Marriage definition.

[Eloy Craft]

I think "permission" is a fitting term, but probably pulls too many triggers in the current licentious social environment.

But in every society that can be called "civilized," without exception, there will be a concept of desirable sexual "pairings."

In times past, these social concepts were enforced by punitive consequences against undesirable pairings. These days, liberal societies use more of a "carrot" approach--giving more benefits to the desired pairings, fewer or no benefits to the undesired parings.

Thank you. That's information good for my balance.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I think "permission" is a fitting term, but probably pulls too many triggers in the current licentious social environment.

But in every society that can be called "civilized," without exception, there will be a concept of desirable sexual "pairings."

In times past, these social concepts were enforced by punitive consequences against undesirable pairings. These days, liberal societies use more of a "carrot" approach--giving more benefits to the desired pairings, fewer or no benefits to the undesired parings.

I'm going to assume that we are talking past each other.

So here's a question that I hope will resolve this miscommunication:
What do you mean, exactly, by "(un)desired pairings"?

 

[RDKirk]

I'm going to assume that we are talking past each other.

So here's a question that I hope will resolve this miscommunication:
What do you mean, exactly, by "(un)desired pairings"?

You can answer that based on the laws of your own state.

What kind of pairings get legal benefits, what kind do not not?

 

[DogmaHunter]

You can answer that based on the laws of your own state. What kind of pairings get legal benefits, what kind do not not?

I can't think of any, to be honest.
Unless you wish to take kids as an example… but that's an age issue not a "pairing" issue.
They can't marry for the same reason that they can't sign any contract: they are minors. And as for a historical perspective on that… It's not like historically people had a problem with minors marrying.


Other then that… any adult can marry any other adult here. Or not, off course.

 

[RDKirk]

I can't think of any, to be honest.
Unless you wish to take kids as an example… but that's an age issue not a "pairing" issue.
They can't marry for the same reason that they can't sign any contract: they are minors. And as for a historical perspective on that… It's not like historically people had a problem with minors marrying.


Other then that… any adult can marry any other adult here. Or not, off course.

How about groups of adults? Or adults with children? Or siblings?

 

[DogmaHunter]

How about groups of adults? Or adults with children? Or siblings?

All of these are actually allowed in lots of cultures. In some cases, even the norm.
My own grandparents were married while still minors, in fact. They wouldn't be able to do so today.

The children thing, I already addressed.
Siblings, there's objective reasons for that: severe genetic problems in off spring. This has nothing to do with marriage and everything with biological reality.

As for polygamy… I honestly don't see any objective reason to disallow it.

If all parties involved are happy with that, why not?

The whole marriage thing, in that sense, is the product of our theocratic history. After centuries of such, it is completely engrained in our society and as a result literally everything (concerning taxes etc) are geared towards that as the norm.

It's a cultural/religious concept as it exists today, imo.
It has no intrinsic objective reason.

That's how I see it anyway. Perhaps that is why it has no "meaning" to me.
It's just a heritage of another age. I don't feel compelled to marry, don't have a need to get married and don't see at all what it would change. Except in my bankaccount.

 

[RDKirk]

All of these are actually allowed in lots of cultures. In some cases, even the norm.

I didn't say any culture, I said yours. Your country, your laws.

My point was that every society identifies desirable pairings that it encourages with social carrots, which are denied to whatever it determines are undesirable pairings.

You can look at your own society and determine which are desirable pairings by identifyinng which get the carrots.

 

[Celticroots]

The commitment to the maternal environment is the reason a marriage must be consummated to be valid, That the maternal environment is productive isn't necessary but the desire for children is necessary. Marriages that are intentionally barren do not conform to natural law. Natural law is a term for what is natural to human life or knowledge of Human nature.

Faithfullness to the union is expressed in vows of permanence. Permanence is a quality of spiritual life. The marriage bond is defined primarily as a state of oneness. A microcosm of the human world in it's entirety is a man and woman.

Guess I'd be in trouble should I marry because I don't want children. People who feel they have no patience for children, don't feel they'd make good parents, or are physically or mentally unable to, they shouldn't have children because they think it's what they should do.

 

[Eloy Craft]

Guess I'd be in trouble should I marry because I don't want children. People who feel they have no patience for children, don't feel they'd make good parents, or are physically or mentally unable to, they shouldn't have children because they think it's what they should do.

Good point. I have a feeling for those who sacrifice their procreative life in that way find what they really should do in another way.

 

[Eloy Craft]

Siblings, there's objective reasons for that: severe genetic problems in off spring. This has nothing to do with marriage and everything with biological reality.

The biological reasons came long after the moral reasons. It's a crime against the family in that to have the opportunity to join to another family and not do it is a sin against the social nature of man, and to forego four grandparents in favor of two is a sin against your children.

As for polygamy… I honestly don't see any objective reason to disallow it.

Then you don't have a sense of the deficiency of the polygamous bond in comparison.

 

[DogmaHunter]

The biological reasons came long after the moral reasons.

No. The biological problems with incest have always existed.
It is in fact because of those, that the morals concerning it, followed.

I submit that if incest had no negative biological side effect whatsoever, it wouldn't be a moral wrong at all.

Instead of brother and sister, consider cousins.
Still problematic biologically, but less obvious. And if you look at cultures around the world, you'll see that many of them don't have such moral objections to cousin pairing.

We regard incest as wrong not because of some abstract or emotional reason. But for a physical reason. Because it creates problems in off-spring.

It's a crime against the family in that to have the opportunity to join to another family and not do it is a sin against the social nature of man, and to forego four grandparents in favor of two is a sin against your children.

That is simply not true.
Again: look at cultures around the world. Plenty of cultures has no problems at all pairing cousins together.

In fact, there are plenty of cultures, like certain groups of jews, that have unique genetic problems among them, as a direct result of +2000 years of interbreeding within their family.

Again, the moral implication here is a direct result of the biological effects of reproduction through incest. The problems when brother and sister procreate are obvious and oftenly immediatly apparant. If you go to 1st or 2nd degree cousins, it is less apparant and will only start manifesting after a certain amount of generations - due to the lack of genetic variation.

This knowledge is what extended our moral objections to sibling pairing to also 1st and 2nd degree cousin pairing.

Then you don't have a sense of the deficiency of the polygamous bond in comparison.

Care to clarify?

 

[Eloy Craft]

No. The biological problems with incest have always existed.
It is in fact because of those, that the morals concerning it, followed.

I submit that if incest had no negative biological side effect whatsoever, it wouldn't be a moral wrong at all.

Instead of brother and sister, consider cousins.
Still problematic biologically, but less obvious. And if you look at cultures around the world, you'll see that many of them don't have such moral objections to cousin pairing.

We regard incest as wrong not because of some abstract or emotional reason. But for a physical reason. Because it creates problems in off-spring.



That is simply not true.
Again: look at cultures around the world. Plenty of cultures has no problems at all pairing cousins together.

In fact, there are plenty of cultures, like certain groups of jews, that have unique genetic problems among them, as a direct result of +2000 years of interbreeding within their family.

Again, the moral implication here is a direct result of the biological effects of reproduction through incest. The problems when brother and sister procreate are obvious and oftenly immediatly apparant. If you go to 1st or 2nd degree cousins, it is less apparant and will only start manifesting after a certain amount of generations - due to the lack of genetic variation.

This knowledge is what extended our moral objections to sibling pairing to also 1st and 2nd degree cousin pairing.



Care to clarify?

Have you ever heard that the marital bond is naturally exclusive? If you argue that their are cultures that do it fine...there is always subordination among the wives. Women entering into polygamous marriages unconditioned are in for some reminding of the exclusive nature of the marital bond.

 

[Eloy Craft]

I submit that if incest had no negative biological side effect whatsoever, it wouldn't be a moral wrong at all.

That's a shortsighted view. Thimk of the social implications that would develop among other families. The nuclear society closing in on it'self would have devastating consequences. Then your may resort to the argument that not all families ......

Just to add; If you allow that at one time there was just one set of parents who bore young, the opportunity to offer four grand parents for the offspring would be the closest relations are allowed in any culture to marry.