What would happen if Marriage was treated like a business transaction?

Discussion Corner — By NikhilBhide on May 4, 2009 at 14:26

bar9018 asked:

I would say if a priest, rabbi or iman wanted to marry two women and call it a marriage that was their right. Thus, marriage is not religions it is a product bought and sold like anything else.

What do y’all think?

Marathi Matrimonials

January 1, 2009 -- How is *********** marriage and same *** marriage the same? (10)
May 13, 2009 -- How did marriage and women’s roles change from Colonial period to the Republican Period? (2)
May 6, 2009 -- What is marriage, and should spouses share their spouse with others? (5)
May 5, 2009 -- How likely is a marriage to last if the girl is 18 and the guy is 23 when they get married? (24)
May 4, 2009 -- How many *** marriage ceremonies have been performed in Mass in Catholic Churches? (7)
May 2, 2009 -- What place does marriage have in the next decade? (5)
April 29, 2009 -- How does allowing *** marriage have anything to do with education? (14)
April 29, 2009 -- Is there any law against hermaphrodite marriage in the united states? (3)
April 13, 2009 -- Does Marriage and birth certificates attestation required to process dubai visit visa of wife and kid? (1)
April 2, 2009 -- What if any are the secular arguments against polyamorous marriage? (8)

Tags: Business Transaction, Marriage, Rabbi, Religions, Two Women

6 Comments

christina p. says:

May 16, 2009 at 06:06

Psssh, it is a complete pink slip. $60 bucks will sell you a useless husband/wife.
Witchy says:

May 13, 2009 at 05:12

I agree somewhat. I’d just give marriage back to the various religions to do whatever they want with it. I see it as a religious rite more than anything else. So, I really don’t think that the government should be in the business of defining, acknowledging, or determining government benefits based on whether or not someone goes through a religious rite.

If people want the government to recognize anything they can have a civil union type of business contract to join their assets. As with any other business contract, the government shouldn’t care about the genders, race or even the number of people involved. It’s just business.
Tim says:

May 11, 2009 at 05:01

hey .. in most cases it is. just try to get out of one.. it is only a love and religious union as long as all parties are happy.
wartz says:

May 10, 2009 at 00:50

I think marriage is the union of a man and a woman and that the definition is unchangeable.
maxmom56 says:

May 8, 2009 at 09:50

That’s actually how marriage was treated until very recently especially among the upper classes. It’s been rejected in favor of “true love” and a divorce rate in excess of 50%.
Jack says:

May 8, 2009 at 02:01

Hi Guy,

You’re correct. In the eyes of the state, marriage is a “contract” like any other transaction. The fact that it is a contract is what enables them to regulate it.

Long before some states legalized *** marriages, some churches performed marriages among gays and ********. That’s fine. Freedom of religion allows them to believe whatever they want to believe. But that belief does not have the force of law unless the state signs off on the legality of the transaction.

Your assessment is therefore spot-on. Whatever romantics may say, in the eyes of the law, marriage is a contract like any other business transcation.

Cheers, mate.