for as many bad things as the bible can say about marriage, i still find some truth in that statement. because people are better off — emotionally, financially, socially, etc — in groups larger than one.

though the genesis story is laughably inaccurate (and possibly quite horrible if closely examined) this one brief line in an ancient culture’s origin mythology still manages to ring true. marriage for them was largely an economic agreement between two men for the exchange of property, but they justified it with religion. and i see no reason we should have to follow either of those two traditions in modern secular society.

If you do this, the question of how to deal with group marriages also becomes more simple. If you’re living with two other people and cooperating with both of them financially, then you will probably want a contract of cohabitation with both of them. If you’re raising children in cooperation with just one of them, then you’ll want a contract for progeny with just that person. Much nicer, in my opinion.

I do think ceremonies are a great time to celebrate and come together with both sides of the family. Its also cool that people are so giving to newlyweds during this time.. We all recognize that it is hard to get started, and so we help each other.

Thanks for starting this discussion Daniel.. good thoughts here.

It was possibly also a recognition that betrayal, sometimes a tribal-level survival trait, was a possibility from one’s own extended family, but less likely from one’s parents.

Now:
At one level, marriage was what I did to gain sociopolitical recognition of my relationship to Mme Metro, and the benefits thereof. Visitation, power of attorney, inheritance and other legal rights follow.

At another, I did it to give her something to complain about :-)

At still another I did it because I wanted her, our closest friends, and the world, to recognize that this is the woman that I want, in the fullness of time (and may it be a long, long fullness), to be found cold, stiff, and dead in bed next to. That I might outlive her is a rather long shot.

In Canada, it is noteable that as the social benefits of marriage were slowly rolled up successive governments, the divorce rates went up, and fewer people got officially married. However, our marriage rates have had a wee boost lately. Still waiting to see what the divorce stats do.

The last (and soon to be former, so it seems) government jiggered the tax codes to benefit married couples, which I think is a good idea. Because at the heart of it, it’s simply a codified recognition that this simple four-legged structure is a useful and stable one, at least half the time.

I’d consider polyandry if I thought there was the slightest chance it would be fully equitable for all parties. And I’m sure it happens anyway. But certainly I feel that legal recognition of two-person marriages is difficult and legally thorny enough without adding bods.

And on a more serious note, legal matters, public recognition of relationship status, and… honeymoon? :P

However, I don’t favor that particular definition, as by itsef it does not require laws to enforce or protect it. The second would be, of course, the legal definition. For the purposes of this discussion, that’s the one I’m going to be referring to.

Marriage today (in the US) is simply a legal contract between 2 people and the state they live in. Nothing more. It’s a state (and optionally religion) -sponsored advocation of a desired lifestyle. This desire is nothing more than the institution’s idea of what would be best for the commonwealth as a whole. In the case of religion, marriage is an endorsement of religious views; in the case of the state, it’s an endorsement of the idea that a family unit is more stable & more productive & ultimate less of a drain on state resources.

This endorsement usually affords the joined couple legal privileges – which is the incentive the state provides to the couple, in return for the stability & productivity the couple provides to the state.

The above definitions are one of the reasons I sit on the fence in regards to the legalization of “homosexual marriage”. I do believe the state and religious institutions have the ethical right to define marriage as they see fit.

With that said, there are certain human rights afforded by marriage, such as spousal privileges in the case of a medical emergency and so forth. Should an institution define marriage as between a man and a woman, it would not have an ethical right to deny a homosexual life partner (sorry for the PC wording) visitation and guardianship authority, for example. For that reason, defining marriage as Man + Woman needs at a minimum to be coupled with some legal institution that provides the homosexual couple with the same legal rights.

Seperate but equal, as it were…

As with Danae (my wife) and others, I too believe – think (but not limited to this) that marriage is a tangible relationship that essentially is to embody the richest and most profound of phenomena that runs counter-intuitively to our normalcy – long-suffering and unconditional commitment.

I have been convinced through out my marriage experience that mankind will not thrive if there is no agonizing love. For me agonizing love follows the pattern of Christ. I see only perpetuation of the cycle of violence and the will to power if there is not this ‘laying down of our lives in order to take them back up.’ And marriage is the most vulnerable place in all of human relationships for such a work to occur. A work that will have significant impact in untold ways.

The purpose of which serves as a catalyst for human flourishing. It also, like everything else in creation serves as an illustrative imaging forth of Him whom we’ve been created after.

More to it of course; procreation and the delighting in of sexual intimacy.

: : : peace

To be able to provide insurance to those I love through my employment.

To have legal grounds to speak on their behalf and for them to speak on mine.

To ensure financial stability for those I love in case of injury or loss of life.

I think it’s a shame that a religious tradition is a legal requirement that is forced upon people. This mostly affects the middle and lower financial classes of our society. It’s depressing.