[Distance]

What exactly are you trying to accomplish with uniform descriptions of an institution that has and really needs no uniformity?

[2obvious]

	Originally Posted by Distance To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	What exactly are you trying to accomplish with uniform descriptions of an institution that has and really needs no uniformity?

In the context of a conversation, uniformity helps us to clarify that we're all talking about the same thing.

Without some vocabularly (and like I said, it can be temporary vocab) I feel like I'm watching a bunch of people disgruntled about different things yet calling it by the same name.

[Distance]

	Originally Posted by 2obvious To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	In the context of a conversation, uniformity helps us to clarify that we're all talking about the same thing. Without some vocabularly (and like I said, it can be temporary vocab) I feel like I'm watching a bunch of people disgruntled about different things yet calling it by the same name.

But it's all one bundle. It is marriage. Retitling it into components won't necessarily cover every possibility of how people view, act or wish to shape their marriages.

Take a look at your questions in the opening post which are quite telling. You'd like to clearly define breach of contract where within individual models of marriage, terms and conditions will vary. This is one of the reasons why "no fault" marriage has come into existence since it allows individuals to define breach on their own terms, which include "just not feeling it anymore". There's no purpose to holding people to archaic terms and conditions, when life is so very, very short.

[2obvious]

	Originally Posted by Distance To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Retitling it into components won't necessarily cover every possibility of how people view, act or wish to shape their marriages.

If I took this literally, it sounds like you're arguing that a word cannot be defined? That's probably not what you're meaning.

If I take this spiritually, I guess you're saying that attempting to break the word down is futile. I'm not really clear on your basis for that, but we're all Judgers here. Forgive me for having a "P" of an impulse: I don't think it's futile. It confuses me.

	Originally Posted by Distance To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Take a look at your questions in the opening post which are quite telling. You'd like to clearly define breach of contract where within individual models of marriage, terms and conditions will vary.

I don't think the concept of a "breach" is even necessary, if we're focused on just the legal aspect. So long as both parties willfully agree to dissolve the contract, there need be no terms for the breakup.

I posed the question in a way to get people to contrast the legal and non-legal aspects of marriage. I wanted to jumpstart the dissection. (Not sure what's so "telling" about that?)

[Aven]

I thought marriage was commitment?
It is purely personal, in my view, there is a legal side to it, but it is defined as the majority would like it to be defined.
By commitment, I mean between two people. Now, there are open marriages, but in the end I think the commitment is still there [if a person breaks that commitment, or agreement between the two parties I don't consider that a marriage]. This question is rather interesting, I would like to see where it goes.

[Speck]

It differs from country to country and is deeply rooted in traditional, moral and ethical values I suppose. There are many reasons. Arabs implicitly believe in preserving their bloodlines, it's something they take pride in. You could write a full book on the topic. I didn't realize that it would be interesting to talk about until now
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Miryr]

A bill to be paid at a later date for half of the wealth you managed to acquire since you signed it.

[mormeguil]

	If I took this literally, it sounds like you're arguing that a word cannot be defined? That's probably not what you're meaning.

It's mostly arguing that the word can not be defined precisely and easily. There are hundred of laws related to marriage. There is even discussion about who get two marry. Some think two person of same sex should not be allowed to marry.

The ceremony itself as an incredible amount of variation. Both concerning the major element that changes over time or variation of elements no longer considerated important.

The state of relationship is also mostly defined by the two person involved in it.

So, basicly the general definition most people can agree on will usually be well know by everyone in each society. Anything more precise will be vague and not be possible to define. Each person will give you it's own definition. Before getting married mariage counseling is a good idea just to make sure both person are on the same pages and have the same definition.

It's the same as when we try to define friendship. Most people can agree on the large picture, but each friendship is different and anything precise can not be defined easily

[changos]

	Title= "What does “marriage” mean to you?"

To me it means true team work regarding common personal and intimate goals in life
I pretty much agree with the description found in the laws of my country, being that is a relationship where both look after the best interest of the children, above all.

	Originally Posted by 2obvious To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I’ve been trolling the relationship threads recently. I’m floored by how fragmented our perceptions on relationships are--I don’t think many of us could come to an agreement on how we define the term “relationship.” (Perhaps I’ll leave that for another time.)

100% agree with that, many discussions seem to lose control due to the diff expectations each person has.

Adding meaning to my first answer (team work) I can only say "redundancy". Why? because I believe there should be collaboration but no specific and exhaustive specialization!!! meaning? women cook, men work? nope. Both should be able of doing everything, it serves for a better mutual understanding, and... nobody lives forever.


Regarding your questions:

- What is the purpose of each (marriage, civil union)?
2obvious, I don't quite understand this one, perhaps due to country law differences...
Legally, marriage HERE is a contract with many benefits and rights. The civil union WAS not a contract, but something the society recognized with kinda less benefits and rights. The law changed, even as marriage and civil union are two diff things, both are the same now, with the same benefits, rights and risks.

To me? to me it really makes no difference, it's up to the commitment of each partie.


What constitutes a breach of contract?
Betrayal to any of the promises and mutual agreements, the law tries to approach this but the personal stuff is above all in my opinion.


On what grounds should either contract be breached?
?? sorry.

How serious should a breach be taken?
Far enough to dissolve the contract. I don't agree with taking anything from nobody (or from me) to me its only about going diff ways, it gets complicated when children are on the scene.


I have my personal opinion, and I have to say that the laws of my country and the catecism of the catholic church have very logical basis. Before trolling you should read the laws of my country... and the catecism... I bet many attempt to trow rocks at it but have very little knowledge about it, in fact it's a book big as the yellow pages of the a big country. It includes very common sense and logical stuff to declare a marriage as invalid.



Not sure if the previous says something to you, it seems tome the thread is going on a diff direction than the one you planned to discuss.

PS. To me everything regarding this matter is personal, no paper makes sense to me or would make any promise more "valid", but there are many legal benefits and consequences tied to the "legal contract", AND whenever demands and rights come into place, we need a neutral concept that will come handy to solve any disputes.

[enfp_female]

2obvious:

Your own distinction of relationship, civil union etc. seem to be quite good! Could you kindly clarify as to whether you are seeking consensus of this distinction (as in, you are laying out a proposition and seeking yay/nay votes) OR whether you are seeking perspectives around it (as in, you are trying to see if you have covered all ground and if there are other possibilities you missed).

The reason I ask is:

You say that you are trying to establish a common vocabulary; at the same time, you seem to have proffered it yourself!
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
And quite nicely, too.

Others are saying that there may be combinations of your silo-ed descriptions that are possible, which apparently (and I may be wrong), you seem to be rejecting.

It will help to know where you are headed with this to give you an objective response. Otherwise, we may end up giving our personal, subjective points of view, which may be rather meaningless to your context... OR we may give a totally abstract, removed-from-reality kind of definition that fits no one's context very meaningfully at all.

Hope this helps illustrate the confusion this forum is experiencing.

[2obvious]

	Originally Posted by changos To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	On what grounds should either contract be breached? ?? sorry.

Sorry about that.

I was asking about the grounds for dissolving said contract. The wording was purposely redundant, in an attempt to cover all bases. (Which succeeded only in confusing you, my bad.)

I was thinking of the vow "til death do us part" when I phrased that question. It...doesn't leave much wiggle room for interpretation, that one.

(I would say more, but skimming the thread again, I believe I’m the first guy to acknowledge that such a vow is even commonplace.)

---------- Post added 02-09-2012 at 09:53 AM ----------

	Originally Posted by some other forumemale To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	You say that you are trying to establish a common vocabulary; at the same time, you seem to have proffered it yourself! To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. And quite nicely, too.

Yeh, I was trying to avoid that. But my attempts to remain impartial have left some suspecting I have ulterior motives. Hopefully, we’re past that now?

	Originally Posted by some other forumemale To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Others are saying that there may be combinations of your silo-ed descriptions that are possible, which apparently (and I may be wrong), you seem to be rejecting.

How does combining descriptions address my efforts to separate descriptions?

There’s your key to why I seem so ornery.

	Originally Posted by some other forumemale To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	It will help to know where you are headed with this to give you an objective response. Otherwise, we may end up giving our personal, subjective points of view...

--Which I want! Hence my asking what marriage means “to you.” Which I further clarified by asking for specifics “according to your individual bias.”