Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 50 (9179 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,204 Year: 5,461/9,624 Month: 486/323 Week: 126/204 Day: 26/16 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Roy Moore, Alabama Chief Idiot back in the news yet again.
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9538
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 288 of 313 (751810)
03-06-2015 7:01 AM
Reply to: Message 287 by Faith
03-06-2015 6:47 AM


Faith writes:
I have the structure of marriage in mind, who can marry whom, and whether marriage is even practiced
Yes Faith, who can marry who has changed. And thoughts about whether people need to marry at all has changed.
Hurrah, the world is a much better place!
Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif.
Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 287 by Faith, posted 03-06-2015 6:47 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 289 by Faith, posted 03-06-2015 7:12 AM Tangle has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9538
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 290 of 313 (751815)
03-06-2015 7:37 AM
Reply to: Message 289 by Faith
03-06-2015 7:12 AM


Faith writes:
The point was that marriage stayed the same overall for those two thousand years, one man, one woman, and only recently changed under the influence of Cultural Marxism.
Well Henry VIII made one or two changes apparently and I suspect a 6th century marriage was not the romantic idyl you have in mind.
Death by minor deceases also continued without change until we started to learn some important things about the world - like they're not caused by devils nor cured by prayer or superstitious potions.
Cultural Marxism my arse. Social progress, and thank god for it.
1. Arranged alliances
Marriage is a truly ancient institution that predates recorded history. But early marriage was seen as a strategic alliance between families, with the youngsters often having no say in the matter. In some cultures, parents even married one child to the spirit of a deceased child in order to strengthen familial bonds, Coontz said.
2. Family ties
Keeping alliances within the family was also quite common. In the Bible, the forefathers Isaac and Jacob married cousins and Abraham married his half-sister. Cousin marriages remain common throughout the world, particularly in the Middle East. In fact, Rutgers anthropologist Robin Fox has estimated that the majority of all marriages throughout history were between first and second cousins.
3. Polygamy preferred
Monogamy may seem central to marriage now, but in fact, polygamy was common throughout history. From Jacob, to Kings David and Solomon, Biblical men often had anywhere from two to thousands of wives. (Of course, though polygamy may have been an ideal that high-status men aspired to, for purely mathematical reasons most men likely had at most one wife). In a few cultures, one woman married multiple men, and there have even been some rare instances of group marriages. [Life's Extremes: Monogamy vs. Polygamy]
4. Babies optional
In many early cultures, men could dissolve a marriage or take another wife if a woman was infertile. However, the early Christian church was a trailblazer in arguing that marriage was not contingent on producing offspring.
"The early Christian church held the position that if you can procreate you must not refuse to procreate. But they always took the position that they would annul a marriage if a man could not have sex with his wife, but not if they could not conceive," Coontz told LiveScience.
5. Monogamy established
Monogamy became the guiding principle for Western marriages sometime between the sixth and the ninth centuries, Coontz said.
"There was a protracted battle between the Catholic Church and the old nobility and kings who wanted to say 'I can take a second wife,'" Coontz said.
The Church eventually prevailed, with monogamy becoming central to the notion of marriage by the ninth century.
6. Monogamy lite
Still, monogamous marriage was very different from the modern conception of mutual fidelity. Though marriage was legally or sacramentally recognized between just one man and one woman, until the 19th century, men had wide latitude to engage in extramarital affairs, Coontz said. Any children resulting from those trysts, however, would be illegitimate, with no claim to the man's inheritance.
"Men's promiscuity was quite protected by the dual laws of legal monogamy but tolerance basically enabling of informal promiscuity," Coontz said.
Women caught stepping out, by contrast, faced serious risk and censure.
7. State or church?
Marriages in the West were originally contracts between the families of two partners, with the Catholic Church and the state staying out of it. In 1215, the Catholic Church decreed that partners had to publicly post banns, or notices of an impending marriage in a local parish, to cut down on the frequency of invalid marriages (the Church eliminated that requirement in the 1980s). Still, until the 1500s, the Church accepted a couple's word that they had exchanged marriage vows, with no witnesses or corroborating evidence needed.
8. Civil marriage
In the last several hundred years, the state has played a greater role in marriage. For instance, Massachusetts began requiring marriage licenses in 1639, and by the 19th-century marriage licenses were common in the United States.
9. Love matches
By about 250 years ago, the notion of love matches gained traction, Coontz said, meaning marriage was based on love and possibly sexual desire. But mutual attraction in marriage wasn't important until about a century ago. In fact, in Victorian England, many held that women didn't have strong sexual urges at all, Coontz said.
10. Market economics
Around the world, family-arranged alliances have gradually given way to love matches, and a transition from an agricultural to a market economy plays a big role in that transition, Coontz said.
Parents historically controlled access to inheritance of agricultural land. But with the spread of a market economy, "it's less important for people to have permission of their parents to wait to give them an inheritance or to work on their parents' land," Coontz said. "So it's more possible for young people to say, 'heck, I'm going to marry who I want.'"
Modern markets also allow women to play a greater economic role, which lead to their greater independence. And the expansion of democracy, with its emphasis on liberty and individual choice, may also have stacked the deck for love matches.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif.
Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 289 by Faith, posted 03-06-2015 7:12 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 292 by Faith, posted 03-06-2015 7:56 AM Tangle has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9538
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.1


(3)
Message 296 of 313 (751824)
03-06-2015 9:07 AM
Reply to: Message 292 by Faith
03-06-2015 7:56 AM


Faith writes:
standard man-woman monogamy
You seem to be forgetting standard man-girlchild marriage, man-cousin marriage, man-many woman marriages (polygamy) - should we bring those biblical marriages (that haven't changed!) back?

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif.
Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 292 by Faith, posted 03-06-2015 7:56 AM Faith has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9538
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.1


(1)
Message 311 of 313 (751870)
03-06-2015 4:13 PM
Reply to: Message 307 by Faith
03-06-2015 3:17 PM


Faith writes:
....is a drastic undermining of the whole history of the meaning of marriage, as it is obvious that homosexuals do not qualify,
Well they qualify now, so your task is to explain why your personal religious objection matters a damn to anyone else and why it should matter.
it's all a huge sham and pretense and recipe for cognitive dissonance and an entrenched attitude of cynicism, not healthy attitudes.
Well, that's a confusion of words and concepts that doesn't make much sense, but we all get your dislike of it. The thing is, I have several married gay friends and they don't seem to see it the way you do. Instead of being a 'sham' they think it's an important public expression of their love for each other and intention to look after each other 'until death do they part'.
What's not to like? I'm sure Jesus would have been on their side, he seemed like a decent enough bloke.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif.
Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 307 by Faith, posted 03-06-2015 3:17 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 312 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-06-2015 5:07 PM Tangle has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024