How binding would you consider a “Marriage” that?

How binding would you consider a “Marriage” that?
was just the decision of 2 people to consider themselves married but there was no involvement of Government or Church in the Marriage

Best answer:

Answer by Shih Tzu
The bond between two people can be amazing. To choose to be together, rather than being obligated to do so, is so much more meaningful. It doesn’t matter what laws bind you, it’s your heart that decides to stay or go. I have the utmost respect for this type of relationship. But you asked how binding I would consider this relationship? I would consider it not binding at all, unless you have ‘common law marriage’ in your state. Binding implies you could force compliance. I would hope your love will bind you together.

Leave your answer below.

Be Sociable, Share!

4 Responses to “How binding would you consider a “Marriage” that?”

  • Abyss Child X says:

    It’s the oldest version of it in the world, and no one knows better than the two people themselves how real or sacred it is.

  • Reason and evidence are deicidal agents ︻╦╤─ says:

    Well that depends on what you mean by binding. If they want legal recognition (which for instance would allow them the legal privileges of marriage, like filing taxes as a married couple or being able to make medical decisions on the other’s behalf) then they would need a marriage license, which would necessitate at least some gov’t involvement. However at its core, marriage is simply a promise/contract/pledge of fidelity or monogamy to one’s partner, and as such no third party is needed for two people to consider themselves married. Two people living by themselves on a desert island with no gov’t, or churches, or other people could consider themselves married and who could object?

    And of course there is no need for religion to be involved in marriages at all. People of differing religions, or no religion, get married all the time, and marriage has been around for (at the least) many centuries before any of our modern religions even existed. Buddhism does not recognize the existence of a “creator god” who must sanctify all marriages, and Hinduism and many other religions are polytheistic so the judeo-xtian concept of a single marriage-approving god does not apply to them as well.

  • zilmag says:

    What makes a marriage binding is all voluntary stuff, anyway, so it’s not any less binding. It would just be more convenient to dissolve the bond.

    They would have to tell others that they were married and also share a household, for it to be a marriage, though – because a marriage isn’t just a “romantic love forever” thing, it’s a specific type of kinship that creates a social unit and an economic unit.

  • Jesús Antonio says:

    Those who achieve this, were truly married.

Leave a Reply


Search MikeAdkins.com:
Article Categories
Most Popular Articles
    .