Shouldn't we just do away with marriage?

Thing is MMM that various cultures have had some form of 'marriage' other than heteromonogamous for a variety of reasons. I think it's good to dump the shit aspects and hold on to the good ones, all instituations change, however slowly.

I find the gay lobbying for church weddings strange because really they need to think about what they are buying into. The church has monopolised marriage over the years and it seems to me that if you fundamentally change marriage and it's meanings then it has less integrity.

It reminds me of the story of King Soloman and the two women arguing over the baby. Kind soloman said a compromise would be to halve the baby. The mother said no, give the baby to the other woman. Obviously a halved baby has less (life!) integrity. Like two women fighting over a red dress in selfridges, one pulls harder and wins the contest only to find out that the other woman still has hold of one sleeve, the dress has lost it's integrity and therefore isn't worth having.

I'm fine with other peoples choices but I do think marriage as an institution is harmful (to women) and has outlived it's purpose. If the church conceded defeat and undermines it's own doctrine over gay marriage, lets celebrate it.

There's a lot wrong with 'marriage' as a traditional institution, it was after all designed as a way of transferring the ownership of a woman from one man (her father or nearest male relative) to another (her husband). However, a lot of the wrongnesses of traditional marriage have now been legally removed: a woman's money and property do not automatically belong entirely to her husband upon marriage, and a marriage ceremony does not guarantee either partner the right to have sex on the unwilling body of the other. Nor are men entitled to vote on their wives' behalf without permission in writing.
And there is something right and desirable about people wanting to formalise the 'specialness' of relationships that are not a matter of biology eg declaring that someone is significant to you even though that person is not a blood relative (and having a party to celebrate this).

But I'm really unsure about 'consummation' from an ethical viewpoint in a diverse, non-patriarchal, non-heteromonogamist normative ideal world: it's terribly PIV-centric. Lesbians don't always penetrate each other with anything during the course of sex; at what point would a lesbian marriage be considered officially consummated? Or a gay men's one, for that matter (given that not all gay men consider anal penetration part of sex)? Let alone the example given above of a couple where one partner was physically disabled to the extent that PIV wasn't possible...

At the same time, it isn't a good thing to 'marry' someone who is expecting to have some sort of sexual connection as part of the relationship when you have no intention of doing anything like that with the person, ever - unless it's after a lot of prior discussion and agreement. So someone who goes through a traditional heteronormative marriage ceremony having concealed from the other person that in fact s/he has no intention of ever having sex with that person but wants to be married for some other reason (nationality-change, some bizarre probably-only-happens-in-fiction requirements of a family bequest, wishing to conceal non-heterosexuality from family or employer... etc) kind of deserves to have the marriage ended on the grounds of dishonesty.

Cogito sorry I wasn't arguing it does. TBH I wasn't arguing one way or the other, just posting what I said was a very atypical but relevant situation to the thread.

Sadly I have met people in rl who believe disability is divine retribution, particularly with disabled children. I was shocked the first time I heard this disgusting view, but have since heard it a few times. Maybe I just know more than your average number of "minority nut-jobs".

Minority nut-job view from a man that probably also believed their disability was divine retribution for past wrongs.... Don't think that really clinches the equally ridiculous idea that men think raping their wife is fine because marriage somehow implies it's acceptable.

I remember in the press a few years ago a priest refusing to marry a heterosexual couple because they were disabled (one or both can't remember), and they couldn't therefore consumate their marriage. Thus the priest said they couldn't be married. I know this is a minority view, but this priest was quite clear that sex was part of the deal

"the general consensus seems to be that men are entitled to sex on wedding night." Where? Who? If that is from comments under an article, depending on the newspaper, you could end up with tons and tons of weird views.

It is correct that rape or attempted rape in marriage is illegal (from 1992 - well done English legislators )

I agree though, that sex is largely inextricably tied to marriage. Back in the recesses of my brain i'm pretty certain that when I did Medieval History I was taught that there was a time when consumation was a valid and legal form of bringing about a marriage. Certainly in Judaism for a woman, one of the grounds for divorce is that her husband does not satisfy her sexually (there is no equivalent for men) and as you said, a marriage can be annulled if the marriage has not been consumated.

France also has the thing where religious marriages are not recognised, only civil so you have to do the trip to the mairie, and then if you're religious to the church/synagogue/mosque, or whatever.

However, I disagree with you that because there are some men who are morons, marriage as a whole should be done away with. It can be a very quick and convenient way to offer a number of legal protections to both parties.

My marriage is a sexless one (husbands choice not mine) I dont believe a husband has an automatic right to sex within a marriage but i also dont believe he has the right to enforce celibacy on his wife either.

Marriage.......Great for the man. Lousy for the woman.

Quote from Jack Nickolson in The Witches of Eastwick which was made in 1987.

I know that rape in marriage is illegal, but the general consensus seems to be that men are entitled to sex on wedding night. My solution would be to turn the gay marriage thing on its head and gain true equality by offering civil partnerships to all.

Er no. My solution would be to make sure that people know men are not entitled to sex on their wedding night (or at any other time).

And I don't really think that is the general consensus. Just the view of some idiots who posted on an online article.

So, I'm with Sanjeev on this one.

Why not just do away with the whole thing. Why anyone wants to make a commitment legal beats me! it's all about protection of private property isn't it. One of the first forms of private property was probably goats, soon after came money and then women. Why even get suckered into it

No one inspects the bed sheets after you get married you know. If two marrying people are happy never to consummate that's up to them.

It was only a few weeks ago that marriage versus civil partnership was discussed here, and it was clear that they are legally exactly the same, except in name. Yet some activists still say same-sex contracts need to be called "marriage" to be fully equal, and some people want civil partnerships for heteros, in order to avoid the psychological/social baggage implied by "marriage".

Don't they have a dual system in France? I think the modern tradition is that a couple get married in church, then they visit the town hall where the mayor makes it official in the eyes of the state. I assume non-religious people skip the church part.

You can annul a marriage that had never been consummated; otherwise the breakdown of the sexual relationship could be pleaded as unreasonable behaviour. What's wrong with that?

KQ (hope that is ok) I agree. The other major three haven't monopolised marriage legally and morally. That is why no one is seeking to impose change or to undermine their ceremonies.

It would be better to wrestle the legality of marriage away from the church. Rather all commitments should be equal but if you want it blessed find a church, a religion or other even a humanist if that's you bag, to bless your union.

In terms of whether marriage is about/shuld incl cluases in relation to consummation or even procreation, I would think that in some relationships it might not be possible or even desirable to consummate the marriage in the way that the church decrees, let alone take into account the fact that some people do not even wish to have children.

"non-consummation can be used to end a marriage."

Can be. Rarely is. You'd hope that any loving couple, same or different gender, would enjoy consensual sex as part of their relationship but I expect there are more then a few that stay voluntarily celibate and don't feel it is grounds for divorce.

The marriage ceremony includes the worlds 'all my worldly goods' but that isn't carte blanche for theft. And I think you're find 'until death us do part' isn't suggesting that murder is a legitimate way out either.

Yeah, I'd go for having the only legally recognised partnerships being civil partnerships, but still permitting faith communities, humanist groups or others to have their own style recognition ceremonies or rituals, but that don't have any legal status as such.

Interesting point HopeForTheBest, under Jewish law women have always been able to divorce the husband for not fulfilling his duty under Jewish law.

The church monopolised marriage during the medieval period. Divorce was made illegal but marriage could be dissolved by the church under certain circs, one being non-consummation. So yes OP you are entirely right to ask whether this implies a husbands right to sex on his wedding night and indeed every night thereafter. The consummation of marriage is linked to the fact that the church and men in general saw to it that marriage was a legal frame work under which women were owned as a means of procreation, which obv necessitates having sex with the man.

I only know of one person whose marriage was annulled for non consummation, it was a man who refused to do the consummating because he was secretly gay.

Marriage is historically the framework for raising a family. If you don't want to live like that, don't. Id imagine there are many happily non sexual marriages out there.

But don't imagine for a moment that doing away with marriage us going to stop women being abused by male partners. There are plenty of unmarried women posting about rape within a relationship on this forum.

is it ever used? it's a sort of historical curiosity