Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    13
    My point still stands that marriage between two people was most probably derived from a tribal culture which followed religious laws, Pagan, Jewish or otherwise. Marriage, although not needing to be [for it does not hold a thoroughly religious nature], was derived from religion. It's quite hard to separate culture and religion when it comes to the creation of ancient laws. TML.
    I think we're talking cross-purposes here. I'm talking about monogamy and rituals which are likely to have evolved in very early human communities to make such sexual bonding publicly acknowledged (and which perhaps render the couple subject to rights, duties and sanctions in relation to that bond). You're using the terms 'marriage' and 'laws' which, as far as I'm concerned are likely to represent a much later development. Early humans didn't just wake up one morning and 'get religion' and 'laws', these things will have evolved from vague and indistinct group ideas and group 'rules'. It's likely, in such a context, that long before 'marriages' were taking place under the observation and sanction of fully-formed religious institutions and legal frameworks, that a much less formalised, but nevertheless purposeful ritual bonding emerged.

    When you claim that marriage was derived from religion you're speculating, which you're entitled to do. I'm of the, admittedly also speculative, view that formal religion, when it evolved, merely 'took over' a probably already very longstanding monogamous behaviour.

    But in the end this is just so much academic talk. Religions do not own marriage as a concept, regardless of how important (or otherwise) religion may have been in its emergence as a social institution. We, as a modern society, can decide what we want marriage to be based upon with as much reference to the past as we see fit - and if we see fit, this can be none.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zoecb)
    Which is a hell of a good thing! Rights shouldn't have to be fought for.
    Those things worth gaining are quite obviously worth fighting for. We only enjoy the rights we do because people have fought for them.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Oswy)
    I think we're talking cross-purposes here. I'm talking about monogamy and rituals which are likely to have evolved in very early human communities to make such sexual bonding publicly acknowledged (and which perhaps render the couple subject to rights, duties and sanctions in relation to that bond). You're using the terms 'marriage' and 'laws' which, as far as I'm concerned are likely to represent a much later development. Early humans didn't just wake up one morning and 'get religion' and 'laws', these things will have evolved from vague and indistinct group ideas and group 'rules'. It's likely, in such a context, that long before 'marriages' were taking place under the observation and sanction of fully-formed religious institutions and legal frameworks, that a much less formalised, but nevertheless purposeful ritual bonding emerged.
    I think you're right in that we're approaching from different directions. I would argue that marriage was integrated into the state law through religion. You're countering that by saying that humans are naturally monogamist. Polygamy/monogamy laws were intergrated into tribes through religion. However I'd agree that monogamy has always existed naturally. That's compatible with the Christian view [which I don't really subscribe to anyway].
    When you claim that marriage was derived from religion you're speculating, which you're entitled to do. I'm of the, admittedly also speculative, view that formal religion, when it evolved, merely 'took over' a probably already very longstanding monogamous behaviour.
    My speculation is not without good rationalisation [which I've previously outlined]. For example, most historians "speculate" that Jesus existed but that is also based on evidence.
    But in the end this is just so much academic talk. Religions do not own marriage as a concept, regardless of how important (or otherwise) religion may have been in its emergence as a social institution.
    God owns Christian marriage, but that is all. For he Christian believes that their marriage is seen by God and is God's legal contract to them. However He does not own any other marriage which non-believers, homosexuals, atheists, pagans and gentiles should be free to practice. Individuals should be granted freedom and responsibility for that freedom.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Oswy)
    Uh? And how far back do you think 'traditional Pagan religions' go? Indeed, how do you define a 'traditional pagan religion'?.
    As far back as people, it must be presumed. Crops and rain and such have always been pretty damn important. Paganism is defined as any religion which is nature-based.

    (Original post by tehjonny)
    Those things worth gaining are quite obviously worth fighting for. We only enjoy the rights we do because people have fought for them.
    Yeah well it's shame it was so difficult is the point I'm making. It would be a nicer world if basic rights like the vote and such didn't come up against such resistance...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zoecb)
    As far back as people, it must be presumed. Crops and rain and such have always been pretty damn important. Paganism is defined as any religion which is nature-based.


    Yeah well it's shame it was so difficult is the point I'm making. It would be a nicer world if basic rights like the vote and such didn't come up against such resistance...
    Yeah, is a shame the *******s run everything :p:. Time to 'go outside'...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Can hetrosexuals enter into 'civil partnerships' instead of marriage? Why should they be reserved solely for gays?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ten bob)
    Can hetrosexuals enter into 'civil partnerships' instead of marriage? Why should they be reserved solely for gays?
    Civil marriage is a civil partnership in all but name.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I know i'm joining the slog a bit late, and I daresay this has already been said but...

    Why not make 'civil partnerships' a political entity, and "marriage" - whatever your interpretation of that - an entirely private matter? If you're a christian and want to get married, go ahead - but sign the papers for a civil partnership too. If you're a homosexual couple, have a marriage at the Rainbow Church - but sign he papers for a civil partnership too.

    ETC.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DanGrover)
    I know i'm joining the slog a bit late, and I daresay this has already been said but...

    Why not make 'civil partnerships' a political entity, and "marriage" - whatever your interpretation of that - an entirely private matter? If you're a christian and want to get married, go ahead - but sign the papers for a civil partnership too. If you're a homosexual couple, have a marriage at the Rainbow Church - but sign he papers for a civil partnership too.
    I believe the French do something similar.

    However in effect I think it would eventually render the civil partnership pointless. If marriage without the state was to carry with it the expected duties to the partner (ie, to support them etc) that could be enforced in court, what would be the point in having a 'registered' marriage? It's not like you get Married Couples' Allowance anymore.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Libertin du Nord)
    Civil marriage is a civil partnership in all but name.
    So what is the whole argument about?

    What if I decided that I never wanted to be 'married', but would like to enter into a civil partnership with my girlfriend?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Libertin du Nord)
    I believe the French do something similar.

    However in effect I think it would eventually render the civil partnership pointless. If marriage without the state was to carry with it the expected duties to the partner (ie, to support them etc) that could be enforced in court, what would be the point in having a 'registered' marriage? It's not like you get Married Couples' Allowance anymore.
    Well that's what I mean - don't have any legal implications of "marriage", only civil partnerships (whatever benefits they get now, inheritencey type stuff and the like). Is people want to make further vows privately, that's up to them, but I don't see why it needs to be enforcable by the state.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DanGrover)
    Well that's what I mean - don't have any legal implications of "marriage", only civil partnerships (whatever benefits they get now, inheritencey type stuff and the like). Is people want to make further vows privately, that's up to them, but I don't see why it needs to be enforcable by the state.
    But that's part of marriage - the presumption that it involves support of the partner and so forth. These are not detachable parts of it.

    I don't want marriage regulated by the state, but I understand at the heart of it is a very basic presumption of contract which should be enforcable unless otherwise expressly desired.

    (Original post by ten bob)
    So what is the whole argument about?

    What if I decided that I never wanted to be 'married', but would like to enter into a civil partnership with my girlfriend?
    Then you'd have a civil marriage. Basically the same thing.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Libertin du Nord)
    But that's part of marriage - the presumption that it involves support of the partner and so forth. These are not detachable parts of it.
    Well quite, which is why a civil partnership and a marriage should be separate. I don't see why marriage needs to come with legal consequences eitherway. Whilst it may pre-date Christianity, it's still an entirely environmental construct.

    If there's need to legislate on the event at all, I don't see why there needs to be any preumptions you mentioned above. [/QUOTE]
 
 
 
Poll
Black Friday: Yay or Nay?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.