Defining marriage

[Cute Wolf]

let's say marriage is simply a man and woman vow to be together building a family till death separate em apart.

the blame is the over-easy acess for divorces now, and that means till death separate them apart is no longer the majority of case...

but then:
a) Polygamy? - well?
b) So? how to make dat vow valid? religion what?

[Noncommunist]

Perhaps the French law was simply to make sure that people did not simply marry for the benefits? Much like how the US tries to prevent marriages simply for citizenship.

[Papewaio]

the blame is the over-easy acess for divorces now, and that means till death separate them apart is no longer the majority of case...

Till death is a little easier when the mean life span is 50. Not many made it to 70 and even fewer as couples. Childbirth resulted in many deaths of child and mother.

So there was a lot more second/third marriages by life being deadlier. All divorce has allowed is people to break a non-functioning relationship, not a bad thing all in all.

[Viking]

Till death is a little easier when the mean life span is 50.

Most divorces today happen between considerably younger people, surely.

[rory_20_uk]

The financial penalty in being a single mother these days is less than nothing in many cases. Why bother in a relationship when you can dump him and the state will pick up the bills?

[a completely inoffensive name]

Nothing has to be a part of marriage. Marriage at its base is just a symbol proclaimed through a contract that you wish to tie yourself to another individual for an extended period of time. The whole till death part became obsolete as soon as divorced was accepted by the mainstream. That part of the contract then suddenly became flowery words.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Nothing has to be a part of marriage. Marriage at its base is just a symbol proclaimed through a contract that you wish to tie yourself to another individual for an extended period of time. The whole till death part became obsolete as soon as divorced was accepted by the mainstream. That part of the contract then suddenly became flowery words.

Divorce has always been a part of marriage. As for it being a contract, what the OP is about is how we decide what that contract entails.

It hasn't really been defined clearly historically, but we still have it so that's something that has to be sorted out.

The ruling the OP is based on surprised me, but I kind of agree with it. Surely sex is part of a marriage according to what most people understand by it?

[a completely inoffensive name]

Divorce has always been a part of marriage. As for it being a contract, what the OP is about is how we decide what that contract entails.

It hasn't really been defined clearly historically, but we still have it so that's something that has to be sorted out.

The ruling the OP is based on surprised me, but I kind of agree with it. Surely sex is part of a marriage according to what most people understand by it?

A. My understanding of marriage was that divorce was not allowed by the Catholic church and indeed if I remember correctly, the Church of England came about over the ability to divorce.

B. The contract entails very little. It is a mostly symbolic contract. It can be backed out of by either party at any time by saying, "I want a divorce." There is nothing it enforces other than a division of property between the two individuals depending on the terms they set before the contract was made, i.e. did they sign a pre-nup or not?

C. It hasn't been defined historically because marriage over the last 500 years has gone from a sole transfer of property in a very paternalistic fashion, to a victorian social norm that establishes wealth and standing for the parties involved to the more modern definition of a proclamation of love between two individuals.

D. I don't think the way that most people understand should have too much of an effect of what a marriage should entail. If the woman or man doesn't want sex, you simply cannot force them to have sex. It's barbaric any way you attempt to do so.