[LATERILUS79]

By this I am not asking what makes it successful or anything like that. What I want to know is what makes it an actual marriage?

Is it being registered with the government? And yes, to receive the legal benefits you do have to be registered. But do those legal benefits make the relationship a marriage? Can you have a marriage without that piece of paper (virtual as it might be nowadays).

Is it only a marriage if one had a ceremony done by a cleric of one's chosen deity? Or does only your own deity count, and theirs doesn't? Can atheist be married outside of government recognition?

What are the criteria that makes any given relationship the status of marriage?

Or are there various types of marriages that each have their own criteria?

My preference is that no government be involved in marriage..... at all.

Marriage is a vow to one or more people depending on how one sees things. Obviously, the various religions and traditions will fill in those vows for you and for the most part, those work very well for me. I promise to give myself to you and only you through good and bad for the remainder of my life. Then, I expected my spouse to give to me the same thing.

While traditional works for me, I think universally there should simply be some vows said. A solemn promise you intend to keep with one person if you are monogamous or to multiple people if you are poly. Regardless, a promise one intends to keep for life. I mean, if the stakes aren't high, then what's the point? I think the high stakes (assuming one takes them seriously) forces someone to work hard to make the marriage work.

 

[LATERILUS79]

Would you think a marriage less valid if it was not for life? Given the rises in life expectancy, especially compared to what we used to have, could not life be an excessive expectation? I'm not sure if you've ever read Heinlein, but one of the things in his future universe is that people live at least a couple of centuries. And they have term marriages, where the couple is only married for a given number of years. Does that make their marriage any less valid?

lol. That's a damn good question, maquiscat.

I don't know how to answer that one. I don't think I can put myself in the mindset of a person that would live that long. It's hard for me to conceptualize.

Can't say I've read the books you've mentioned, but then again, I don't read books. I have a hard time paying attention to anything. Regardless, I could see a term marriage working. Some set amount of time where the stakes are still high. Does that make sense? Make the term be a very significant portion of the person's life so that they truly understand they are making a commitment to one other person (or persons).

 

[LATERILUS79]

Would you think a marriage less valid if it was not for life? Given the rises in life expectancy, especially compared to what we used to have, could not life be an excessive expectation? I'm not sure if you've ever read Heinlein, but one of the things in his future universe is that people live at least a couple of centuries. And they have term marriages, where the couple is only married for a given number of years. Does that make their marriage any less valid?

Sooooooo..... you gonna keep me waiting? How long are these marriage terms where people live for centuries?! 🤣

 

[LATERILUS79]

Sorry, either I missed the question or got distracted by family matters.

Well in the stories I've read, they have been as little as a year to as long as a set number of decades. There were aspects of couples talking about renewing the marriage, and others who departed on good terms when it was up. It would definatly require an entire different legal system for such things.

Lol. Sorry. I didn’t ask the question. I was just really curious and thought you were going to fill in more information. 😁

the longer lifespan makes it more perplexing to say the least, but I guess humans 400 years ago could say the same about us.

I like your original question better in this way looking at the long lifespan. Time is the “high stakes” factor for us in our current situation, so I guess if I broke it down to base level, there needs to be some other sort of high stakes factor. Reason being, why get married at all then? There needs to be some level of commitment so that one person doesn’t just screw over the other(s), you know?

the next best thing I can think of is children. I know a lot of people think we are not meant to be monogamous. I think arguments for that are very reasonable. On the flip side of that, we need to have children if we care to keep our species going, correct? No children, no humans. Human children are about as helpless as it gets. Sure, there are plenty of helpless infants in the animal kingdom, but our offspring are by far and away the most helpless, and it is for MANY years. I personally believe this is why we are monogamous…. Or arguably, polygamous. One way or the other, our offspring have the best chance to survive to adulthood and be able to take care of themselves if they have multiple parents (preferably good male and female role models). If we take away our current technology, I’m going to say that parental help and “training” would be required until at least the age of 14-15. That is A LOT of commitment when compared to the animal kingdom.

so, it makes sense to me to have a stable marriage (monogamous or polygamous) until the children are capable of taking care of themselves. So let’s use the children as the new high stakes commitment term. Any child had in the marriage makes the term 15 years. Any subsequent child after the first restarts the 15 year timer.

your thoughts, @maquiscat?