I can add, for argument's sake, SHOULD we allow government to be involved?

Not all marriages are religious unions, for some it is merely a practical or emotional based thing. Since this has overlap with finances and law, the government is precisely who should regulate.
How about this: should churches be able to regulate the marriages of non-religious people? Should they have any say whatsoever in that case?

I can kinda see divorce by needing a third party, but the actual union.

And for property rights, how would it be any different from boyfriend/girlfriend?

In my opinion, religion doesn't have much say. But I don't really understand the practicality of marriage in the first place.

Well in Canada for example, the girlfriend/boyfriend ISNT different. Its called common law. You shack up for 6 months and you are legally bound together, although to a lesser extent than marriage.
Divorce is a good example of why you would need the government to be involved.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Early mythologies other than God of Abraham mythologies, were strong in developing social order through marriage. In the stories of Aphrodite is the story of Pygmalion and how the village women insisted he must get married and Aphrodite was called in to the resolve the matter. This same concern comes in other cultures and some of the cultures would force marriage because this is just the way to have social order. Family order being totally different from military order and the New World Order is secular and military order. I want to be very clear about this. Family order is old world order and the New World Order is military order applied to citizens.

It is when our consciousness fully adopts the New World Order that the issue of marriage becomes contested. In a technological society with merit hiring, a family can be any combination of people that agree to be family. The meaning of family and its relationship to our social position has been completely shattered. This might not be a good thing?

And the notion of marrying for love? That is still a strange idea in some countries. Love did not play a large role in most marriages. In the pioneer days, females were married off at age 14. When we must live by hunting and growing our food, it is hard to feed many people. The female is the less valued in a harsh reality where the strength of males is more important, and no parents want to be stuck with a pregnant daughter. On the other hand, older men want someone to sew, clean, garden, and cook for them and it was acceptable for them hit the young woman if she was not doing her chores. Problem solved. Except some of these women were very upset by the big stink made over slavery when the they were treated so bad, being a wife is not seen as slavery. What a lie. She did become a man's property and she was not protected through religion nor legally. I have known some of these women. They are dead now. They did not gain their freedom until their husbands died and boy were they resentful of the reality they lived before we had plenty of jobs for women and government assistance. To be clear, marriage was a legal contract that assured a man would have the services we expect women to perform, and it assured the women and children would have financial support. This might not have been a good either? But knowing our past makes the gays' fighting for the right to marry humorous. I am sure they want legal protections, but when I think of marriage, I of think of the negatives, and I am not as romantic I was when I was young.

I'm young yet, but it is more a qualm of marriage viewed today in our social context. It's a problem with the way it is driven ($$$) and enforced (policy). Marriage has a 50% success rate according to US Census so keep that in mind. The ideals behind marriage are not worthless. The concept seems unnecessary in today's society.

And, I don't see how a committed relationship outside of legal purview is any different. Common Law sounds good enough. I'm just saying it's kinda a crap-shoot. And there can be other ways to show commitment like actually NOT cheating, gambling, or all those things that can harm your SO.

This is a tad feeling a tad stereotypes, but I feel it's the guy that loses out (at least in MN) if it doesn't last (She changes her mind about her attitude, or ). "She gets the house AND kids" sorta deal. Is that accurate? Are there any laws about a serial divorcer too? I'm sorta scared out of my gourd into marrying. It's vicious man, it's all a land grab with my generation.

I know there are prenups (SP?) but that seems just as bad only the other way. I'm committed just not financially...

I'm pretty comfortable with the way it is, it just seems marriage is moot at this point.

There is also the aspect of taking advantage of our marriage.

It seems more social convention/ peer pressure. A ring and a ceremony proves nothing on the outcome.

Marriage is more like mirage.

It seems more social convention/ peer pressure. A ring and a ceremony proves nothing on the outcome.

Marriage is more like mirage. — Drek

You raise important issues. Being legally married does not make a couple more committed to each other by itself. Legal unions have been developed with an interest in sorting out what happens when they fail more than as a subsidy for what is accepted as a social norm. I say more but not instead. The two elements are bound together. A marriage, if you will.

What is not on your list is how being out of "wedlock" concerns the status of children who did not ask for their status. As tyrannical as some of the laws may be from the point of view of those who consider themselves treated unfairly, the laws are an improvement upon being declared a bastard, or what have you, without recourse to any claim but familial sentiment.

From that point of view, the development of Common Law has always been a patchwork quilt trying to protect rights to a claim without letting so many people fall through the cracks that a community has to bear the results without help from the individuals who caused the problem.

With that said, and acknowledging all that can go wrong, being legally married in a strong relationship is a beautiful thing. And when one becomes more beautiful, one is able to notice more of the same.

@Valentinus

I was born out of wedlock... I'm the reason my parents married. Didn't change how my dad felt about me. I'd rather be called a bastard than live a false life.

Well when a community has to bare the weight they can be more involved with member's lives. It distants responsibility the community has and puts it on government.

Strong relationships are beautiful period.

Am I delusional?

Am I delusional? — Drek

Maybe, but there is insufficient data. Please provide much more information. Do you happen to have a a copy of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) around the house? If you do, fill it out and send it to the forum. That would help us answer the question about your possible delusional state.

My understanding of marriage is that in the US ONLY the state issues licenses to marry. One can not be considered "married" without the state issued license. A priest or a justice of the peace can marry people ONLY if they have the state issued license. The Roman Catholic Church can not make you more married than any old Justice of the Peace can.

We considered our gay relationship adequately protected by our mutual desire to be in the relationship. That worked for 30+ years till death did us part. There are fairly simple procedures to own property together so that in the event of death the survivor becomes the sole possessor.

two four six eight
ditch the church
& screw the state

Only "God" (Up to your beliefs) and the couple can truly make it everlasting.

Just as addicts have to find it within themselves (though help wouldn't be bad to find).

I think individual responsibility is underrated.

My MMPI would probably light on fire from all the craziness.