Metaphysics of Marriage

Greetings Wonderful Magic(k) Nerds,

I’m still wrapping my brain around the concept of marriage in this uniquely strange society where the term its self is being redefined.

So far its:

  1. A social contract (pact) between 2 people (used to be heterosexual) and their community, sealed by divinity (or not, lately) to:

    a) join households for protection (physical, emotional, spiritual, mental)
    b) increase wealth
    c) raise healthy offspring in a supporting environment
    d) protect marriage partners from fornication; that is, sexual relations viewed as improper by the community.

Anyways, I’m researching like mad to fully grasp the aspects and ramifications of this kind of agreement, as well as deciding how long I want it to endure.

If anyone has any thoughts or experiences, or has done anything particular outside the mundane, please share.

Oh, and a little background, I suppose:
My partner and I have been best friends nearly 7 years and have 3 offspring. While he is hetero and monogamous, I am not (I just avoid most people I disagree with, so pretty much anyone not family). Hence trying to sort out a workable marriage pact that will allow personal growth rather than calcification.

My eternal thanks for your time,
Jo

I personally believe marriage should be defined as the union of two or more consenting people (regardless of age [barring pedophilia], gender, religion etc.) who want to spend a large portion of their lives together in a relationship. In other words, I believe LOVE should be the foundation of a marriage.

I believe marriage and the subsequent creation of the family is a fantastic way to ensure the spread of genes in a relatively stable way within a tribal or clan like society. I for one can’t wait to get married and pump out several more Grey-Mane babies to oppose the Battle-Borns.

Well…A ‘Common Law Marriage’ is one considered as a spiritual union, ratified under God, needing no license, etc.

However…since all the ‘public’ can see in the modern era is fictions, as in corporations; as the ‘public’ is nothing more than the East India Trading Company, chartered by the Crown…performing it’s Imperial function. (Ohh yea, but Democracy and what not…)

Thus your ‘marriage license’ is nothing more than a commercial contract; quite literally the equivalent to the individuals of Ford & Chevy deciding to do business together as General Motors.

Why would you need a certificate or license to be married? You don’t…but your business does.

Two individual(corporations/trusts) (You might want to take a look at the IRS code definitions of ‘individual’ one day…lmao)

What do I know…I’m a nerd.

1 Like

My view is based on the ancient Norse and Germanic views (which I believe, though I cannot prove, is in accord with those held by the pre-literate Hellenic tribes).

In that view, individuals as such do not generally exist. Rather, the individual is connected by the hamingja, a soul shared by all members of the family (living and dead), to the rest of his family and ancestors. So a marriage, metaphysically speaking, involves the separation of the bride from her hamingja and family, and the integration into her husband’s family and hamingja. At the same time, the two families of the happy couple exchange gifts, which creates metaphysical bonds (a point worth considering before one makes offerings to a spirit, IMO).

The separation is accomplished by the purification of the bride, which are essentially a form of ritual death. The reintegration is done through the exchange of vows over mead sanctified by the hands of the bride (women were considered intrinsically holy in Germanic thought) and made in the presence of not only the family but also the ancestors, brought into the hall by previous drink offerings (toast and libation). Also, reintegration is accomplished by the marital act and morning gift, themselves an exchange of gifts between wife and husband (this was also to create a bond between husband and wife, hopefully leading to the blossoming of love) and further by the introduction of the new wife to the family hearth (this was often literally, “Hello hearth, this is so-and-so, my wife, she is now a member of the household and family”).

Given this integration, children born of the couple will have a healthy soul, as opposed to illegitimate children, who have a weaker soul, split, as it were, between two hamingja. This presumes the recognition of the child and naming (traditionally nine days after birth) by the father, for, as women create the body, it is the power of men that elevates an animal spirit to a human one and brings it into the family. Without this, or prior to it, infants can be exposed, for they were not seen as truly human. When I was younger, I was strongly pro-life; internalizing this older (and, I think, better) worldview necessitated a change in some deeply held beliefs. But I digress.

It should be noted that in this worldview love is seen as a result of marriage, not a motivation for it. I admit that the modern idea of marriage as being primarily about love is very strange to me, but perhaps that’s due to my age, and a certain inclination towards traditionalism.

Train of thought…

Makes sense. So, why do you think societal (government) involvement in the contract is important or necessary?

And as for “love”…I can’t stand that word because of the lack of precision (no offense intended, of course!). What aspects of love make a marriage different than a partnership? I’m trying to figure out how to articulate it to myself, I suppose. Is marriage basically so that the society sanctioning the government can grant special privileges to the couple?

Are there spiritual ‘things’ that happen in a marriage that don’t or cannot occur in a mere partnership? If so, do they occur at the ceremony? Regardless of religion, does something happen when society views this couple as bound together by will?

@Creed

But, WHY do the Grey-Manes even give a fuck about marriage in the first place? Battle-borns are obvious, but why the marriage requirement for Grey-Manes? Purely for stability, then? Its obvious that genes can be spread regardless of marriage.

Besides, what happens as the society becomes less clan-like and tribal (In a world where Olfinas and Johns begin to prevail), then what? This seems to place more emphasis on aspects of love, than on stability.

@Gnosis

That’s why I’m trying to figure out why the thought of a gov’t Stamp of Approval on my relationship makes me want to retch. Yet, nearly every society has this ‘marriage institution’ between procreating couples (or those who have the potential), and only recently has Westernish society been demanding recognition for unions in general. So, why play the game, if the government (a reflection of society) has absolutely NO requirement, nor precise definition for love in the union, but the offspring must be accounted for as taxable property when they come of age?

Or is this what is changing the nature of marriage; a societal demand that the government recognize and codify the precise nature of love, giving our neighbors even more control of individual thought/freedom? So, the whole fight for marriage equality (rather than a demand that the government back the fuck out of the whole deal) is a societal desire to uphold (and tacitly require, through penalizing other kinds of partnerships) “love” in currently ambiguous terms, rather than the formerly concrete practical considerations, in an effort to define love? The same way that corporations gradually and magically became defined as persons?

@Arkhilokhus

Ah! THIS! I think is closer to why I detest the thought of government intrusion. I see it as backward; governments should sanction business contracts, not love…and this society is requiring that the government sanction intensely personal emotional bonds as the primary component of the marriage contract. Now that I view myself as stable enough to enter a business alliance and raise a secure family with my partner, I couldn’t give a rat’s ass about the love angle in the marriage because,… to me, marriage isn’t about love. And that’s why I am so excited about it. Ohhhh… now, I get me.

WHEW!!! Thank you ALL for your responses! :slight_smile: Maybe I should find real people friends who think thoughts. Or…nah.

1 Like

Also, this must be why the religious folks keep trying to religify governments. They don’t know how to develop spiritually without someone providing general instruction, but with globalization, that is impossible. So, herd mentality bumbles about from church to church, faith to faith, trying to find strong spiritual leadership in lieu of the decidedly secular corporate government.

However, since the old herd still prefers centralized spiritual leadership, politicians continue to play the religious card to hide the fact that there is neither moral nor spiritual leadership of any kind. Its all a corporate facade. And no wonder the xian conservatives panic over the dissolution of the traditional institution of marriage. (And why the pledge of allegiance and coinage were altered in a religious fashion in the first place: religious and moral high ground nationally.)

So, I clearly need to become an ordained minister, create my own religion, exempt my property from taxes, make sweet magic(k) commercials, and attract lost disenfranchised unquestioning souls my way. And avoid becoming filthy rich, ostensibly collecting weapons, or making noise about gathering a following. Brilliant. Silence is golden and love conquers all.

I can see my way for some decent wedding vows now! What a relief.

1 Like

Change the antecedent of “They” to “the general populace”, and you have stated one of the central problems of modernity.

Your average herd-mentality having human requires external direction, which previously came in the form of traditions. With the destruction of such traditions, first under radical forms of Protestantism, then under a widespread materialist ethos, this was no longer an option. Your average man and woman was exhorted to find their own way through the power of pure reason, but is incapable of doing so. Hence the sense of alienation and modern malaise. Well, that’s one cause, anyway.

[quote=“hJo, post:6, topic:4628”]Makes sense. So, why do you think societal (government) involvement in the contract is important or necessary?

And as for “love”…I can’t stand that word because of the lack of precision (no offense intended, of course!). What aspects of love make a marriage different than a partnership? I’m trying to figure out how to articulate it to myself, I suppose. Is marriage basically so that the society sanctioning the government can grant special privileges to the couple?

Are there spiritual ‘things’ that happen in a marriage that don’t or cannot occur in a mere partnership? If so, do they occur at the ceremony? Regardless of religion, does something happen when society views this couple as bound together by will?[/quote]

I don’t feel society should have any part in marriage. I personally would say that a marriage occurs when the parties involved actually keep together for a very long time. I don’t necessarily think marriage requires monogamy. It’s really all about the person (or people) you desire the most to spend your life with in a more intimate way than family or friends. It’s totally personal IMHO.
Religiously/spiritually, a marriage ceremony should convey a sense that the two are bound together. It should rather be an acknowledgment of the bond the two already have. So, I don’t believe marriage can, or should, happen within a short amount of time.

[quote=“Euoi, post:9, topic:4628”]I don’t feel society should have any part in marriage. I personally would say that a marriage occurs when the parties involved actually keep together for a very long time. I don’t necessarily think marriage requires monogamy. It’s really all about the person (or people) you desire the most to spend your life with in a more intimate way than family or friends. It’s totally personal IMHO.
Religiously/spiritually, a marriage ceremony should convey a sense that the two are bound together. It should rather be an acknowledgment of the bond the two already have. So, I don’t believe marriage can, or should, happen within a short amount of time.[/quote]

Neither does my partner. The thought of making a show of it and having an audience is galling to both of us. He already views us bound by our love and children. I view us bound by our mutual goals (passions) and children.

And yet we have families that want to share somehow… to celebrate… it seems oddly profane. And hella expensive. hm. More brain fodder, I suppose.

[quote=“hJo, post:6, topic:4628”]@Creed

But, WHY do the Grey-Manes even give a fuck about marriage in the first place? Battle-borns are obvious, but why the marriage requirement for Grey-Manes? Purely for stability, then? Its obvious that genes can be spread regardless of marriage.

Besides, what happens as the society becomes less clan-like and tribal (In a world where Olfinas and Johns begin to prevail), then what? This seems to place more emphasis on aspects of love, than on stability.[/quote]

A TRUE DAUGHTER OF SKYRIM!!!

There’s more than just genes, there’s the name as well, it carries like a title. Of course, when the titles make… ah… everyone obsessed with death… then they lose their power.