We're still nibbling away at the religionists.

[ProfessorDavey]

PD, your post makes absolute nonsense, because my comment was in response to the point that you made - namely "Which isn't surprising given that it is front and centre in many religious wedding ceremonies".

So you accept that procreation is irrelevant in the context of civil marriage then and therefore is a null and void argument against equal marriage in civil ceremonies.

By the way it also a very poor argument for religious marriage, as I'm not aware of any religious organisation that bans couples who are infertile from marrying.

[Shaker]

Ironically, Shakes, just about every part seems to be optional in the current climate

Every part except the desire of two people who love each other to share their lives, it seems.

[Shaker]

By the way it also a very poor argument for religious marriage, as I'm not aware of any religious organisation that bans couples who are infertile from marrying.

Even the Catholics, who get around it in their usual hypocritical, ad hoc and self-serving ways.

[ProfessorDavey]

Ironically, Shakes, just about every part seems to be optional in the current climate

Really?!?!

I thought that the following were non negotiable - which is correct as they are surely what marriage is about:

1. Between two people who are adults
2. In a loving relationship
3. Who declare their commitment to each other in a public and legal manner
4. With the intention that that commitment will be for life and excluding all others

Isn't that what marriage is all about.

[Shaker]

By the way, Prof. Diddy, I know Mrs. Prof. Diddy is a Catholic and I didn't mean my prior post to be construed as an attack on ordinary lay Catholics but upon the Magisterium, the hierarchy, who create the rules the laity are expected to abide by. I'm sure you'll know as well as I do how widely at variance the two are, based on personal experience perhaps as well as more objective evidence.

[Nearly Sane]

Just to note Prof Diddy is a lovely piece of writing

[Shaker]

Just to note Prof Diddy is a lovely piece of writing

He always is

[Nearly Sane]

Even the Catholics, who get around it in their usual hypocritical, ad hoc and self-serving ways.

my sainted mother isn't. Your post on the other hand?

[Shaker]

my sainted mother isn't. Your post on the other hand?

See #154

[Nearly Sane]

See #154

Fair enough, there is too much generalization about people of faith positions on here, so the clarification is useful

[ProfessorDavey]

By the way, Prof. Diddy, I know Mrs. Prof. Diddy is a Catholic and I didn't mean my prior post to be construed as an attack on ordinary lay Catholics but upon the Magisterium, the hierarchy, who create the rules the laity are expected to abide by. I'm sure you'll know as well as I do how widely at variance the two are, based on personal experience perhaps as well as more objective evidence.

ProfDiddy - like it

[Shaker]

Tickled me an all

[Nearly Sane]

http://profdiddy.blogspot.co.uk/

[ProfessorDavey]

http://profdiddy.blogspot.co.uk/

Nope - doesn't look like me at all, seeing as he describes himself as uncool and he hasn't publish anything since 2005!!

[Hope]

Really?!?!

I thought that the following were non negotiable - which is correct as they are surely what marriage is about:

1. Between two people who are adults
2. In a loving relationship
3. Who declare their commitment to each other in a public and legal manner
4. With the intention that that commitment will be for life and excluding all others

Isn't that what marriage is all about.

1.  How many marriages have you heard of that aren't between adults, let alone consenting adults?
2.  Have you never heard of arranged marriage or convenience marriage?
4.  Never heard of marriages that are very open in their nature from the very start?

So, as I said, 'in the current climate' even some 'religious' marriages seem to fail 3 of your 4 tests, let alone some non-religious ones.

[Outrider]

Sorry, PD, but I of all the arguments I've seen from the religious in this regard, this particular one comes pretty low on the list.  Its rather like the 'yuck factor' claim: most religious people had never even heard or thought of the concept until it was brought up on internet discussion boards as the chief reason why religious people opposed the idea of liberalising the laws on homosexuality.

Perhaps it's confirmation bias at play (on one or both of our parts), but my experience is pretty much exactly the opposite: the people that raise the 'yuck' factor argument and the 'won't somebody think of the children!!!' are those opposed to gay marriage. Those aren't exclusively religious, obviously, and I don't know if those particular arguments do or don't come from that religious segment of that side of the debate.

It plays a part in such ceremonies because it is one part of the whole package.

It's a part of the religious package, but it's not intrinsically a part of marriage - plenty of people (I suspect even some  that go for religious marriages) get married with little or no intent (or capability) of having children.

O.

[Outrider]

1. Between two people who are adults

I'm not intrinsically wedded (pardon the pun) to the idea that it has to be only two people, personally. I appreciate there are practical issues with that in terms of the current structure of the law, but I don't see an inherent ethical problem with the idea.

2. In a loving relationship

This is the bit that I'm sort of wavering on. In principle I think that's what marriage is about, but as a civil structure the benefits don't come from how people feel about each other, but from the stabilising capacity of the relationship within society. On the personal level it's about a loving relationship, ideally, but at the societal level it's about stability: that's why I find it so strange that the gay-marriage equality opponents seem to have gone quiet on divorce, which seems to me to be a much bigger threat to the social benefit of marriage than opening to other people does.

3. Who declare their commitment to each other in a public and legal manner

Depends what you mean by 'public' I guess. It needs to be witnessed by someone independent for the legal niceties, but beyond that...

4. With the intention that that commitment will be for life and excluding all others

Why? Why for life? We know that we grow as we age, and we don't necessarily grow in the same directions - whilst the idea of fixed-term marriages would impact the romance, I wonder what effect it would have on divorces and the like - would not feeling 'trapped' or like the deal was completed encourage people to work to keep it going, would a 'natural' end-point eliminate any of the often acrimonious displays that happen in a break-up?

And 'excluding all others'... in what sense? Sexually - is it about sex? The home? What it is about each other that encourages people to 'bond' themselves differs from couple to couple, and it's for them to decide what - if anything - they are going to keep separate from everyone else, I think.

O.

Isn't that what marriage is all about.
[/quote]

[Outrider]

1.  How many marriages have you heard of that aren't between adults,

Too many...

... let alone consenting adults?

Again, too many. Not the majority, by any stretch, but there are cultures in the world (and ours was one of them, not so long ago), and sub-cultures in the western world where women were expected to marry who they are told to marry, and where those decisions are made when the girls are barely into their teens.

4.  Never heard of marriages that are very open in their nature from the very start?

Have you not? I think that speaks to your social circle, perhaps, but it doesn't mean such people aren't out there.

O.

[Hope]

Perhaps it's confirmation bias at play (on one or both of our parts), but my experience is pretty much exactly the opposite: the people that raise the 'yuck' factor argument and the 'won't somebody think of the children!!!' are those opposed to gay marriage. Those aren't exclusively religious, obviously, and I don't know if those particular arguments do or don't come from that religious segment of that side of the debate.

Over the years, I've read a number of reports/books/articles on the subject.  Not one of the ones written by 'religious' authors (both pro- and anti-) got anywhere near to referring to the 'yuck factor', directly or by allusion.  The issue of childbearing was obviously referred to, but it generally came halfway down any priority list (or lower).  On the other side of the authorship divide, it tended to be the pro- group who would claim that the religious debate was exclusively based on either the yuck factor, or the childbearing issue or both.

It's a part of the religious package, but it's not intrinsically a part of marriage - plenty of people (I suspect even some  that go for religious marriages) get married with little or no intent (or capability) of having children.

Even if only one couple gets married with the intent of having children, it is 'part of the whole package', O.  That is precisely why I used that form of words. 

[Hope]

Have you not? I think that speaks to your social circle, perhaps, but it doesn't mean such people aren't out there.

Sorry, O; I'll emphasise the question mark at the end of the question in future.  Perhaps by underlining it or bolding it.

[Hope]

Why? Why for life? We know that we grow as we age, and we don't necessarily grow in the same directions - whilst the idea of fixed-term marriages would impact the romance, I wonder what effect it would have on divorces and the like - would not feeling 'trapped' or like the deal was completed encourage people to work to keep it going, would a 'natural' end-point eliminate any of the often acrimonious displays that happen in a break-up?

Fixed-term marriages?  Are you suggesting that those of us who decide to remain with the same spouse for life exclusively would have to undergo X number of wedding ceremonies (depending on the fixed-term that is set by law) with all the expense that that would involve?   

[Gordon]

Fixed-term marriages?  Are you suggesting that those of us who decide to remain with the same spouse for life exclusively would have to undergo X number of wedding ceremonies (depending on the fixed-term that is set by law) with all the expense that that would involve?   

These days I'd imagine that you could just 'up' your marriage certificate on-line, and no doubt for a small fee - say £50 for 5 years but with a special offer of 10 years for £70 (provided of course you had a valid M.O.T)

Seriously though, I can't see why there couldn't be an option today for people getting married to obtain their marriage certificate on a similar basis to how a UK passport is obtained and without the need to turn up personally, albeit that I expect that many would still want some sort of event. Even we ever had fixed term marriages (which seems unlikely at present) the option to renew or just let the certificate expire could surely be done via an administrative process similar to how UK passports are currently acquired and renewed.   

[Outrider]

Fixed-term marriages?  Are you suggesting that those of us who decide to remain with the same spouse for life exclusively would have to undergo X number of wedding ceremonies (depending on the fixed-term that is set by law) with all the expense that that would involve?   

#

It was just a concept suggestion, I'm not sure how the practicalities would work - personally I wouldn't want to limit people to having to have limited terms if they wanted to marry for life.

On the other hand, I wonder if there aren't some people out there who'd like the idea of renewing their vows on a periodic basis.

O.

[ProfessorDavey]

1.  How many marriages have you heard of that aren't between adults, let alone consenting adults?
2.  Have you never heard of arranged marriage or convenience marriage?
4.  Never heard of marriages that are very open in their nature from the very start?

So, as I said, 'in the current climate' even some 'religious' marriages seem to fail 3 of your 4 tests, let alone some non-religious ones.

Whether or not people are being honest in their vows is another matter. As you have pointed out people can lie regardless of the marriage being religious or civil, and indeed always have.

However, assuming honesty on behalf of the couple then these seem to me to be the core elements. The only slight change I might make is in relation to arranged marriages (although I am not convinced these should be permitted unless by the time of the marriage the couple are actually in a loving relationship) you could make a slight change to number 2, namely:

2. In a loving relationship or to commit to a loving relationship.

The problem with this and therefore my issue with arranged marriage is that unless a couple is already in a loving relationship I am not sure they can legitimately commit to love each other - how do they know this is possible if they aren't already in a loving relationship.

[Udayana]

hmm .. because love and marriage are two entirely different things?