I strongly disagree with the view that marriage is a strictly religious term - first of all, which religion would that be? Marriage is much older than any currently practiced religion, let alone any monotheistic religion. By all means it is a social term, and any elements connecting it to any kind of sacrum are just the left-overs from the times where religion had a much bigger impact on society. If anything, it's the other way around - it's not that equality movements cannot dictate what marriage is, it's the religious movements that should mind their own business.

Btw, especially for those who want to involve the bible in the marriage talk - early christians did not have religious weddings, there was no ceremony, there was no priest present - it was just a union of two people. It was later on that the nosy Church started to require its approval for the marriage to be righteous in the eyes of god or whatever.

@Wusti: You make the assertion. You cite your references.

I dont give a flying fuck at a rolling donut if you don't agree - PROVE IT.

And that line about it being older than organised religion is a literal crock of shit.

@ Jeff - i'm not at University any more sunshine - you disprove it.

@ Jeff - Oh and be sure to cite your references - and Internet quotes simply won't do.

I'm just telling it like it is in the world as we live today: you don't need religion to get a marriage license.

I'm not trying to prove anything about the origin of marriage. But you are, so you have the burden of proof.

Wusti, do you have any idea how stupid you sound?

I think polyamorous marriages should be permitted. You would need to re-write some of the pertinent laws though, probably. But increasingly polyamory is gaining acceptance so I think it's only a matter of time. Predatory polygamy should forever be frowned on however just as bride prices and child marriage is frowned on.

How would you tell the difference, Thucy?

Let me rephrase that question: there are abusive/predatory monogamous marriages now. Are you saying polygamous marriages should be under more or just the same scrutiny?

Let me shift the discussion a bit though. Everyone is talking about marriage equality, but there is no marriage equality without economic equality. Marriage is now a luxury of the affluent. Many if not most poor people (young people, and non-white people especially) do not get married because they do not feel they have the economic stability for it. And indeed we now know that money troubles are almost always what sink marriages. We will never have marriage equality as long as we have an underclass of working poor. This is why yesterday's decision is really for just for primarily rich, white gay people.

Are you sure that's true? The last I heard it was the affluent that were getting married less now.

There certainly is a positive correlation between length of marriage and economic stability. That doesn't mean there's causation.

Still, I'm with you that well-distributed economic prosperity is good for society as a whole. How to get there...

I hate you Thucy so much, so often.

As for @Wusti, it is surprisingly difficult to find reliable sources, I admit. There's this: http://www.historyofmarriage.org/, which claims that first marriage took place in Mesopotamia in 2350 BCE, and then there's this: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0019066, which makes quite a wild claim that first arranged marriages might date back to the times of migration our of Africa. I had one other source but for the life of me I cannot find it now.

All of them, however, point out that marriage was a for of social behaviour aimed at gaining some benefits, not a religious act. How about your sources?

Where's all the love??

@Bitches(NotEveryoneJustBitches)

There are more benefits for marriage than there are detriments, and even though most marriages are not religious do have specific tax benefits.If you are a registered member of a church, and are wed, then you are able to have small breaks. Whether this is specifically Oklahoma law (which might be the case, I'm not sure about other states) or Federal, i do not know.

still, the MAIN issue i was talking on, was how polygamy was getting the short end of the stick, which is unfair.

"Marriage is now a luxury of the affluent. Many if not most poor people (young people, and non-white people especially) do not get married because they do not feel they have the economic stability for it. "

@Thucy, King of the Twits
Where the flying fuck do you get your information. The shit you spew is so incredibly dense, I have a hard time believing that you believe it. Well maybe not.

Thank you ssorenn, I kind of needed to make sure that I'm not the only one.

Lol why do you hate me

Nobody hates you thucy. We just think you're mentally challenged( that's as politically correct as I can get )

http://www.cnn.com/2010/LIVING/10/06/Pew.reversal.college.marriage.gap/

Here is one of the studies I was talking about. Increasingly marriage is tied to affluence and education. I don't think it's too hard to see why. Poverty leads to instability. Instability doesn't lead to marriage generally. With the erosion of the middle class has come the erosion of marriages among working people.

Thucy, marriages can cost a lot, ceremonies and much else

To abgemacht: you could start by applying a similar test as is done to prevent green card marriages, which would help prevent large groups of people entering into cooperative "marriages" which are really just quasi-corporations. As to preventing abusive marriages, see feminism

@james

Yeah of course; that's one more reason poor people can't afford to get married. Again: there is no marriage equality without economic equality

yes, but as far as 'marriages' go, you can always jump to a courthouse, pay a 50$ application fee (eh i don't know the prices)

Anyone can go to county courthouse and get married for a nominal price. The institution of marriage is on the decline, but it's not just confined by socioeconomic status

@thucy. You're kidding that you use that article to make your stupid assertion.

Dude it's not an assertion. It's the reality on the ground. Out of people you see getting married lately, how many are poor? How many aren't white?