Now obviously you don't need to be married to answer this, everyone has thought about marriage. So what does everyone think marriage is? To me it's a symbol of a loving bond. Very simple on the surface so much more deep down. This topic isn't meant to be "Marriage is between two white heterosexuals!" and if that turns out to be the case I'll send a message to a mod telling them to lock it. It's meant to be the very basic of what marriage means to you, what your feelings are of it.
A sacred bond between a man and a woman, to love and support each other, until death. It is a vow made between each other, in front of witnesses, and in the sight of the Almighty.
The other person gets half... Love, honor & cherish till death parts us(them...you know). I could care less who witnesses it...it would be for me and my beloved.
A curiously persistent and near-ubiquitous social custom that I don't anticipate ever being of personal relevance.
Having a spouse, ideally 'til death do one of them part, preferably but not necessarily having children.
Marriage translates to "no fucking way" in my head. So I guess you could say that I don't have too fond of a view on it.
A antiquated, parochial, and degrading ritualistic tradition that has become and commercial outlet for vanity. I'm all for legal life-long romantic partnerships, but "getting married" has just become ridiculous, especially for this day-n-age. A bride is "given away" and exchanges a ring (the physical embodiment or symbol of a dowry) during a gaudy, decadent celebration and then spends the rest of her life living up to a phony ideal. Or gets an annulment and starts the process all over again. If you need more adjectives, I got 'em.
It's an archaic institution that should not be legally recognised and certainly should not be awarded any tax benefit. Then, it often ends in divorce, a system monstrously biased against men in the western world that systematically robs them of their families, homes and wellbeing.
It means very little to me. I see those of my friends who have lived together for years but never legally married to be as much husband and wife (or h and h, or w and w) as anyone who forked out thousands for a huge wedding and party otherwards. It isn't the piece of paper, or the ring etc that makes someone husband and wife but commitment to each other that does. I hate it when I say that my friend Mick is the husband of Sue and someone pipes up 'they are not married'. If Mick and Sue regard themselves as married that they are in my eyes. However if some people want to go through the marriage ceremony - good for them. However I think that option should be open to all couples.
I may sound crazy or like I am living in a fairytale world...but I just want to find the perfect woman(to me), have this perfect day(The wedding) and as I said...Love, Honor & Cherish Her forever(I don't believe death will part us, personally...Love is everlasting. ).
Some things need to be said. As a single person I do not benefit from this. I wholeheartedly support the concept of the Marriage Strike. A man who marries today places his future financial security in significant jeopardy. My alternative is that marriage should not be a legally recognised institution. If two people want to live together, swap rings and have a wedding that's up to them, but no government or court should allow that arrangement to figure in to any decision if and when that arrangement ends. This has the side effect of allowing same sex couples the ability to marry if they so choose.
There's still a problem with what to call your . . . well, what DO you call that person? “Boyfriend” and “girlfriend” sound like teenagers. “Domestic partner” sounds like something on a census form. “Housemate” sounds too platonic. “Lover”? Too literary, like Emma Bovary or Lady Chatterley. How about “my old man” or “my old lady”? Great, if you want to bring back the ’70s. “Significant other”? Christ, nobody says that! Come to think of it, maybe this subject deserves a thread of its own.
The interesting thing - in light of the general patriarchal bent to society - is that monogamous marriage functions in the female rather than the male interest. For the female, marriage provides a degree of security wrt the raising of offspring. For the male, marriage significantly limits his reproductive potential in exchange for a reliable sex partner. It's a very conservative institution. Male-centric polygamy makes more sense from an evolutionary perspective, but is not as socially stable, in that the wifeless males will forever chafe at their position and seek to challenge or subvert the power of the dominant males. In this light, the decline of polygamy in favour of monogamy functions in the collective interest like social welfare and the practices (progressive/corporate taxation) supporting it: the powerful trade some of their power (wives, dollars, etc.) in exchange for a significantly reduced risk of losing their heads to the proletariat.
In Mick and Sue case they just refer to each other as husband and wife. Some people I know use the word partner. Some men refer to their Missus.
I assume Mick and Sue are happy together ? They have no piece of paper to say they're married, they have little legal recognition of their relationship so it looks to me like you've highlighted a good example of two people who have made a real commitment to each other rather than one enforced by law.