an establishment of religion, it is legislating religion. I just cant see Jesus going around raising a ruckus about people making such a commitment.
There are people who are opposed to same-sex marriage on secular grounds. It's not all about religion :rolleyes:.
 
Two at a time anyway ;)

How about those who all agree to faithful polygamy within a limited group and are happy that way?

(Not that I would be one of those but...)
 
Back
Top Bottom