The state, marriage, and tradition

[JackRT]

In the early church marriage was between the two loving people and usually involved only the immediate families and perhaps a blessing from a priest if one was available. The state was not involved. Marriages involving royals and rich and powerful families did involve the church usually because such marriages involved the cementing of families involving wealth and power. It was not until the 11th century that Christianity insisted that all marriages be officiated by the church. This was largely just another measure of control by church authorities. Most Christians today have no idea just how much control the church had over the day to day lives of individuals.

 

[devin553344]

What happened to the science and biology? Now you're talking about religious implications. Biologists aren't experts on that.

To that point, I think a biologist would say that two separate people are two separate creatures even after they get married.

On the point, one flesh is to create another, male and female. Male and female a complete biological creation source.

 

[Pommer]

On the point, one flesh is to create another, male and female. Male and female a complete biological creation source.

Even if it’s trans-man/trans-woman?

 

[CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN]

Back then, most people didn't think men could have relationships with other men and call that "marriage".

Which is no heterosexuals business. It amusing to see people getting crazy over gay people getting married .

 

[thecolorsblend]

Which is no heterosexuals business. It amusing to see people getting crazy over gay people getting married .

Everybody thinks that until it's time to bake a cake.

 

[CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN]

Why are we all of a sudden concerned about the government's role in connection to marriage? I also think it's odd to ask this question of legal unions as "legal" is the operative word. Why is this an issue now? It didn't seem to be a problem 20 years ago.

Because some Christians are freaking out about gay marriage. When it has nothing to do with them.

 

[CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN]

Everybody thinks that until it's time to bake a cake.

Yes, I have to except Christians in my line of work. How painful. Not.

 

[thecolorsblend]

Yes, I have to except Christians in my line of work. How painful. Not.

???

Do you want to take another swing at writing that?

 

[devin553344]

Even if it’s trans-man/trans-woman?

Good point. I don't think the state (if it were biologist governed) could say anything about that?

 

[jayem]

Biologically, lifelong monogamy is quite rare in nature. And genetic monogamy is rarer still (the bonded pair mate only with each other. As opposed to social monogamy where the pair live together, but may mate outside the pair bond.) Among the hominoids, only humans and gibbons are monogamous. The others are either semi-solitary (like orangutans. Males and females generally live apart, only meeting up for mating.) Or they're tribal (like chimps and gorillas. And baboons, too. A dominant male mates with a dominant female and several subordinate females.) And then there are the bonobos. Where females are dominant and everyone mates, or engages in other kinds of sex-play with everyone else.

If anything, OT marriage is more like the chimp/gorilla model. A man may have one wife, but if he has the means, he can also have concubines. Just as Hagar was Abraham's concubine. And even though his wife Sarah sent her away, God protected her and her son Ishmael. Who (according to tradition) became the ancestor of the Arab people. The ancient Hebrew kings had harems. In the NT, Jesus says divorce is only permissible for sexual infidelity. No exception for abuse, drug/alcohol addiction, criminality, or other bad behavior. And to Paul, it's better to marry than to burn. Which is pretty cynical.

The point of all this is that neither biology, nor ancient scripture, are particularly useful guides for marriage in the 21st century.

 

[DaisyDay]

There is an outstanding issue, at least from conflicting sources, that bring into question whether or not the Amish actually get legally married or if they forgo that practice.

If anyone has any real world knowledge of whether they do or not I'm all ears.

Might you be thinking of Quakers, not Amish? There is also "common-law" marriage.

People other than Christians get married; no religious ceremony is necessary. Marriage has existed before Christianity and exists in countries where few, if any, Christians reside. It wasn't until the 16th Century that the Church took over marriage legally in Western nations.

 

[98cwitr]

Might you be thinking of Quakers, not Amish?

I think you're right there.

There is also "common-law" marriage.

Many states don't have such laws

People other than Christians get married; no religious ceremony is necessary. Marriage has existed before Christianity and exists in countries where few, if any, Christians reside. It wasn't until the 16th Century that the Church took over marriage legally in Western nations.

I'm not sure of your point, but the process of "marriage" could still be apparent and legitimate without state recognition. Is the State god for some?

 

[DaisyDay]

Many states don't have such laws

And many do.

I'm not sure of your point, but the process of "marriage" could still be apparent and legitimate without state recognition.

"Legitimate" for what purpose?

State legitimacy carries legal advantages (and disadvantages) entirely separate from religious or spiritual legitimacy. Everyone is covered by the state, but only those who adhere to a particular religion are covered by that religion.

Why do you want to reserve the word and concept of "marriage" only for straight Christians when it has much broader, more widespread usage? Privately, you can do that if you so desire, but you seem to want to make it the law of the land.

Is the State god for some?

It might be for all I know, but not for anyone I do know.

 

[jayem]

I'm not sure of your point, but the process of "marriage" could still be apparent and legitimate without state recognition. Is the State god for some?

The state is the civil authority for legal matters. A state-issued marriage license is needed for things like a lower tax rate for a married couple filing a joint return. And state laws prescribe the default setting for things like medical decision making for an incapacitated spouse, ownership of assets, inheritance, and child custody. Not to mention the spousal immunity from giving adverse testimony (which a spouse can voluntarily waive. At least in federal court.) If these are desirable, then I suppose they could all be applied to non-state recognized marriages. But at lot of laws would have to change.

 

[Pommer]

Biologically, lifelong monogamy is quite rare in nature

Ironically, birds, the freest of all God’s creatures, tend to form monogamous pair-bondings.

 

[jayem]

Ironically, birds, the freest of all God’s creatures, tend to form monogamous pair-bondings.

True. But it's mostly altricial birds that pair bond for the longer term. These are species in which the newly hatched chicks are less developed, lack down feathers, can't fly, eyes are closed, and must be fed by the parents. The male is necessary to find food, and help raise the chicks. These include most songbirds and raptors. Monogamous pair bonding is less common in precocial species. Where the chicks are feathered, can stand, walk, and feed themselves soon after hatching. So there's less need for a father to hang around. Most poultry species--chickens, ducks, and turkeys are precocial. And mixed levels of chick development are seen in other species. But this is off-topic.

 

[USincognito]

Back then, most people didn't think men could have relationships with other men and call that "marriage".

Odd that you mentuon men only.

 

[thecolorsblend]

.

 

[USincognito]

Were I to “mentuon” the rest of the LBT mental ward, it would’ve made what should’ve been a relatively short post longer than necessary.

And yet you myopically focused on men.

Interesting that you only “mentuon” the men though...

Why do people think parroting my verbiage is a sign of cleverness?

 

[thecolorsblend]

And yet you myopically focused on men

And I explained my reasoning for that. And yet, somehow we’re still talking about this.

It looks like you’re focusing on them more than I am.