Should couples have to demonstrate intimacy in order to become legally married?

[Rinzai]

The state as arbiter of morality?
Are you a closet theocrat?

In practice - morality is already "arbited" under state laws to some degree or another, and has always been, and per the 10th Amendment, this is legal provided it does not infringe on Constitutional rights - this isn't a closet secret.

Even if one doesn't want to stretch the definition of "arbiter of morality" to include things such as prohibiting murder, littering, speeding, drunken driving, etc - as an example, it's apparently legal in some states for a court to require marriage counseling prior to granting a divorce:

https://www.avvo.com/legal-guides/ugc/basics-of-court-ordered-marriage-counseling

 

[Rinzai]

I refer to actual relationships outside the legal marriage, with the full knowledge and approval of all involved.

If they're not legally recognized I don't see how that would work unless they gained legal recognition.

Give that I am unsure what you mean by internet levels, yet alone that most porn is fantasy based, I can't speak to that. Kink in and of it self ranges vastly, and what one couple considers tame, another might consider extreme. The only consistent key is consent. Without consent it is not longer kink, but sexual assault.

Well not necessarily, a person who's kink is rape or abusing underage child which are inherently nonconsentual in and of themselves.

Likewise, there are forms of kink in which a person might give personal consent, but in which the legality of it would still be denied even in spite of consent - if a person whose kink was necrophilia or cannibalism was given permission to by a friend to violate or eat the corpse his friend's deceased father, they could still be criminally charged with abuse of a corpse, as well as denied the ability to legally grant such permission to begin with.

So "consent" is something of a social construct.

Also, you didn't answer my first question. What is the government interest, and what legal difference is there between the two statuses?
Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk

Not sure, it would be an honorary thing - kind of like military promotions I guess - to establish different "ranks" of marriage and set higher benchmarks.

 

[phattonez]

So sterile straight couples who do not wish children should not be allowed to marry?

If there's absolutely no chance of being able to have children, then no marriage.

Or older couples past their child bearing years?

You got it.

 

[phattonez]

Why?

..

Because that is the very purpose of the institution.

 

[RAMOSS]

Because that is the very purpose of the institution.

Is it? According to who?

 

[Rinzai]

Is it? According to who?

Well from what I can tell, the reason that societies historically have legally sanctioned it it is contingent on the idea that it provides some type of benefit directly or indirectly to society at large in some way or another.

So while the couples' individual purposes for marrying may not be entirely limited to having a child, it is formally sanctioned since it usually tends to result in a union which benefits society.

While there are some exceptions such as couples who aren't able to reproduce naturally - in general, marriages or unions tend to naturally result in childbirth and replenishment of a society or economy.

This is likely why states decide to reward people with legal privileges for getting married, or for purchasing "green cars" - but not for... playing video games - since one has a measurable benefit on society as a whole, while the other doesn't.

 

[RAMOSS]

Well from what I can tell, the reason that societies historically have legally sanctioned it it is contingent on the idea that it provides some type of benefit directly or indirectly to society at large in some way or another.

So while the couples' individual purposes for marrying may not be entirely limited to having a child, it is formally sanctioned since it usually tends to result in a union which benefits society.

While there are some exceptions such as couples who aren't able to reproduce naturally - in general, marriages or unions tend to naturally result in childbirth and replenishment of a society or economy.

This is likely why states decide to reward people with legal privileges for getting married, or for purchasing "green cars" - but not for... playing video games - since one has a measurable benefit on society as a whole, while the other doesn't.

Could you care to translate that into something coherent, and actually back up your claims with sources?

 

[AGENT J]

This is an idea I had.

Instead of states allowing two people to be legally married by default, everyone would merely granted civil unions for the pragmatic and financial reasons.

And if a couple wanted to be legally recognized as married, they would have to meet additional requirements, such as remain together for X number of years, and demonstrating to a panel of experts that they are loving and faithful.

This might be a way of distinguishing between lesser arrangements, such as couples who unfaithful, abusive, or married mainly for financial convenience - and couples who have attained higher levels of intimacy and can serve as role models, rather than giving dysfunctional couples the illusion that they have attained some "sacred" status of marriage simply by signing a legal contract without demonstrating any genuine intimate qualities.

Legal Marriage is a legal contract far superior to civil unions and domestic partnerships thats it. No additional requirement you proposed is needed for a marriage contract so no.

Your feelings of any additional requirements are meaningless to the topic.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

In practice - morality is already "arbited" under state laws to some degree or another, and has always been, and per the 10th Amendment, this is legal provided it does not infringe on Constitutional rights - this isn't a closet secret.

Even if one doesn't want to stretch the definition of "arbiter of morality" to include things such as prohibiting murder, littering, speeding, drunken driving, etc - as an example, it's apparently legal in some states for a court to require marriage counseling prior to granting a divorce:

https://www.avvo.com/legal-guides/ugc/basics-of-court-ordered-marriage-counseling

And that, which you described, is quite enough, thank you

 

[AGENT J]

1.) Well, if the purpose of calling it "marriage" instead of civil union is to give the illusion of some kind of sacred status, then I think it would make sense for there to be some kind of quality control.
2.)Basically, any couple could get a civil union with the same legal benefits as married couples currently have - even if they met on a drunken 1-night stand in Las Vegas - but couples who remain together for a longer time and demonstrate sincere intimacy could get "promoted" to married status.
Sure, alternative arrangements will probably always exist in some form or another.

1.) what country are you from LOL no thats not the purpose and how could anybody ever think that. they are different contracts.
2.) Factually false, you might want to educate yourself on a topic before posting about it

 

[AGENT J]

Only those who wish to procreate and have no obvious impediments toward reproduction should be married.

well luckily for the freedom and rights of Americans theres no retarded standards like that required for the legal contract of marriage LMAO nor should there be.

 

[maquiscat]

If there's absolutely no chance of being able to have children, then no marriage.



You got it.

Credit where credit is due. While I do not agree with your premise, your conclusion, unlike others, is consistent and logical with that premise.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk

 

[phattonez]

Is it? According to who?

Marriage has historically been the only place where sex is socially allowed. The purpose of sex is bearing children.

 

[Kobie]

Marriage has historically been the only place where sex is socially allowed. The purpose of sex is bearing children.

“Historically” has been used as justification for a lot of wrong things.

 

[RAMOSS]

Marriage has historically been the only place where sex is socially allowed. The purpose of sex is bearing children.

That is false. In fact, in Jewish culture, mamzers are not allowed to get married,.. and that stigma lasts for 10 generations. Reproduction can't happen unless there's sex outside of marriage.

 

[jimbo]

Well, if the purpose of calling it "marriage" instead of civil union is to give the illusion of some kind of sacred status, then I think it would make sense for there to be some kind of quality control.

Basically, any couple could get a civil union with the same legal benefits as married couples currently have - even if they met on a drunken 1-night stand in Las Vegas - but couples who remain together for a longer time and demonstrate sincere intimacy could get "promoted" to married status.


Sure, alternative arrangements will probably always exist in some form or another.

Why should the government meddle in private lives at all?

 

[Rinzai]

what country are you from LOL no thats not the purpose and how could anybody ever think that. they are different contracts.

Well yes, that is a reason that society has a vested interest in it to begin with, as well as playing a role in why the majority of people to marry and beget offspring, anthropologically speaking - regardless of country.

Replenishment of population is something which naturally benefits the state and the economy, so while obviously it isn't in the states realm to "force" people to breed, it makes sense that states create laws and legal contracts as incentives to encourage people to voluntarily do this in a stable environment.

As for the the "purpose" on the individual level is may be a mixture of different motives or prefrences, and I'm sure that idiosyncratic and "alternative" arrangements which are out of sync with nature's default exist as well, albeit in very small minorities.

 

[maquiscat]

If they're not legally recognized I don't see how that would work unless they gained legal recognition.



Well not necessarily, a person who's kink is rape or abusing underage child which are inherently nonconsentual in and of themselves.

Likewise, there are forms of kink in which a person might give personal consent, but in which the legality of it would still be denied even in spite of consent - if a person whose kink was necrophilia or cannibalism was given permission to by a friend to violate or eat the corpse his friend's deceased father, they could still be criminally charged with abuse of a corpse, as well as denied the ability to legally grant such permission to begin with.

So "consent" is something of a social construct.


Not sure, it would be an honorary thing - kind of like military promotions I guess - to establish different "ranks" of marriage and set higher benchmarks.

If they're not legally recognized I don't see how that would work unless they gained legal recognition.

You originally said:

...and demonstrating to a panel of experts that they are loving and faithful.

So I am trying to determine how this criteria applies. I have a current legal mate. We are poly as well as in an open relationship. While she has yet to find another with whom she wishes to be with, I have had others, both for sex and/or relationships. She approves of these others. If she doesn't approve, I don't get to have the relationship. My question is this behavior by us, where all parties involved have knowledge and consent, something that would disqualify my legal mate and I for the status of marriage, per your concept.

Which brings up another question. If the term marriage would be out of bounds, would the terms spouse, wife and husband likewise be not allowed without the special status?

Well not necessarily, a person who's kink is rape or abusing underage child which are inherently nonconsentual in and of themselves.

Was there some part of, "Without consent it is not longer kink, but sexual assault." that you didn't comprehend?

Likewise, there are forms of kink in which a person might give personal consent, but in which the legality of it would still be denied even in spite of consent - if a person whose kink was necrophilia or cannibalism was given permission to by a friend to violate or eat the corpse his friend's deceased father, they could still be criminally charged with abuse of a corpse, as well as denied the ability to legally grant such permission to begin with.

So "consent" is something of a social construct.

First off, unless one is sexually getting off on eating human flesh, cannibalism is not a kink. Secondly, you example fails to show proper consent. Proper consent would be me giving you permission to do those things with my deceased body, not some other family member of mine. Thier body, their decision.

That said, we are moving into the topic of a whole other thread, as to what should probably should not be legal for one to provide consent for.

So let's keep my question more in the realm of more "conventional" kink. Let's use bondage, flogging, and electroplay, for the purpose of specifics. Assuming it was.only between my legal mate and I, would we be denied marriage per your concept?

Not sure, it would be an honorary thing - kind of like military promotions I guess - to establish different "ranks" of marriage and set higher benchmarks.

As a former member of the military, I find this insulting. There is nothing honorary about ranks. Each rank brings with it higher responsibilities, privileges, and pay. Hell even in military style structured fan organizations, such as IFT, and MFI and many others, while the same rank, holds nowhere near as much significance as a true military rank, they still bring with them more responsibility within the organization.

If being married, as opposed to being in a civil union, brings no extra with it, either in responsibilities or privileges, what is then point of the government doing so?

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk

 

[Rinzai]

You originally said:


So I am trying to determine how this criteria applies. I have a current legal mate. We are poly as well as in an open relationship. While she has yet to find another with whom she wishes to be with, I have had others, both for sex and/or relationships. She approves of these others. If she doesn't approve, I don't get to have the relationship. My question is this behavior by us, where all parties involved have knowledge and consent, something that would disqualify my legal mate and I for the status of marriage, per your concept.

I'd assume that unless some type of legitimate polygamous union was recognized by a state, then it would, yes. Given that currently, legally I'd venture it would be recognized as infidelity, whether 'consent' is given or not, and can be used as grounds to deny alimony in divorce court.

https://infidelityrecoveryinstitute.com/u-s-a-laws-on-infidelity-and-adultery/

What your talking about is basically "swinging" I guess. I'm not sure how that could be recognized given the fleeting from partner to partner, as opposed to polygamy as traditionally practiced in which there was an expectation a continuous relationship.

Which brings up another question. If the term marriage would be out of bounds, would the terms spouse, wife and husband likewise be not allowed without the special status?

Not sure on that one, I'm not sure if those terms are recognized by courts or not.

Was there some part of, "Without consent it is not longer kink, but sexual assault." that you didn't comprehend?

According to who is that solipsistic definition true? Not to a rapist, or a "biastophile".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biastophilia

So you are basically advocating the repression of "kinks" which fall below the level of socially constructed definitions of "consent" or legality - which is fine, but it basically means you're attempting to impose unilateral restrictions on the types of kinks a person enjoys - such as those which someone like, say, Marquis de Sade described in the novel 120 Days of Sodom.

First off, unless one is sexually getting off on eating human flesh, cannibalism is not a kink.

I'm sure some people do.

Secondly, you example fails to show proper consent. Proper consent would be me giving you permission to do those things with my deceased body, not some other family member of mine. Thier body, their decision.

Regardless, I don't believe it would be legal in most jurisdictions for you to grant legal permission to do that, or for them to do that even with your express consent.

So your statement that consent is legally considered an absolute isn't true.

So let's keep my question more in the realm of more "conventional" kink. Let's use bondage, flogging, and electroplay, for the purpose of specifics. Assuming it was.only between my legal mate and I, would we be denied marriage per your concept?

Well, I'm curious how a court would know or care what kinks a married couple enjoys in the privacy of their bedroom to begin with, so how would they know unless you went out of your way to publicly broadcast it?

As a former member of the military, I find this insulting. There is nothing honorary about ranks. Each rank brings with it higher responsibilities, privileges, and pay. Hell even in military style structured fan organizations, such as IFT, and MFI and many others, while the same rank, holds nowhere near as much significance as a true military rank, they still bring with them more responsibility within the organization.

If being married, as opposed to being in a civil union, brings no extra with it, either in responsibilities or privileges, what is then point of the government doing so?

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk

Well the argument was that it would be an attempt to recognize higher responsibilities, such as if a couple has been together for 10 years and is still intimate, or is raising productive children or I guess to draw a distinction between a 'happily married' couple with children, and someone like, Honey Boo Boo's mom.

 

[phattonez]

“Historically” has been used as justification for a lot of wrong things.

"Progress" has been used far more frequently as justification for a lot of wrong things.

 

[phattonez]

That is false. In fact, in Jewish culture, mamzers are not allowed to get married,.. and that stigma lasts for 10 generations. Reproduction can't happen unless there's sex outside of marriage.

I wasn't aware that we're living in a Jewish culture.

 

[Rinzai]

“Historically” has been used as justification for a lot of wrong things.

More like anthropologically than historically - the "purpose" of sex on the level of an individual married couple may not be limited solely to procreation, and is probably a combination of many different motives none which are mutually exclusive.

However, marriages or unions tend to naturally result in children and replenishment of population, as they do for the majority of married couples - which is why societies take a vested interest in it and attempt to encodify it with legal protections.

Similar to how, government might provide people with incentives to buy green cars under the impression that they benefit society or economies in some way - obviously the government can't force a person to buy a green car against their will, but it provides incentives for those who do to encourage it voluntarily.

 

[RAMOSS]

I wasn't aware that we're living in a Jewish culture.

You said 'historically'.. and i pointed out that is not the case. Even in the Christian medical culture, what you claim was not true.


https://www.brown.edu/Departments/Italian_Studies/dweb/society/sex/fornication-adultery.php

 

[JasperL]

Well from what I can tell, the reason that societies historically have legally sanctioned it it is contingent on the idea that it provides some type of benefit directly or indirectly to society at large in some way or another.

So while the couples' individual purposes for marrying may not be entirely limited to having a child, it is formally sanctioned since it usually tends to result in a union which benefits society.

While there are some exceptions such as couples who aren't able to reproduce naturally - in general, marriages or unions tend to naturally result in childbirth and replenishment of a society or economy.

This is likely why states decide to reward people with legal privileges for getting married, or for purchasing "green cars" - but not for... playing video games - since one has a measurable benefit on society as a whole, while the other doesn't.

OK, so let's accept the premise that society provides tax and other benefits to "marriage" primarily or even exclusively because we want to reward or encourage or reduce burdens associated with child bearing and raising. In other words, if marriage was unrelated to child bearing and raising, perhaps it would not come with government subsidies.

That's still not an argument to prohibit marriage between couples who do not want or cannot have children, nor does it provide any argument for the proposition that marriage between couples with no children provides no societal benefits. To take the notion to a natural conclusion, if our sole purpose in recognizing or subsidizing marriage is for the benefit of children, then why allow a couple to remain married after the kids leave the house?

The completely obvious answer is having a husband or wife into old age also benefits society. We have a person to help share our burdens, to love and be loved, to provide companionship, help us through sickness, injury, to support, and encourage one another. The list is long and among other things having a spouse does in many cases increase our happiness and well being, for all kinds of reasons, that will vary from couple to couple. Those benefits exist at age 30 same as at age 70, and they exist independent of whether the couple has children or plans to or not.

 

[CLAX1911]

More like anthropologically than historically - the "purpose" of sex on the level of an individual married couple may not be limited solely to procreation, and is probably a combination of many different motives none which are mutually exclusive.

However, marriages or unions tend to naturally result in children and replenishment of population, as they do for the majority of married couples - which is why societies take a vested interest in it and attempt to encodify it with legal protections.

We haven't lived in such a society for quite a few years. So it may just have to be incumbent upon the individual to place value on a marriage without mommy government telling you that you are special.

Similar to how, government might provide people with incentives to buy green cars under the impression that they benefit society or economies in some way - obviously the government can't force a person to buy a green car against their will, but it provides incentives for those who do to encourage it voluntarily.

The concept of government influencing behavior is an overstep of what the government is for. If people can't value their marriages without government goodies than government recognized marriage is of no value.