How do the trans* community see the word "marriage"? I definitely won't have a problem with two men or two women living together, I am not a religious fundamentalist. But, I guess I am fundamentalist when it comes to the human language. Isn't "marriage" defined as one man and one woman? Even regardless of one or both partners being trans or not? Am I overthinking things?
No, it's not defined as one man and one woman. Plenty of cultures include one man and multiple women. Mormonism included that until the US government forced them to stop. One man and multiple women was the normal state for many in the Christian scriptures also.
Conform and be dull. —James Frank Dobie, The Voice of the Coyote
In Canada, marriage is defined as "the lawful union of two persons to the exclusion of all others."
I don't have any personal association with the word "marriage" that excludes gender combinations. Back before the fight had reached the Supreme Court, I was in favor of conceding "marriage" to whomever wanted to claim it, provided that the gov't get out of the marriage business altogether, leaving marriages as strictly religious affairs and civil unions only being the legal partnership. In retrospect, I see this as a poor approach in that once conceded, marriage might never be given back and the whole civil union thing abandoned as well.
Personally, I don't even have a problem with more than two participants in a marriage. It seems that in most cases where this was legal, multiple partners has really only been an option for an oppressive gender (male usually, maybe always).
Erin
The term marriage did not come from religion. It originated when two families merged with the union of two people (usually a man and a woman) as a strategic alliance between families to keep wealth in the family. Marriage is more of a legal/civil union than a religious one. ( More on it here: http://www.livescience.com/37777-history-of-marriage.html )
For me marriage is a civil/legal union and not a religious one. For anyone that argues that it's strictly a religious union, I always point out to them that atheist get married all the time. If can be both if they chose it to be, but as far as the state is concerned it's not a religious union.
Mawage is what brings us togeva today. Mawage, that bwessed event, that dream wifin a dream.
...
Sorry, any time someone says the word marriage I hear that speech in my head. It's a real problem, especially at weddings.
For me, anybody can define it however they want - if two people want to go jump over a broom in the woods and call themselves married...well...rock on! I'll try to bring some honey mead or blackberry wine or something ;D
The land I was born in is heavily Christian, and so Christian morality and interpretations have been codified. The laws haven't really kept up with the times, and even though there's technically two different types of union involved when someone of the majority gets married - the religious union under god and the civil one that let's you do all the taxes, next of kin, hospital decision making stuff etc - the concepts become conflated and intertwined.
So then if you try to define marriage under law in a different way, it's seen as an attack on Christianity, which...it sorta is. But only because it's a defacto pseudo-theocratic state, and secularizing the government by changing the laws the Christians have set up within the context of their belief system is a loss of power for Christianity.
Please don't mistake this as me bashing Christianity. It's simply what reality looks like here. If I had been born in a place where another religion was practically omnipresent it would be the same game, different name. I suppose I should count my blessings that there's a secular framework that the theocrats have to work within, so it's not an outright theocracy...yay! :)
LOL! I agree with Sydney and Idon'tEven.
I see it as a legal contract, and gender and numbers don't matter.
In other cultures polyphonic marriages and polyamorous relationships are considered normal.
It's so you have the perceived right to live with someone, visit them in the hospital, be legal guardians of children together, be accepted into the partner's family and automatically allowed to sleep with them in hotels.
If you try to think "male" and "female" it becomes nonsensical when one considers intersex and transgendered people.
Legal marriage in this country is not defined as a woman and man, so says the supreme court. Marriage definitely predated any of our modern religions and cultures.
It is no way an attack on Christianity, only Christians who want it to be, make it so. ( hey some people need conflict for whatever reasons)
In my opinion the world needs to live under secular democracy so that diversity is both protect and free to be celebrated.
Quote from: IdontEven on May 01, 2017, 05:28:34 AM
Mawage is what brings us togeva today. Mawage, that bwessed event, that dream wifin a dream.
Good thing I swallowed that mouthful of orange soda BEFORE I read your post.
I don't even, you misspelled "dweam".
In the rear view mirror. I'm getting divorced.
~Terri
How do you see the term "marriage"?
As something to be avoided like a tiger pit! :laugh:
I thought it was a great institution and I was so pleased to have an accepting wife. Well two years after my transition things are changing, it is becoming a struggle. She even asked me to come back.
I never wanted to get married in the first place but I had one weak moment.
I will not be weak again.
I don't really believe in marriage, but I like to think of it as something defined, within certain limits of reason, by the participants--and the law has to accommodate them. Why can't someone marry two or more people if all parties are adults of sound mind?
Quote from: Maybebaby56 on May 02, 2017, 07:18:07 AM
In the rear view mirror. I'm getting divorced.
~Terri
L.O.L. @ Terri You're so funny!!
A bit of a different perspective. For me, as I see the word "marriage" has more to do with what happens legally when two people have gotten married (rights to visit one's partner at hospital, shared custody of children if there are any involved, potentially economical advantages, etc). I'm actally not for marriage for anyone and I think those specific laws that go together with marriage should be upheld in some other, more efficient way that can't get abused as easily, as I see more problems with marriage than good things, especially if the couple (regardless of their genders, gay or straight) would want to separate. So, a bit radically, I'd say abolish marriage altogether or change it up a whole lot. Too many legal traps in it. But in terms of equality? Sure, I'm not against gay people getting married.
I only see marriage as a legal agreement between two people. Yeah, usually it has romantic implications, but not necessarily. I don't consider it a necessary part of a romantic relationship or a goal. The biggest advantage I can see to it is that it would make custody easier in case of a breakup.
I'd define a marriage as a voluntary cohabitation contact between any number of humans formed to share duties of raising children and implying consent of all partners to having sexual relations inside this unit.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Quote from: elkie-t on October 06, 2017, 08:49:42 PMformed to share duties of raising children
I'm confused by this phrasing. Do you think the primary reason of marriage is to raise children? Do you have any thoughts on married couples without children?
Quote from: Medium-sized Bird on October 06, 2017, 09:15:33 PM
I'm confused by this phrasing. Do you think the primary reason of marriage is to raise children? Do you have any thoughts on married couples without children?
Married couples might not have any children at the moment, but I think raising children together (eventually) is a primary function of a family, distinguished it from mere sexual relationship or a commune. And I did not mean only biological children - they can adopt if they wish so.
Obviously, I'm not a lawyer and not a politically correct person. But I say as I see it, and realize there are more exceptions to the rules than the rules. Yet, what I wrote defines my current thinking of a marriage at this moment of time-space continuum.
proving your commitment with a legal agreement
The idea that the purpose of marriage is procreation is the dreamchild of the Catholic church, the largest, most sexually terrified organization in the world. Go figure.
I know this is a little old but I just have to chime in. The way I view marriage? State sanctioned and Religious dictated only. Do I really need the state or a religion to allow me to love someone and dedicate my love to that person? No. as for polygamy, I can't no more condone or condemn that as I can marriage, gay marriage or any other type of marriage sanctioned by a religion or state either dictated or sanctioned. Marriage does not equate love and vice versa.
To me contractual agreements and religious doctrines have a way of bringing down the Love aspect between intimate partners.
This has only been my opinion on the subject but the states make a lot of money by issuing marriage licenses, the church head make money by wedding people in holy matrimony and divorce lawyers make out like bandits since roughly 50 percent of marriages end in divorce. But what about the love and the freedom to love? If that means loving another why should the state or a religious institute be involved? It should be between the people involved only.
Again, just my opinion. >:-)
Marriage is a contract, under the law in my State, at least. When I changed my legal gender I asked my lawyer what would happen to my marriage because same sex marriage was not legal at the time. She said that contract cannot be changed by the State because it was valid when it took place, under the law then. So, all in all, a marriage is a contract. Regional laws may dictate the terms of that contract, like, genders, etc., but it is still just a contract.
Only religion <tries to> dictates genders in a marriage.
I see marriage as a divine union when two people go before God and at least two witnesses to make life-lasting vows, and when the two become one flesh.
I see marriage as a legally binding of two peoples (maybe more) everything.
Sent from my VS425PP using Tapatalk
Quote from: redhot1 on April 30, 2017, 12:43:08 PM
How do the trans* community see the word "marriage"? I definitely won't have a problem with two men or two women living together, I am not a religious fundamentalist. But, I guess I am fundamentalist when it comes to the human language. Isn't "marriage" defined as one man and one woman? Even regardless of one or both partners being trans or not? Am I overthinking things?
In India people can get ceremonially married to dogs, so... I don't buy this idea the definition of the word marriage is man + woman, except in religious circles, in which case it means anything they want it to mean (like marrying dogs to slough all your bad luck onto the dog). To me it's just a legal bonding ceremony, sometimes religious and legal but generally for the purposes of laws and rights. That's what it's chiefly always been about even in the Bible - own owns what as a result.
Which is why the anti gay marriage crowd have such a weak argument. Two guys or two women marrying for the legal rights granted doesn't take anything away from anyone else or from society. People who say it somehow cheapens their own hetero marriage because they saw a gay wedding clearly have issues of their own.
it's the only permanent cure for love. ;)
Quote from: Jessica Lynne on December 19, 2017, 12:50:53 PM
it's the only permanent cure for love. ;)
My marriage is the antithesis of that statement. <3
Quote from: Jessica Lynne on December 19, 2017, 12:50:53 PM
it's the only permanent cure for love. ;)
Maybe and add children to the mix.
I see all the unhappy marriages with children and all other friends are in long-term relationships without major issues.
What I can see from the outside.
But in a few cases also from speaking to them on a very personal level.
Quote from: Thessa on December 19, 2017, 01:10:09 PM
Maybe and add children to the mix.
I see all the unhappy marriages with children and all other friends are in long-term relationships without major issues.
What I can see from the outside.
But in a few cases also from speaking to them on a very personal level.
My marriage
with children is the antithesis to this statement, too. <3
Quote from: ainsley on December 19, 2017, 02:04:37 PM
My marriage with children is the antithesis to this statement, too. <3
Lucky you! [emoji4]
I'm pretty sure that my marriage with children was the beginning of the downfall of our relationship.
But I admit that my expectations didn't help...I should have known that it can't work in the long run.
Quote from: Thessa on December 19, 2017, 02:10:54 PM
Lucky you! [emoji4]
I'm pretty sure that my marriage with children was the beginning of the downfall of our relationship.
But I admit that my expectations didn't help...I should have known that it can't work in the long run.
I think I am lucky, too. But, I think
she is lucky, too! holla!
Quote from: Jessica Lynne on December 19, 2017, 12:50:53 PM
it's the only permanent cure for love. ;)
I don't know how you meant this but marriage is the cause for divorce.
Love needs no contractual agreements. Either you do or you don't. Why should sanctioned marriage be a condition? I can hire a lawyer to give my partner the same benefits as a husband or wife would have. When you are married and even in a Will it can be contested by family members. when you hire a lawyer which is cheaper than a wedding and you get more benefits for your partner that can't be contested family members. Why? because it is a contract with written law without emotional components involved when you write a contract. The state in which I live the children can take everything away from the surviving spouse if they wish to contest the common law or marriage so you have to see a lawyer to write a will. LOL what child would do that? You may be surprised. It sux but... It is just human nature when you have property and so on. When my mom died I could have had everything because my step dad had dementia and later on diagnosed with Alzheimer's . His kids got whatever they had and I am good with that. Or I hope so at least after I take my last breath. ???
But just because you are married don't think you have rights. Consult a lawyer and make it totally official in a court of law.
Awww...Jenn, it was a joke. Do you ever tire of spreading your happy, positive, progressive thoughts? That was rhetorical and facetious by the way. I don't need one of your long winded justifications. Please. I don't. Really.
Quote from: Jessica Lynne on December 19, 2017, 05:02:04 PM
Awww...Jenn, it was a joke. Do you ever tire of spreading your happy, positive, progressive thoughts? That was rhetorical and facetious by the way. I don't need one of your long winded justifications. Please. I don't. Really.
OK so long windedness, just sorry. ::) I just find it more serious than a "joke". Some really want to be married. :embarrassed: :'( :embarrassed: :'( :embarrassed:
Shouldn't be relevant as an issue, but I see it as a legal structure to support 'couples' in raising children at its essence, and in reality that has nothing to do with sex, nor even gender, of the parents. And indeed children come and go, and sometimes don't come at all - so for practical purposes just a type of contract between two consenting adults about co-living and co-dependency. With its purpose to enable sharing of resources in a defined manner such that if can offer measures of security, which enable trust, and therefore promote greater individual success, for the power of a couple can be higher then that of two individuals - but done so within, understood by, and accepted within the society. With that though, like anything that involves responsibility, comes with it the potential for abuse, neglect and disintegration.
It's very important as it is my covenant between my spouse and my God. My inability to address my being transgender that came between us. I mean this woman was my everything, and I failed. Luckily I was able to move on and now have been married to my second wife for 35 years. Although we have two children it has never really been a sexual relationship, but she has always been my rock
I personally would love to get Married, My definition of marriage is two people that Love each other unconditionally become one. I don't care on what combination of people just legal age
Quote from: Jenntrans on December 19, 2017, 05:28:48 PM
Some really want to be married.
Reason enough for me. Good on 'em.