So, what IS marriage now?

[Cow Poke]

To the LDS church interracial unions are not in their definition.

You are about as ignorant on this as you are the The War of Northern Aggression*.

Source: LDS.org

The Church Today

Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects unrighteous actions in a premortal life; that mixed-race marriages are a sin; or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else. Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form.

© Copyright Original Source

[shunyadragon]

You are about as ignorant on this as you are the The War of Northern Aggression*.

Source: LDS.org

The Church Today

Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects unrighteous actions in a premortal life; that mixed-race marriages are a sin; or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else. Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form.

© Copyright Original Source

No, not ignorant at all to your Confederate flag waving nor this problem. Save your Confederate money it is rumored the South shall rebel again. Please reread my post. I said the definition and concept of marriage and civil unions change over time in both the government sanctioned unions, and religious unions. It is best that the Federal and state laws not conform to any particular religious criteria involving marriage.

You're being selective about your references concerning inter racial marriage. Please note the following reference:

Source: //www.mormonstudies.net/html/kimball/ir_marriage.html

President Spencer W. Kimball's Counsel on Interracial Marriage

Cultural differences pose dangers for marriage. When I said you must teach your people to overcome their prejudices and accept the Indians, I did not mean that you would encourage intermarriage. I mean that they should be brothers, to worship together and to work together and to play together; but we must discourage intermarriage, not because it is sin. I would like to make this very emphatic. A couple has not committed sin if an Indian boy and a white girl are married, or vice versa. It isn’t a transgression like the transgressions of which many are guilty. But it is not expedient. Marriage statistics and our general experience convince us that marriage is not easy. It is difficult when all factors are favorable. The divorces increase constantly, even where the spouses have the same general background of race, religion, finances, education, and otherwise.

The interrace marriage problem is not one of inferiority or superiority. It may be that your son is better educated and may be superior in his culture, and yet it may be on the other hand that she is superior to him. It is a matter of backgrounds. The difficulties and hazards of marriage are greatly increased where backgrounds are different. For a wealthy person to marry a pauper promises difficulties. For an ignoramus to marry one with a doctor’s degree promises difficulties, heartaches, misunderstandings, and broken marriages.

When one considers marriage, it should be an unselfish thing, but there is not much selflessness when two people of different races plan marriage. They must be thinking selfishly of themselves. They certainly are not considering the problems that will beset each other and that will beset their children.

If your son thinks he loves this girl, he would not want to inflict upon her loneliness and unhappiness; and if he thinks that his affection for her will solve all her problems, he should do some more mature thinking.

We are unanimous, all of the Brethren, in feeling and recommending that Indians marry Indians, and Mexicans marry Mexicans; the Chinese marry Chinese and the Japanese marry Japanese; that the Caucasians marry the Caucasians, and the Arabs marry Arabs.

© Copyright Original Source

(Spencer W. Kimball, The Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball, edited by Edward L. Kimball [Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1982], 303.)

http://www.mormonstudies.net/html/ki..._marriage.html

[Bill the Cat]

The legally or formally recognized union of two consenting adults as partners in a relationship.

So, consent is the determining factor?

[Bill the Cat]

There will always evolve a secular legal meaning of marriage. At one time it did not include inter racial marriage, but now it includes these marriages. The secular legal definition did not recognize same sex unions in the past, now it does. It is possible that in the future polygamy will be included in the secular legal definition. It is already recognized within some beliefs.

Individual churches and religions have different definitions. To the LDS church interracial unions are not in their definition. Some interfaith unions are not in the definition in some religions and churches.

For the separation of religion and state to be meaningful, the secular legal definition should not be determined or defined by any one religion or church.

I believe it will eventually evolve simply into a legally sanctioned marital union between two consenting adults. The age of what is considered a consenting adult, and at what age parental consent is allowed varies from state to state, therefore remains an open question that is currently unresolved.

So, do you think two people should be allowed to marry strictly for the monetary marital benefits, for instance two soldiers? Or a marriage between two consenting adults solely for immigration benefits for one party?

[Scorching Wizard]

Definetly group marriages will be next. Followed by marriages to any adult consenting animal.

[Bill the Cat]

No, not ignorant at all to your Confederate flag waving nor this problem. Save your Confederate money it is rumored the South shall rebel again. Please reread my post. I said the definition and concept of marriage and civil unions change over time in both the government sanctioned unions, and religious unions. It is best that the Federal and state laws not conform to any particular religious criteria involving marriage.

You're being selective about your references concerning inter racial marriage. Please note the following reference:

Source: //www.mormonstudies.net/html/kimball/ir_marriage.html

President Spencer W. Kimball's Counsel on Interracial Marriage

Cultural differences pose dangers for marriage. When I said you must teach your people to overcome their prejudices and accept the Indians, I did not mean that you would encourage intermarriage. I mean that they should be brothers, to worship together and to work together and to play together; but we must discourage intermarriage, not because it is sin. I would like to make this very emphatic. A couple has not committed sin if an Indian boy and a white girl are married, or vice versa. It isn’t a transgression like the transgressions of which many are guilty. But it is not expedient. Marriage statistics and our general experience convince us that marriage is not easy. It is difficult when all factors are favorable. The divorces increase constantly, even where the spouses have the same general background of race, religion, finances, education, and otherwise.

The interrace marriage problem is not one of inferiority or superiority. It may be that your son is better educated and may be superior in his culture, and yet it may be on the other hand that she is superior to him. It is a matter of backgrounds. The difficulties and hazards of marriage are greatly increased where backgrounds are different. For a wealthy person to marry a pauper promises difficulties. For an ignoramus to marry one with a doctor’s degree promises difficulties, heartaches, misunderstandings, and broken marriages.

When one considers marriage, it should be an unselfish thing, but there is not much selflessness when two people of different races plan marriage. They must be thinking selfishly of themselves. They certainly are not considering the problems that will beset each other and that will beset their children.

If your son thinks he loves this girl, he would not want to inflict upon her loneliness and unhappiness; and if he thinks that his affection for her will solve all her problems, he should do some more mature thinking.

We are unanimous, all of the Brethren, in feeling and recommending that Indians marry Indians, and Mexicans marry Mexicans; the Chinese marry Chinese and the Japanese marry Japanese; that the Caucasians marry the Caucasians, and the Arabs marry Arabs.

© Copyright Original Source

(Spencer W. Kimball, The Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball, edited by Edward L. Kimball [Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1982], 303.)

http://www.mormonstudies.net/html/ki..._marriage.html

This thread is not about the LDS church. Please refrain from discussing it here.

[Joel]

The legally or formally recognized union of two consenting adults as partners in a relationship.

Your definition seems to include too much. A business partnership formed by two people is also a legally recognized union of two consenting adults as partners in a relationship. So that would be "marriage" under your definition. I think you need to modify your definition.

[shunyadragon]

This thread is not about the LDS church. Please refrain from discussing it here.

Please tell Cow Poke. I simply responded to his post. The LDS church and their views on marriage do represent issues of how marriage was historically defined in the USA.

[shunyadragon]

So, do you think two people should be allowed to marry strictly for the monetary marital benefits, for instance two soldiers? Or a marriage between two consenting adults solely for immigration benefits for one party?

No, monetary benefits nor personal benefit should never be the primary issue nor the religious beliefs of any one religion nor church.

[Bill the Cat]

No, monetary benefits nor personal benefit should never be the primary issue nor the religious beliefs of any one religion nor church.

So, what IS the "primary issue"? What would disqualify those seeking monetary benefit from a business arrangement called "marriage"?

[shunyadragon]

So, what IS the "primary issue"? What would disqualify those seeking monetary benefit from a business arrangement called "marriage"?

I am not sure what this has to with the legal definition of civil unions concerning gender, and other issues unless you are proposing that the monetary benefit involved an involuntary arrangement such as slavery.

Many marriages between families in cultures throughout history often involve 'monetary benefit' between families and often the payment of a Dowry, but this would have nothing to do with the legal secular definition of civil unions.

[Starlight]

Your definition seems to include too much. A business partnership formed by two people is also a legally recognized union of two consenting adults as partners in a relationship. So that would be "marriage" under your definition. I think you need to modify your definition.

I just grabbed that definition from the dictionary, so your issue is with the dictionary writers. For what it's worth, I agree, and was surprised that they were so loose in their definition.

Here are a couple of definitions from two other dictionaries:
"a legally accepted relationship between two people in which they live together, or the official ceremony that results in this"

"any of the diverse forms of interpersonal union established in various parts of the world to form a familial bond that is recognized legally, religiously, or socially, granting the participating partners mutual conjugal rights and responsibilities"

[Bill the Cat]

I am not sure what this has to with the legal definition of civil unions concerning gender, and other issues unless you are proposing that the monetary benefit involved an involuntary arrangement such as slavery.

Many marriages between families in cultures throughout history often involve 'monetary benefit' between families and often the payment of a Dowry, but this would have nothing to do with the legal secular definition of civil unions.

I'm asking some very pointed questions. Please stop drifting off topic into other cultures.

[Starlight]

So, consent is the determining factor?

I don't understand what you are asking. Determining factor for/of what?

Yes, I believe mutual consent is / should be required for a marriage to occur, if that is the question. I reject the biblical & historical forms of marriages where a man could take a woman as his wife by force via rape and/or kidnapping.

[Bill the Cat]

I don't understand what you are asking. Determining factor for/of what?

Yes, I believe mutual consent is / should be required for a marriage to occur, if that is the question. I reject the biblical & historical forms of marriages where a man could take a woman as his wife by force via rape and/or kidnapping.

Is consent all the government is concerned with? Should people be allowed to marry strictly for the monetary marital benefits, for instance two soldiers? Or a marriage between two consenting adults solely for immigration benefits for one party? What would cause the government to declare that two consenting adults could not be married, and why?