Marriage - Still Relevant?

[insert_8]

From antiquity religion played no part in marriages . . . .

Regarding Christian traditions and origins of marriage, I have a few observations. I haven't organized them into a unified theory yet, but I'll lay out some of my thoughts for comment.

- In the sacred writings of the Hebrews and Christians, the concept of marriage as a life partnership between a man and a woman goes all the way back to the creation story (Gen 2:18 et seq). The subsequent narrative seems to imply that procreation is part of this partnership, but not the main purpose.

- The concept of "becoming one flesh" in marriage (Gen 2:18 et al) appears at other places in Hebrew and Christian scriptures. Superficially we understand it as sexual intercourse, and so it is. But there seems to be a subtle, deeper, implication as well. I think "become one flesh" means more than intercourse, because English-language Bible translations use other terms for sexual relations - such as "lay with", possibly a basic sexual coupling, like we'd say "fuck" (Jacob "lay with" Leah, Gen 30:16) - and "know", a more intimate communication involving minds and emotions as well as bodies, like we'd say "make love" ("Adam knew Eve his wife", Gen 4:1). It's like"become one flesh" means that two people create a third personality through their marriage. The marriage between the "me" and the "you" creates a "we".

- I haven't found a place in the Laws given through Moses (Exodus, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy) where a religious sacrifice or ceremony is specified in conjunction with marriage. To be sure, there are a few limitations placed on marriages that are not permitted (between close kin, Lev 18:6 et seq) but the religious authorities generally don't have a say in creating or recognizing a marriage. From various accounts of marriage formation I get the impression that it was a matter between families - perhaps with, but sometimes without, the couple's active participation. Then the families threw a big party, where the community - not the religious establishment - acknowledged and approved the marriage. After this is when the government and religious establishment became involved in enforcing things like duties and obligations of each person, property rights, etc.

 

[swingfun]

Marriage is a religious sacrament. It's the only religious practice still sanctioned (licensed) by secular governments. Here in the US it's a hold over from when we were English colonies with a state religion. Birth, baptism, first communion, confirmation, marriage and death--all steps the sacramental life--were documented with the government in parish records because church WAS state. With the separation of church from state all religious records were dropped by government except marriage. States began requiring birth and death certificates but nothing else outside marriage.

Religion was never completely removed from marriage was it? (Anyone remember when Clinton signed that ridiculous Defense of Marriage Act into law in 1996?) Only heterosexual marriage was legal because religious scripture says homosexual behavior is an abomination to the Abrahamic god. So much for separation of church and state.

That religious law remained civil law until 2015 when SCOTUS handed down Obergefell v. Hodges on a 5-4 vote. Same sex marriage was finally legal everywhere here in the US.

In my opinion the term "marriage" should have been replaced with "civil union" when the US was founded as a secular nation. It would have saved a lot of confusion in the way we think. A sharp demarcation between religious law and civil law is required.

"Marriage law" is family law. It's licensed for two primary reasons: to control who marries whom and making married persons subject to divorce law, i.e. how do we divvy up the money and the kids when a couple splits. By law a license makes marriage a business contract. A prenup is a better contract but that's another topic.

Now I'll answer your question. Marriage is NOT a valid social construct when it requires a lifetime vow to forsake all others.

The reason for this is biological. Our species forms pair bonds but rarely lifetime or even long term ones.

Proof. If we formed lifetime pair bonds instinctually no social taboos would exist to enforce the bond. We don't. So religion (again) burdens us artificially with punishments of shame and guilt all the way up to and including the death penalty for any sexual behavior outside a lifetime heteronormative pair bond.

More proof. The rates of cheating and divorce to which you refer. Our species is not naturally faithful to one mate for long and the effort to conform to a religious/moral/social norm often makes people miserable.

Addendum. Look up the difference between pair-bonding species and tournament species and see where our species falls in that spectrum.

I think what you have said makes a lot of sense. Let me add this. I would not have gotten married this second time except I love my wife and my employer will not extend my retirement or benefits to anyone except a spouse upon the members death. In my opinion I don't see why government has to stick its nose into peoples private lives anymore than it already does. If you think about it marriage is less about religion and more about government control over you. Also if it weren't for us both being in the swing lifestyle and able to have sex with who we want from time to time I think life would be pretty miserable like my first marriage. YMMV.

 

[michael_3165]

I think its a quaint tradition that some like and others don't. I do not like the financial trappings for (mainly) men if you get a divorce but other than that it is perfectly find institution. I could have taken or left marriage but my wife wanted to get married so we did. In the UK there are so many additional legal benefits from getting married that it also makes sense legally.

It is what it is. I think people will cheat etc regardless of if they are married or not. From experience it does tend to keep couples together who may separate and leave a child in a single person house though.

 

[halcyondays]

The origins of marriage.

From antiquity religion played no part in marriages. Same sex marriages, polygamy and polygyny predated Christianity. When the Catholic Church became a powerful force in Europe, circa the 8th Century AD, that was when it called marriage a sacrament and required a priest to perform the service in order to have the marriage legally recognized. As for Britain and its colonies a non-religious option has been available from 1837 - where couples get married by a Registrar at a Registry Office. Marriage is a human right and non-religious for those who choose that option.

Making it civil.

Indeed but only heterosexual marriage was legal in the UK and US as "civil marriage" until recently because of the political influence of religion on "non-religious" civil law. It was not an option for same sex couples.

Another religious influence which remains in civil union/marriage today limits it to couples only.

 

[dreamer20]

Regarding Christian traditions and origins of marriage, I have a few observations...In the sacred writings of the Hebrews and Christians, the concept of marriage as a life partnership between a man and a woman goes all the way back to the creation story (Gen 2:18 et seq). The subsequent narrative seems to imply that procreation is part of this partnership, but not the main purpose. The concept of "becoming one flesh" in marriage (Gen 2:18 et al) appears at other places in Hebrew and Christian scriptures. Superficially we understand it as sexual intercourse, and so it is...
I haven't found a place in the Laws given through Moses (Exodus, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy) where a religious sacrifice or ceremony is specified in conjunction with marriage...

Instead of Gen. 2:18 please refer to Mark 10 insert_8. In that New Testament chapter Jesus claimed marriage bound a man to his wife until death. In Jesus's opinion this tie persisted - even if the pair divorced. Bible scripture states the ancient Hebrews could have more than one wife. Polygyny was permitted in both the Old and New Testaments - a fact which some dishonest Christians deny in reference to Abraham. The Patriarch, Abraham, had 3 wives. Jacob and Moses each had 2. David and Solomon had several wives. The scripture Matthew 25: 1-13 shows that Christ himself endorsed polygyny.

The ancient Greeks and Romans imposed monogamy in their societies centuries before Christianity existed. Greco-Roman laws prohibited any man from having more than one official wife at a time. It's true that forms of de-facto polygamy (e.g. concubinage, sex with slaves) continued to be tolerated in these societies. Nevertheless, anti-polygamy laws made Greco-Roman society relatively sexually egalitarian , because by preventing elite men from legally acquiring multiple wives, they improved the ability of lower-ranking men to acquire wives of their own. So by the time Christianity began spreading through the Roman Empire in the first centuries AD, monogamy was already well-established. But even though Christianity did not introduce socially imposed monogamy to the West, it did fully embrace this institution, and as noted above, it was this embracement that ultimately led to monogamy's spread throughout the Western world Why We Think Monogamy Is Normal

After socially imposed monogamy was established, Westerners became so accustomed to it that many began to see it as the normal state of human mating, and to see the formerly universal practice of polygyny as foreign and strange. As Laura Betzig writes, "modern societies—those that have grown out of the Christian Middle Ages—are remarkably monogamous. They seem, in fact, so consistently monogamous that what was once the rule [now] looks like an exotic exception" (Betzig 1995, p. 182).

Polygamy stll exists in Christianity, Islam, Mormomism and various regions of the world as discussed here:

Polygamy - Wikipedia