We have several different uses of marry and married in play. Some of the meanings deal with an act and others with a status.
There are two basic uses of marry, both relating to the act:
[transitive or intransitive] to become the legally accepted husband or wife of someone in an official or religious ceremony:
[transitive] to perform the ceremony of marriage as a priest or official:
(most of the additional uses you will find in a dictionary, as to acquire something through marriage as in marry money, or to find a spouse, as in marry her daughter to the prince, derive from the first).
There are two non-overlapping senses of married, the first referring to the status, the second referring to the act:
having a wife or husband
to begin a legal relationship with someone as their husband or wife
The act of becoming a husband or wife (i.e. taking vows, participating in a wedding ceremony, signing legal papers, et al), represented by the first meaning of marry and the second meaning of married, is usually expressed as getting married. Thus, a native speaker would be more likely to say
I am getting married in July.
I will get married in July.
Congratulate me, I'm getting married.
Congratulate me, I'm going to get married.
You can say
I am to be married in July.
but like all I am to V statements (I am to be named chief, I am to take the pills daily), it is formal and sounds somewhat stiff.
Usually, to say being married in referring to the act is usually to use the second sense of marry in the passive voice.
Parson Brown will marry us on Saturday. → We are being married by Parson Brown on Saturday.
Otherwise, being married is often in the first sense of married, to be in a state of marriage with someone.
Being married to someone for 20 years takes patience and sacrifice.
The passive applies as though auxiliaries were not present, and then any auxiliaries take part in subject-auxiliary inversion just as they would in an active sentence. This is one of the arguments for deriving auxiliaries from outside the core part of a sentence (by a version of Subject Raising).
So, without passive, we have
- will [ someone offer courses ]
- someone will offer courses (by Subject-Raising)
- will someone offer courses? (by Subject-Aux Inversion)
And with passive, we have
- will [ someone offer courses ]
- will [ courses be offered by someone ] (by Passive applying to lower clause)
- courses will be offered by someone (by Subject-Raising)
- will courses be offered by someone? (by Subject-Aux Inversion)
Examples with more complicated sets of auxiliaries work the same: "Courses should have been being offered" = "Someone should have been offering courses".
This is an outline of the treatment in McCawley's TSPE.
Best Answer
The passive forms would be as follows:
But they sound so unusual that, outside of a mental exercise, nobody would ever actually use them.
There is no direct passive for the additional sentences. (Although a similar kind of translation might be made, it wouldn't be exact.)