Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
We hear a lot about "traditional marriage" but what exactly does that mean? From a historical perspective, marriage throughout human history (even today) was a system to acquire wealth, to produce legitimate heirs and in agrarian cultures to provide a readily available workforce. In the traditional marriage, women were bought, sold and traded to enhance the wealth or power of the brides family in exchange for a breeder who could produce a successor, or enough children to perform tasks for the groom's farm or trade.
Prior to the Protestant Reformation, European states did not recognize marriages of the vast majority the propertyless population. The Church didn't recognize or perform marriages until the 13th century, considering marriage to be a civil matter and it wouldn't be until the Reformation that the Church declared that marriages should be performed by priest and witnessed by god or anyone else for that matter.
In the Old Testament, marriage consisted of a groom traveling to the bride's home, paying the father for his daughter, and then bring her back to his own where the marriage was "consummated" which is pretty funny when in the cold light of day and devoid of cute terms, the entire act of marriage consisted of buying a woman (most likely a child) bring her home, having sex and then calling the whole process a marriage.
What we today call traditional marriage is a product of the break down of the paternal authority exercised by a father over a daughter's choice of husband that didn't begin until the mid 19th century with, dare I say it, emerging feminist movement who sought to empower women to follow their hearts and not their father's pocket books. Marrying for love and not the security of a wealthy or well connected family began to rise and shake the traditional bounds of the social order.
So when we speak even today of traditional marriage, it is a tradition of not long standing.
Until the mid-1970s, 'traditional marriage' in the United States included the right of a man to rape his wife - but since rape laws invariably described the victim as 'a woman not his wife', when a man forcibly had sex with his wife against her will, it was not legally rape.
In 1993, the last state (North Carolina) had decided that such a tradition really wasn't one worth continuing.
In practice, the phrase 'traditional marriage' is an extremely self-centered idea: 'the way marriage used to be, except for all the changes to it that I happen to like'.
We hear a lot about "traditional marriage" but what exactly does that mean?
For the whole 2000 years on Western European Tradition, marriage has meant a man and a women abstaining from pre-marital sex, and agree to join together until death do they part in a sexual union that prohibits other adulterous relationships and prohibits Divorce.
For the whole 2000 years on Western European Tradition, marriage has meant a man and a women abstaining from pre-marital sex, and agree to join together until death do they part in a sexual union that prohibits other adulterous relationships and prohibits Divorce.
Not exactly. Do you know the origion of the wedding ring and why traditionally the woman wore one but the man did not? Arrainged marriage was the sale of the bride, done in negotiation by both families, which provided something for everyone. Marriages were usually arrainged between matching classes, uniting political bonds which could be called on as needed. Sons were to be used as successors to fathers, daughters were trade goods. Neither had a choice. The eldest got the best political deal and on down. But back to the ring. The bride wore it as a token of ownership. Only in modern times, into the 1900's, has the man customarily worn a wedding ring.
Girls were trained in how to attract a husband and in tasks a woman of her class was expected to know. Boys recieved a rudimentary education. For a long time it was uncommon for women to be taught to read. It was not until women began asserting themselves in their societies that education was considered as important for a daughter. A son gained status from attending a university, and future contacts and friends. A daughter learned enough to make a good wife, except for the early rebels who began the change.
Men were generally open to sleeping with other women so long as it didn't become public notice even after the early days when mistresses and illigetimate children were expected. A crest with a slash meant that one was of gentry but by a mistress and often they shared the advantages. Women had affairs, but carefully. In Victorian society, so long as it was kept quiet nobody would speak of it. But with no means to end a marriage, it became a social arraingement for the upper classes and less important to lower classes.
The idea of this *chosen* bond to be faithful for life is the great exception to the rule, and up until the strict protestent ethic would have gotten lipservice at best.
Marriage is an economic and sometimes political contract and may or may not have anything to do with the actual relationship between the participants. We can put extra trappings on it but at the core it is a contract which has become a much more flexable one, but isn't about love or faithfulness or religion but assets and their division if it doesn't last.
For the whole 2000 years on Western European Tradition, marriage has meant a man and a women abstaining from pre-marital sex, and agree to join together until death do they part in a sexual union that prohibits other adulterous relationships and prohibits Divorce.
Apparently you've neglected to read my original post or the supporting link...
Let's say for the moment that your rote recitation is correct, it does nothing to contradict the basic point of the thread, traditional marriage was system of barter to acquire wealth, heirs and workers? As for premarital sex, that was certainly the expectation for women in order to insure the paternity of child but it certainly wasn't an expectation for men who for 2000 years of European history openly had mistresses and all form of children recognized and otherwise outside the "bounds" of their marriage.
Marriage is generally defined as a three-party contract between two natural persons of legal capacity (or similar language, that would exclude minors and incompetents, but not necessarily persons of the same sex) and the state, which acknowledges its consent to the marriage contract through the issuance of a license. Few persons realize that the state is a party to their marriage until they want to get divorced, which they consider a great inconvenience, not to mention the legal expense. However, the state has a legitimate, even compelling, interest in the incidents of the marriage, i.e., marital property rights, custody and care of minor children (whether born of the union or adopted), and obligations of support; which issues are subject to the jurisdiction of the several states based upon the parties’ residence or domicile.
Marriage is generally defined as a three-party contract between two natural persons of legal capacity (or similar language, that would exclude minors and incompetents, but not necessarily persons of the same sex) and the state, which acknowledges its consent to the marriage contract through the issuance of a license. Few persons realize that the state is a party to their marriage until they want to get divorced, which they consider a great inconvenience, not to mention the legal expense. However, the state has a legitimate, even compelling, interest in the incidents of the marriage, i.e., marital property rights, custody and care of minor children (whether born of the union or adopted), and obligations of support; which issues are subject to the jurisdiction of the several states based upon the parties’ residence or domicile.
This has been true going back to at least the Middle Ages when the Church and State had a symbiotic relationship which was enhanced by the fact that priests were often the only people around who could read and write, even among the nobility.
The fact is that you can be legally married without a religious ceremony. You can't be legally married without a marriage license issued by the state, though.
So the people who talk so much about "traditional marriage" don't actually know what they are talking about? Given the general bozoness of so much of the rest of what they say, this hardly comes as any sort of shock. It does sound like another case of "rights" being defined, assigned, and defended by the state however. Imagine a thing like that happening.
In more recent times, "traditional marriage" has been between one man and one woman of the same race, religion, and ancestry. We've thankfully got rid of the last three and are about done with the first as well.
Last edited by fairlaker; 12-07-2013 at 07:45 AM..
It is a question of states' rights. It should be noted that there is no express provision in the Constitution granting a person the right of marriage; not that the framers thought marriage unimportant, but rather it is a right retained by the people under the Ninth Amendment, and power reserved to the several states or to the people under the Tenth Amendment. Marriage is strictly a matter of state (not federal) law. Each state has the sovereign power to enact laws governing marriage; and provided that such laws do not infringe upon a citizen's rights under the Fourteenth Amendment, they are valid and enforceable. See, e.g., Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967). It is the recent instances of states recognizing same-sex marriage that has prompted the move to amend the Constitution to provide a definition of marriage as between a man and a woman; which would be an intrusion on states? rights to govern marriage, and an unwarranted limitation on the liberty of the people.
The problem, perhaps, is the failure to differentiate between marriage as a religious rite, and its place as a secular institution of society. In this regard, efforts to legislate the morality of marriage will not add to its sanctity, and only detract from its social purpose by making a federal case out of it.
The religious trappings are merely frills and add-ons. The officiant must be licensed by the state as must the happy couple. Marriage is an institution of the state.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
