user-1: Marriage (and/or a binding relationship) is not very popular among modern people, who believe strongly in promoted "pseudo-liberality".

As an aside:

The word religion has very similar meaning like marriage, deriving from "religiō".

The classical explanation of the word, traced to Cicero himself, derives it from re- (again) + lego in the sense of "choose", "go over again" or "consider carefully". Modern scholars such as Tom Harpur and Joseph Campbell favor the derivation from ligo "bind, connect", probably from a prefixed re-ligare, i.e. re- (again) + ligare or "to reconnect," which was made prominent by St. Augustine, following the interpretation of Lactantius.

A certain text from a possibly well-known song came to mind the last days: 

Love and marriage, love and marriage
  go together like a horse and carriage
  this I tell you brother
  you can't have one without the other.



Next to the possibly well-known wordily marriage issues, the "marriage" stance with the Jewels, for Nibbana in a guided, related way, goes "informal" like that:

“I go to the Blessed One for refuge, and the Dhamma and the Saṅgha of monks.
“May the Blessed One remember me as a lay follower who has gone for refuge from this day forward, for life.



What do you think, or what would you like to share on Dhamma, in relation to bonding, duties in relation to one partner (for worldly bliss), but also in regard of the relation with the Triple Gems for an end of suffering:

Is it possible to gain, either this in this world, or that beyond, if there is no real refuge and total acceptance of the duties in this "contract"?
Can a Hallodri (lightheaded man/woman) expect to gain one or the other, e.g. without real relationship (refuge), if they're either not giving promises or if they're carelessly breaking promises?
And what about relationships where both people mutually agree not to be loyal: can any higher attainment be expected then?

[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma, not meant for commercial purpose or other low wordily gains my means of trade and exchange]

user43: 

For whosoever, Ambaṭṭha, are in bondage to the notions of birth or of lineage, or to the pride of social position, or of connection by marriage, they are far from the best wisdom and righteousness. It is only by having got rid of all such bondage that one can realise for himself that supreme perfection in wisdom and in conduct.


“Bhikkhus, I shall show you how the Dhamma is similar to a raft, being for the purpose of crossing over, not for the purpose of grasping. Listen and attend closely to what I shall say.”—“Yes, venerable sir,” the bhikkhus replied. The Blessed One said this:  
“Bhikkhus, suppose a man in the course of a journey saw a great expanse of water, whose near shore was dangerous and fearful and whose further shore was safe and free from fear, but there was no ferryboat or bridge for going to the far shore. Then he thought: ‘There is this great expanse of water, whose near shore is dangerous and fearful and whose further shore is safe and free from fear, but there is no ferryboat or bridge for going to the far shore. Suppose I collect grass, twigs, branches, and leaves and bind them together into a raft, and supported by the raft and making an effort with my hands and feet, I got safely across to the far shore.’ And then the man collected grass, twigs, branches, and leaves and bound them together into a raft, and supported by the raft and making an effort with his hands and feet, he got safely across to the far shore. Then, when he had got across and had arrived at the far shore, he might think thus: ‘This raft has been very helpful to me, since supported by it and making an effort with my hands and feet, I got safely across to the far shore. Suppose I were to hoist it on my head or load it on my shoulder, and then go wherever I want.’ Now, bhikkhus, what do you think? By doing so, would that man be doing what should be done with that raft?”  
“No, venerable sir.”  
“By doing what would that man be doing what should be done with that raft? Here, bhikkhus, when that man got across and had arrived at the far shore, he might think thus: ‘This raft has been very helpful to me, since supported by it and making an effort with my hands and feet, I got safely across to the far shore. Suppose I were to haul it onto the dry land or set it adrift in the water, and then go wherever I want.’ Now, bhikkhus, it is by so doing that that man would be doing what should be done with that raft. So I have shown you how the Dhamma is similar to a raft, being for the purpose of crossing over, not for the purpose of grasping.  
“Bhikkhus, when you know the Dhamma to be similar to a raft, you should abandon even the teachings, how much more so things contrary to the teachings.  



-1: <p>Marriage (and/or a binding relationship) is not very popular among modern people, who believe strongly in promoted "pseudo-liberality".</p>

<hr>

<p>As an aside:</p>

<ul>
<li><p>The word religion has very similar meaning like marriage, deriving from "<a href="https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religio" rel="nofollow noreferrer">religiō</a>".</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>The classical explanation of the word, traced to Cicero himself, derives it from re- (again) + lego in the sense of "choose", "go over again" or "consider carefully". Modern scholars such as Tom Harpur and Joseph Campbell favor the derivation from ligo "<strong>bind, connect</strong>", probably from a prefixed re-ligare, i.e. re- (again) + ligare or "to reconnect," which was made prominent by St. Augustine, following the interpretation of Lactantius.</p>
</blockquote></li>
<li><p>A certain text from a possibly well-known song came to mind the last days: </p>

<blockquote>
  <p><a href="https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=p8t5cOjlEPU" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Love and marriage</a>, love and marriage<br>
  go together like a horse and carriage<br>
  this I tell you brother<br>
  you can't have one without the other.</p>
</blockquote></li>
</ul>



<ul>
<li><p>Next to the possibly well-known wordily marriage issues, the "marriage" stance with the Jewels, for Nibbana in a guided, related way, goes "informal" like that:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>“<a href="http://zugangzureinsicht.org/html/tipitaka/vin/mv/mv01/mv.01.13.khem_en.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">I go</a> to the Blessed One for refuge, and the Dhamma and the Saṅgha of monks.</p>
  
  <p>“May the Blessed One remember me as a lay follower who has gone for refuge from this day forward, for life.</p>
</blockquote></li>
</ul>

<hr>

<p>What do you think, or what would you like to share on Dhamma, in relation to bonding, duties in relation to one partner (for worldly bliss), but also in regard of the relation with the Triple Gems for an end of suffering:</p>

<ul>
<li><p>Is it possible to gain, either this in this world, or that beyond, if there is no real refuge and total acceptance of the duties in this "contract"?</p></li>
<li><p>Can a Hallodri (lightheaded man/woman) expect to gain one or the other, e.g. without real relationship (refuge), if they're either not giving promises or if they're carelessly breaking promises?</p></li>
<li><p>And what about relationships where both people mutually agree not to be loyal: can any higher attainment be expected then?</p></li>
</ul>

<p><em>[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma, not meant for commercial purpose or other low wordily gains my means of trade and exchange]</em></p>
 43: <ol>
<li><blockquote>
  <p>For whosoever, Ambaṭṭha, are in bondage to the notions of birth or of lineage, or to the pride of social position, <strong>or of connection by marriage</strong>, they are far from the best wisdom and righteousness. <strong>It is only by having got rid of all such bondage</strong> that one can realise for himself that supreme perfection in wisdom and in conduct.</p>
</blockquote></li>
<li><blockquote>
  <p>“Bhikkhus, I shall show you how the Dhamma is similar to a raft, being for the purpose of crossing over, not for the purpose of grasping. Listen and attend closely to what I shall say.”—“Yes, venerable sir,” the bhikkhus replied. The Blessed One said this:  </p>
  
  <p>“Bhikkhus, suppose a man in the course of a journey saw a great expanse of water, whose near shore was dangerous and fearful and whose further shore was safe and free from fear, but there was no ferryboat or bridge for going to the far shore. Then he thought: ‘There is this great expanse of water, whose near shore is dangerous and fearful and whose further shore is safe and free from fear, but there is no ferryboat or bridge for going to the far shore. Suppose I collect grass, twigs, branches, and leaves and bind them together into a raft, and supported by the raft and making an effort with my hands and feet, I got safely across to the far shore.’ And then the man collected grass, twigs, branches, and leaves and bound them together into a raft, and supported by the raft and making an effort with his hands and feet, he got safely across to the far shore. Then, when he had got across and had arrived at the far shore, he might think thus: ‘This raft has been very helpful to me, since supported by it and making an effort with my hands and feet, I got safely across to the far shore. Suppose I were to hoist it on my head or load it on my shoulder, and then go wherever I want.’ Now, bhikkhus, what do you think? By doing so, would that man be doing what should be done with that raft?”  </p>
  
  <p>“No, venerable sir.”  </p>
  
  <p>“By doing what would that man be doing what should be done with that raft? Here, bhikkhus, when that man got across and had arrived at the far shore, he might think thus: ‘This raft has been very helpful to me, since supported by it and making an effort with my hands and feet, I got safely across to the far shore. Suppose I were to haul it onto the dry land or set it adrift in the water, and then go wherever I want.’ Now, bhikkhus, it is by so doing that that man would be doing what should be done with that raft. So I have shown you how the Dhamma is similar to a raft, being for the purpose of crossing over, not for the purpose of grasping.  </p>
  
  <p>“Bhikkhus, when you know the Dhamma to be similar to a raft, <strong>you should abandon even the teachings</strong>, how much more so things contrary to the teachings.  </p>
</blockquote></li>
</ol>
