WHAT IS ‘MARRIAGE’ ?

ASHUTOSH JI,

NOT SEVEN IT IS EIGHT.

THANKS.

PLEASE PUT MORE DETAILS.

Azhar style

First bowled.

Second being bowled over.

Third courting. 47 years to 26 years.

Arup sir, thanks for correcting me, if I am wrong. Some of them (forms of marriges) are mentioned below.

1.      Brahma Vivaah – Here family of the girls/bride selects the suitable groom and vice versa. It is also called as consent marriage, where parents of both the parties give their consent. It is still in use.

2.      Swayamvar Ceremony - Here the bride herself selects or chooses her husband among the suitors present in the Hall. Instances are found in Ramayana and Mahabharata.

3.      Gandharva Vivaha – It is somewhat analogous to love marriage of today. Bride and groom exchanges garlands and reciting of marital promises in the name of god. This was the solution to a relationship where families of the bride and groom don’t agree to the marriage. Instance is marriage of King Dushyant and Shakuntla, written by famous an ancient Indian poet and writer “Kalidasa”

4.      Asura Vivah – Marriage by abduction

Rest in next.

MR ASHUTOSH - FOR THE PURPOSE OG LAW; LEGAL; LIGALITY OF MARRIAGE.

ANIL SIR IT IS SERIAL MONOGAMY.

STARS CAN DO SO. IT IS ALLOWED FOR THEM.

Marriage is a social "contract" between two individuals that unites their lives "legally", "economically" and "emotionally". Being married also gives legitimacy to "s*xual relations" within the marriage. From s*xual relations out of such social contract between two individuals adoptions and or birth of a legitimate heir (succession) to such relationship arise.

Hence a Marriage is beneficial to society because it is the foundation of the family and the basic building block of a society.

Having said above I revert to your post for purpose of this title post as stated on 21 July 2010, 07:35 post -

If above could be taken as general consensus social definition of "marriage" then what is "divorce"?

Divorce from above definition is nothing but breaking the "contract" "legally" for "economic and emotional" well being of initiating partner / individual from the bonds of that marriage to end the "s*xual relationship" and claim the title to next of heir to such contract which could be even opposite individual and or child out of the wedlock and or adopted child during the wedlock.

If we take above as "divorce" then what is not marriage ?

Anything that is not a "contract" between two individual that unite lives "legally", "economically", "emotionally", 's*xually" and void of succession ("heir") is not marriage hence liable to be "divorced" means not allowed to remain "united" as it will harm the very social "contract" between "two individuals"

Above are my thinking to this title subject. Others may add their thoughts for collective understanding of this title post.

Rgds.

ARUN JI,

yes you have got the point.