What is marriage?

[wil]

Originally Posted by I, Brian

Could it not therefore be applied even in modern times that once a couple is effectively living together, they are effectively married in the eyes of society?.

And when they move apart they are effectively divorced.

Tis the issue this forever stuff. I think our problem is love today over bears the contract. I know Asian Indians, married for life, never having met their spouse until after the partition is removed during the ceremony. Arranged marriages have a different meaning than those based on compatability, common interests and love. As once the compatability, common interests and/or love dissappear so often so does the reason to stay married.

Thinking that all people will be able to follow that path for 20, 40, 60 years, is ludicrous, thinking the majority will is laughable.

[greymare]

so, do arranged marriages last longer than "normal" western ones, do you think?
Has there been a study on this or is this just suppostion?

[juantoo3]

Ummm...arranged marriages seem to work pretty well in places like China, Japan and India, and have for centuries if not millenia.

I think wil's got a point...even if it is on the top of his head. The lust rush is so intense, there's just no way it can last for any realistic amount of time. Basing a long term relationship on pretty much that alone is setting that relationship up for failure.

I'm certainly no expert on the subject, I'm less than two years into my first marriage. But all of the old timers I have ever listened to, every single one, talked about working at getting through tough times.

The romantic notion of love makes marriage sound like a vacation cruise. Every long term marriage I have ever heard of makes marriage sound like a full time job with lots of overtime and no holidays. I think it may be the unrealistic expectations that set up a lot of couples to fail.

But that's just my meager opinion as an observer.

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by greymare

so, do arranged marriages last longer than "normal" western ones, do you think?
Has there been a study on this or is this just suppostion?

Culture might be a greater factor in any difference in divorce rates in arranged marriages vs love matches. (Such as: forced marriage may leave no room for divorce. 'Means other than divorce' () may be employed to dissolve arranged marriages, etc. There are many ways to skew the numbers/statistics to make something appear "honourable," if you know what I mean.

[juantoo3]

Originally Posted by seattlegal

'Means other than divorce' () may be employed to dissolve arranged marriages, etc.

Yeah, but means other than divorce have been used to dissolve all kinds of marriages.

Everything from arsenic and old lace, to antifreeze, to overdosing on "bad" cholesterol, to second hand smoke.

*sigh*, you always hurt the ones you love.

snicker snicker

[path_of_one]

Originally Posted by Alex P

Not sure why but I couldn't fully understand... Are you saying it is a sin to have sex and not be married? If so I couldn't disagree more. If not then ignore this.

I'm just guessing, but knowing luna, I don't think so. I think she meant that there is some things that would be sexual sin, but not necessarily homosexual relationships.

Sexual sin, IMO, can happen within marriage just as it can happen outside of it. One clear example is abuse or force used in sex, or sex used to get something one wants (i.e., as a barter). Personally, whether inside a marriage or outside it, I find both of these detestable and a way to ruin the sacredness of sex.

As for marriage, I think it has nothing to do with the piece of paper. Everyone makes the decision to marry, and is therefore commited, before they sign the paper, right? Furthermore, with a few folks in my family in long-term non-legally recognized living together relationships (spanning 10-25 years), I see no difference between their relationships and an legal marriage like mine. I think it is the commitment. Additionally, while some cultures may say "til death," others don't, and I don't think we should force our cultural notions of love and commitment onto others.

The problem is that marriage in the Western first world has (only recently) become about fuzzy love feelings, lust, attraction, friendship. That was not the point of marriage for most societies or through most of human history. Marriage was a contract that bound people together for the purpose of:
-Joining families economically and politically
-Creating an ordered way to deal with the problems of inheritance, responsibility toward children, and care of elderly
-Presenting to the community an acknolwedgement of exclusive sexual, economic, and other rights.
-Providing a unit that would be the basic unit of consumption, production, and exchange.

Marriage was primarily an economic and political thing- a profoundly social thing- not a means to self-actualization or happiness. As such, the concept of a loving marriage was quite different from our notions of it today, involving "love" as a commitment and work/action rather than "love" as a feeling or attribute. Love was an action verb.

I've taught at a few multicultural colleges and had several students now who had arranged marriages. It was very enlightening to discuss marriage with them. Their ideas about marriage and love and family were, for the most part, far more mature. They already planned for what it normally takes married people in our society about 7-10 years to figure out and settle into- that is, that marriage is work, not a romantic escapade. One woman explained to me that when she was married, she had never seen her husband before. But she knew that her parents would have her best interests at heart, and would make a more prudent choice than she would, since she would be swayed by looks and other things that are not stable long term. She explained that in marrying this man, she knew she was commiting to a certain work- that they would choose each day to love and to respect and to honor. She explained that love is a choice, not a happenstance. The other students I've had that have been in arranged marriages said basically the same thing.

Now, I am not a proponent of arranged marriage for everyone (my own was definitely my own choice and due to falling in love) but I think that we can learn a lot from arranged marriages. While some certainly are unhappy, this is generally due to abuse and such- serious problems- not people "falling out of love." I think the issue is that falling out of love refers to the ending of what was always meant to be a short-term rush. That falling in love feeling (in the absence of birth control) lasts long enough for people to get solidly together, erm, passionate, and then make it through a couple years of raising the baby when it is so young it needs two parents. It is likely part of our evolution to allow pair-bonding since our infants are so helpless and exhausting.

Think about it- we all talk about a 7 year itch...
Give, say 2 years for knowing a person and falling in love.
1 year for pregnancy
4 years for raising the baby

At 4 years, most hunter-gatherer children could begin eating normal food and mom didn't have to nurse anymore. Hmmm....

Now, to make it past that point, we have to decide to love the person. We can't coast by on the fumes of lust. We have to decide it is worth it to us to keep honoring and loving our spouse. We have to commit to the action verb of love and create romance, create happiness. If we stick it out, many find that there are cycles- an ebb and flow of falling in love. But the underlying strong marriage is built on the two people's willingness to love, each and every day. Like the arranged marriage, this might mean a person changes beyond recognition. No matter, we have committed to love them. If we stay, it most certainly will mean that one day neither of us will be very outwardly attractive. No matter, we have committed to love them. Long-term love in this way isn't about attraction and chemistry and romance. It's about the solidity of our commitment and the sacredness of our relationship- that we believe that our work in the marriage, that loving this person through good and bad- is a sacred work. Given all the emotional turmoil, the close proximity of this person all the time, that they learn all of our weaknesses and vulnerabilities and unattractive qualities, that we must trust them with our most intimate lives (illness, child-rearing, sex, etc.)-- this is a very fertile ground for spiritual growth. We are called upon to be tried to the limit of our patience, our capacity for forgiveness, our capacity for hope and peace, reconciliation, compromise, respecft, honor... In short, marriage is a place in which we can be perfected spiritually, and so is one of the most sacred relationships we can have.

At least, that is my feeling about it.

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by I, Brian

But what is marriage, though? At what point does "marriage" occur?

The point I really wanted to explore is at what point does the commitment between individuals translate into marriage?

By modern standards, that simply means signing the relevant paper.

However, this wasn't an issue for earlier societies.

.

I think you are talking about Common Law Marriage. Here's a short but informative wiki article on it: common law marriage

Originally Posted by wiki

In medieval Europe, marriage came under the jurisdiction of canon law, which recognised as a valid marriage one where the parties stated that they took one another as wife and husband, even in absence of any witnesses.

The Council of Trent (convened 1545–1563) ruled that in future a marriage was only valid in Roman Catholic countries if it was witnessed by a priest of the Roman Catholic Church or, if obtaining a priest were impractical, by other witnesses. This ruling was not accepted in the newly Protestant nations of Europe, nor by Protestants who lived in Roman Catholic countries or their colonies in the Americas or elsewhere, nor by Eastern Orthodox Christians.

Common law marriages were abolished in England and Wales by the Marriage Act 1753. The Act required marriages to be performed by a priest of the Church of England — unless the participants in the marriage were Jews or Quakers. The Act applied to Ireland after the Act of Union 1800, but the requirement for a valid marriage to be performed by a Church of England priest created special problems in predominantly Roman Catholic Ireland. The law did not provide an exception. The Act did not apply to Scotland because by the Acts of Union 1707 Scotland retained its own legal system. To get around the requirements of the Marriage Act, such as minimum age requirements, couples would go to Gretna Green, in southern Scotland, to get married under Scots law.

The Marriage Act of 1753 also did not apply to Britain's overseas colonies of the time, so common law marriages continued to be recognised in the future United States and Canada. In the United States, common law marriages are still recognised in Alabama, Colorado, Iowa, Kansas, Montana, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Texas, Utah and the District of Columbia, [1] and in several Canadian provinces.
All countries in Europe have now abolished "marriage by habit and repute", with Scotland being the last to do so in 2006.[2]

My sister and brother-in-law met the conditions for common law marriage, although I guess it does not apply in NY. And, they did decide to have a marriage ceremony after many years.

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by path_of_one

Now, to make it past that point, we have to decide to love the person. We can't coast by on the fumes of lust. We have to decide it is worth it to us to keep honoring and loving our spouse. We have to commit to the action verb of love and create romance, create happiness. If we stick it out, many find that there are cycles- an ebb and flow of falling in love. But the underlying strong marriage is built on the two people's willingness to love, each and every day. Like the arranged marriage, this might mean a person changes beyond recognition. No matter, we have committed to love them. If we stay, it most certainly will mean that one day neither of us will be very outwardly attractive. No matter, we have committed to love them. Long-term love in this way isn't about attraction and chemistry and romance. It's about the solidity of our commitment and the sacredness of our relationship- that we believe that our work in the marriage, that loving this person through good and bad- is a sacred work. Given all the emotional turmoil, the close proximity of this person all the time, that they learn all of our weaknesses and vulnerabilities and unattractive qualities, that we must trust them with our most intimate lives (illness, child-rearing, sex, etc.)-- this is a very fertile ground for spiritual growth. We are called upon to be tried to the limit of our patience, our capacity for forgiveness, our capacity for hope and peace, reconciliation, compromise, respecft, honor... In short, marriage is a place in which we can be perfected spiritually, and so is one of the most sacred relationships we can have.

I totally agree Path. Love is a choice, and an action, even when the emotions might fade. Well said.

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by Alex P

Not sure why but I couldn't fully understand... Are you saying it is a sin to have sex and not be married? If so I couldn't disagree more. If not then ignore this.

It's a risk to have sex when not married and, IMO, the wolf is at the door. You're risking something that's not just yours...the feelings of another person, the chance of conceiving a baby when the partners are not committed to one another, much less to raising a child, the risk of spreading disease. Lots of chances for sin when such a risk is taken.

[greymare]

Originally Posted by lunamoth

It's a risk to have sex when not married and, IMO, the wolf is at the door. You're risking something that's not just yours...the feelings of another person, the chance of conceiving a baby when the partners are not committed to one another, much less to raising a child, the risk of spreading disease. Lots of chances for sin when such a risk is taken.

Id just like to add, that there is also a risk of all the above said things even when the parties are married. Who can really say the difference between love,lust and like. We are all different and have different views/ expectations of it all. Right now, its just all very hard to even bother.

[bananabrain]

Originally Posted by I, Brian

The point I really wanted to explore is at what point does the commitment between individuals translate into marriage?

presumably you're looking for an answer other than "when it becomes official"? i personally think that it has something to do with being able to make your plans on the basis of an assumed personal relationship.

By modern standards, that simply means signing the relevant paper. However, this wasn't an issue for earlier societies.

i don't agree. official witnessing of a change of social status is very definitely part of Torah law from the beginning.

To a cynic like me, it takes all the romance out of marriage, and effectively turns it into a tax agreement.

yes, but brian, the point is that the idea that marriage should be predicated upon romance is actually a very recent idea; you've read jane austen, haven't you? as recently as 200 years ago, the idea that one could "marry for love" was controversial to say the least.

Could it not therefore be applied even in modern times that once a couple is effectively living together, they are effectively married in the eyes of society?

halakhically speaking, the social status could be implied in a number of different ways - you have to ask yourself what difference it makes. the halakhah says, it makes a difference if and when the couple splits up. what do they have then to do to make the severing of relations possible? what are the implications for children and property, to say nothing of future relationships? arguably, this is more important than the marriage - perhaps this is why the Torah saw the need to explicitly mention divorce and take marriage as an assumption.

I think if we followed that kind of consideration, we would have a better idea as a society of what marriage actually is, and how any kind of relationship between individuals brings responsibilities.

i actually don't think it matters until the marriage breaks up - until then, what business is it of anyone else's? the trouble, then, with common-law marriage is that it offers nobody any protection if it all goes tits-up.

Originally Posted by Snoopy

Keep digging, bb; I think you're nearly through to China.

<raspberry>*thrrrrrpppp*</raspberry>

Originally Posted by wil

I know Asian Indians, married for life, never having met their spouse until after the partition is removed during the ceremony. Arranged marriages have a different meaning than those based on compatibility, common interests and love. As once the compatibility, common interests and/or love disappear so often so does the reason to stay married. Thinking that all people will be able to follow that path for 20, 40, 60 years, is ludicrous, thinking the majority will is laughable.

i always talk about it to people who are trying to get married in the following way (and i've only been married 3 years) - look, all this "compatibility" stuff is hard to plan for and find, but if you think about what works for you "on paper", that's a very different thing - think about where you want to live, what sort of lifestyle you want to have, what sort of family, jobs etc. in the long run that is going to be what makes the difference between a long-term relationship or not - not height, weight, chest measurements or great hair. of course, none of this makes sense if you then try and force people to stay together when they shouldn't. basically:

Originally Posted by juantoo3

The romantic notion of love makes marriage sound like a vacation cruise. Every long term marriage I have ever heard of makes marriage sound like a full time job with lots of overtime and no holidays. I think it may be the unrealistic expectations that set up a lot of couples to fail.

i agree with this.

b'shalom

bananabrain

[China Cat Sunflower]

Marriage goes along with householding. The presents the couple get from the community are to help them get started householding. You get dishes and small appliances, sheets and bedding, maybe a house and a new barn if you're Amish. Basically, you're promising the good folks that you'll contribute to the social and economic strength of the community. You'll bear and raise children to increase our overall numbers, and you'll teach those children to embrace the values of the group. And you'll increase the property holdings of the community. That's what you're promising. That's why they're giving you this send off and those presents.

Chris

[lunamoth]

True enough Chris, marriage has a strong social influence that reaches beyond just the couple. You also indicate social obligations are involved (and I agree).

Do you think then that people who are against gay marriage have a point when they say it will effect the social fabric in general? That it actually can affect their own marriages and community?

[China Cat Sunflower]

Originally Posted by lunamoth

True enough Chris, marriage has a strong social influence that reaches beyond just the couple. You also indicate social obligations are involved (and I agree).

Do you think then that people who are against gay marriage have a point when they say it will effect the social fabric in general? That it actually can affect their own marriages and community?

I think that there are a number of different ways one could look at it. Really, though, gay people are doing all of these things we associate with householding and family dynamics right now, so it's kind of a loss to the community to not include them, and expect from them what we expect from heterosexual couples. Why should they get a pass?

Chris

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by China Cat Sunflower

I think that there are a number of different ways one could look at it. Really, though, gay people are doing all of these things we associate with householding and family dynamics right now, so it's kind of a loss to the community to not include them, and expect from them what we expect from heterosexual couples. Why should they get a pass?

Chris

Lol! Good answer. I agree. I think though that allowing gay marriage will change the social fabric...just as women's rights and getting rid of slavery did. I think there is a certain amount of fear because when you 'allow' changes like this there is the feeling of loss of control.

(Of course, we don't really have all that much control anyway. It's pretty much an illusion. I think that realizing that can be very liberating.)