What is marriage?

[Cheyenne]

Cym, sorry, even if it is a friendly divorce, it must be painful to go through.

You are lucky. That may sound strange, but the divorce I referred to in my post is a horrible, bitter battle to the end and they are right in the middle of it. It will get a lot worse before it gets better. And it may never get better. There is one child who will suffer no matter what the result is of the custody battle. The lawyers will get richer, too. Not every divorce is even human, much less civil.

 

[LRC]

legal torture

 

[Harbinger]

what's the Celtic God equivalent of Problem Child?

uhhh, Loki?

 

[Shy Tall Guy]

What does marriage mean? Not dictionary definition.

That is almost as open ended a question as what is the meaning of life. I can only answer for myself since it obviously means different things for different people. To me marriage is a union (usually formally and legally) of two people. To define it beyond that I would need to get into relationship dynamics, most of which can exist inside and outside of marriage.

Suffice it to say that I view marriage as a comittment between two people, to be faithful to their relationship. Faithful does not necessarily mean that the two do not have sex with someone else besides their partner, but it does mean that each partner would not do so without the consent of the other. "Faithful" has the same connotation for other aspects of the relationship, not just the sexual.

Then there is also polygamous marriage where there are similar relationships among more than two people.

QUOTE]What does it do for people? [/QUOTE]
Again, very open ended. For many it gives stability, something they can depend on. For others, that might be termed dysfunctional relationships, it can give control of one over the other and other problematic dynamics.

How necessary is it anymore?

Necessary to what end? For the stability of society? For family units?

For societal stability it is *maybe* less necessary; society adapts. Society is maybe less stable with dysfunctional or broken marriages, but it is maybe stable *enough* to continue functioning. For family units it is as necessary as it has been in the past, maybe more so since societal adaptations tend to place more stress on the family unit. This is not to say that marriage is *absolutely* necessary, but that that a well functioning marriage does tend to give stability to a family unit.

Why does marriage affect legal and taxation systems?

The question should be asked the other way around; why do legal and taxation systems affect marriage? Or rather, why does society/government make these systems affect marriage?

The answer is power and control. Society has given government the power to control marriage through taxation and laws in the somewhat mistaken belief that this helps stabilize society, and the totally mistaken belief that this is the right of society and government to do so.

The *proper* function of taxes is to pay for the costs of government, not to manipulate societal factors.

The *proper* function of laws are to protect the rights of individuals and allow the government to function, not to manipulate societal factors that do not infringe on the rights of individuals.

Why does it define the family unit?

It is mostly a biological function; a family unit at its atomic level *typically* consists of parents and children. A marriage gives the family unit stability - the woman *traditionally* gets a mate who is a provider for her and her children, and other resources. The man gets the security of a mate who will father his children only and help raise them.

What is it, really?

Question asked and answered - at least to some degree.

Of course my observations above just scratch the surface, and are not meant to be derogatory towards alternative and non-typical marriages and family units. But I am not going to spend a sunny Saturday afternoon writing a book on marriage; I am neither inclined nor qualified to do so.

I will reiterate that I believe government has NO business taxing married/single people on different scales in an attempt to manipulate society. That is not the function of government or taxes. As far as I am concerned the only laws concerning marriage should be very simple and general ones, designed such that they protect the rights of those involved in the marriage, including any children.

STG

 

[Shy Tall Guy]

I don't see a thing wrong with two people spending their whole lives together, great grandchildren and all, without "benefit" of marriage.

In most states in the US, this *is* a legal marriage whether it is recorded, a ceremony was performed, a license obtained - or not.

It is called a common law marriage. It can be quite a bit easier to perform an amicable dissolution - depending on the assets and children, or it can be quite a bit harder if the parties do not agree on the terms of the dissolution.

I too see nothing wrong with such a marriage, and I think that the only time government need be involved is to protect the rights of all involved - and maybe to provide a record keeping function. Any more than that is not neccessary.

STG