the origin of marriage

soca junkie

strength, courage, wisdom
thought this article was interesting..... source:theweekmagazine.com



The origins of marriage
The institution of marriage is now the subject of a bitter national debate. How did marriage begin—and why?

How old is the institution?
The best available evidence suggests that it’s about 4,350 years old. For thousands of years before that, most anthropologists believe, families consisted of loosely organized groups of as many as 30 people, with several male leaders, multiple women shared by them, and children. As hunter-gatherers settled down into agrarian civilizations, society had a need for more stable arrangements. The first recorded evidence of marriage ceremonies uniting one woman and one man dates from about 2350 B.C., in Mesopotamia. Over the next several hundred years, marriage evolved into a widespread institution embraced by the ancient Hebrews, Greeks, and Romans. But back then, marriage had little to do with love or with religion.

What was it about, then?
Marriage’s primary purpose was to bind women to men, and thus guarantee that a man’s children were truly his biological heirs. Through marriage, a woman became a man’s property. In the betrothal ceremony of ancient Greece, a father would hand over his daughter with these words: “I pledge my daughter for the purpose of producing legitimate offspring.” Among the ancient Hebrews, men were free to take several wives; married Greeks and Romans were free to satisfy their sexual urges with concubines, prostitutes, and even teenage male lovers, while their wives were required to stay home and tend to the household. If wives failed to produce offspring, their husbands could give them back and marry someone else.

When did religion become involved?
As the Roman Catholic Church became a powerful institution in Europe, the blessings of a priest became a necessary step for a marriage to be legally recognized. By the eighth century, marriage was widely accepted in the Catholic church as a sacrament, or a ceremony to bestow God’s grace. At the Council of Trent in 1563, the sacramental nature of marriage was written into canon law.

Did this change the nature of marriage?
Church blessings did improve the lot of wives. Men were taught to show greater respect for their wives, and forbidden from divorcing them. Christian doctrine declared that “the twain shall be one flesh,” giving husband and wife exclusive access to each other’s body. This put new pressure on men to remain sexually faithful. But the church still held that men were the head of families, with their wives deferring to their wishes.

When did love enter the picture?
Later than you might think. For much of human history, couples were brought together for practical reasons, not because they fell in love. In time, of course, many marriage partners came to feel deep mutual love and devotion. But the idea of romantic love, as a motivating force for marriage, only goes as far back as the Middle Ages. Naturally, many scholars believe the concept was “invented” by the French. Its model was the knight who felt intense love for someone else’s wife, as in the case of Sir Lancelot and King Arthur’s wife, Queen Guinevere. Twelfth-century advice literature told men to woo the object of their desire by praising her eyes, hair, and lips. In the 13th century, Richard de Fournival, physician to the king of France, wrote “Advice on Love,” in which he suggested that a woman cast her love flirtatious glances—“anything but a frank and open entreaty.”

Did love change marriage?
It sure did. Marilyn Yalom, a Stanford historian and author of A History of the Wife, credits the concept of romantic love with giving women greater leverage in what had been a largely pragmatic transaction. Wives no longer existed solely to serve men. The romantic prince, in fact, sought to serve the woman he loved. Still, the notion that the husband “owned” the wife continued to hold sway for centuries. When colonists first came to America—at a time when polygamy was still accepted in most parts of the world—the husband’s dominance was officially recognized under a legal doctrine called “coverture,” under which the new bride’s identity was absorbed into his. The bride gave up her name to symbolize the surrendering of her identity, and the husband suddenly became more important, as the official public representative of two people, not one. The rules were so strict that any American woman who married a foreigner immediately lost her citizenship.

How did this tradition change?
Women won the right to vote. When that happened, in 1920, the institution of marriage began a dramatic transformation. Suddenly, each union consisted of two full citizens, although tradition dictated that the husband still ruled the home. By the late 1960s, state laws forbidding interracial marriage had been thrown out, and the last states had dropped laws against the use of birth control. By the 1970s, the law finally recognized the concept of marital rape, which up to that point was inconceivable, as the husband “owned” his wife’s sexuality. “The idea that marriage is a private relationship for the fulfillment of two individuals is really very new,” said historian Stephanie Coontz, author of The Way We Never Were: American Families and the Nostalgia Trap. “Within the past 40 years, marriage has changed more than in the last 5,000.”

Men who married men
Gay marriage is rare in history—but not unknown. The Roman emperor Nero, who ruled from A.D. 54 to 68, twice married men in formal wedding ceremonies, and forced the Imperial Court to treat them as his wives. In second- and third-century Rome, homosexual weddings became common enough that it worried the social commentator Juvenal, says Marilyn Yalom in A History of the Wife. “Look—a man of family and fortune—being wed to a man!” Juvenal wrote. “Such things, before we’re very much older, will be done in public.” He mocked such unions, saying that male “brides” would never be able to “hold their husbands by having a baby.” The Romans outlawed formal homosexual unions in the year 342. But Yale history professor John Boswell says he’s found scattered evidence of homosexual unions after that time, including some that were recognized by Catholic and Greek Orthodox churches. In one 13th-century Greek Orthodox ceremony, the “Order for Solemnisation of Same Sex Union,” the celebrant asked God to grant the participants “grace to love one another and to abide unhated and not a cause of scandal all the days of their lives, with the help of the Holy Mother of God and all thy saints.”
 

zenzele1

Island Soul's PD
soca junkie said:
thought this article was interesting..... source:theweekmagazine.com

Still, the notion that the husband “owned” the wife continued to hold sway for centuries. When colonists first came to America—at a time when polygamy was still accepted in most parts of the world—the husband’s dominance was officially recognized under a legal doctrine called “coverture,” under which the new bride’s identity was absorbed into his. The bride gave up her name to symbolize the surrendering of her identity, and the husband suddenly became more important, as the official public representative of two people, not one. The rules were so strict that any American woman who married a foreigner immediately lost her citizenship.

Great article SJ.

Damn, I knew there was a reason, I resisted changing my name.:D
 

soca junkie

strength, courage, wisdom
Re: Re: the origin of marriage

zenzele1 said:
Great article SJ.

Damn, I knew there was a reason, I resisted changing my name.:D
yeah that kinda stood out to me too....
i never really thought about it so much but reading this has me thinkin.....
 

MuddyAngel

New member
PhatJamz kiDD said:
Forget that its interesting, what are your after thoughts..? Agree or disagree with anything said?! :)
There were quite a few things in the article that caught my attention. But it really made me think about a point a friend mentioned to me on the train this morning. She said when you get married you have to like the person you are marrying and not just love them. I think you need to like them more than you love them. The love comes and goes but if you don't like them - the marriage is a living hell. Now the article points out that the concept of marriage being fulfilling to both people is new. That portion of the article made me raise my eyebrows and think that might be why so many couples can't figure out how to develop a marital relationship that is fulfilling for both and eventually stop liking one another.
 

Jason kiDD

Super Moderator
Or maybe the whole concept needs some ratification because it was designed by man and adopted by everyone.. :)
 

Jason kiDD

Super Moderator
What I find most interesting is that like most information the concept of marriage has been lost over time and translation.. We all know to marry someone was a sign of gaining property, wealth, status, power, etc..

But overtime like everything the concept of marriage was guided to mean other things.. Now you have people thinking that marriage garuntees them house, family, stability, and safety.. But that is all an illusion..

Interesting indeed.. :O
 
M

Mad Scorpion

Guest
PhatJamz kiDD said:
But that is all an illusion..

Interesting indeed.. :O
Daiz more dan an illusion but it is interesting indeed:cool:
 

soca junkie

strength, courage, wisdom
to me, it just has me thinking/questioning the institution of "marriage".
like most things, i think its something that people have just accepted the way it is, because that's what we've been taught. but i've never really known much behind where the traditions have come from, i.e. the father walking his daughter down the isle type thing...

for some reason, my assumption was that it was a practice solely driven by the church, the whole married before the eyes of god thing, but realize now, its not totally like that...

the giving up of woman's name..always wondered how come the man never had to give up his name...
 

bkhoney

My Heart
Mrs_Scorpion said:
There were quite a few things in the article that caught my attention. But it really made me think about a point a friend mentioned to me on the train this morning. She said when you get married you have to like the person you are marrying and not just love them. I think you need to like them more than you love them. The love comes and goes but if you don't like them - the marriage is a living hell. Now the article points out that the concept of marriage being fulfilling to both people is new. That portion of the article made me raise my eyebrows and think that might be why so many couples can't figure out how to develop a marital relationship that is fulfilling for both and eventually stop liking one another.
I agree with u completely, for me its the other way around.... I like my husband a whole lot because of the caring, nurturing person he is and always has been..... It is now that I am learning to love him as man,person, husband and friend. :)
 

MrsFlex

not so happy to be happy
PhatJamz kiDD said:

Now you have people thinking that marriage garuntees them house, family, stability, and safety.. But that is all an illusion..

is it really?
 
P

Pebbles362436

Guest
PhatJamz kiDD said:
What I find most interesting is that like most information the concept of marriage has been lost over time and translation.. We all know to marry someone was a sign of gaining property, wealth, status, power, etc..

But overtime like everything the concept of marriage was guided to mean other things.. Now you have people thinking that marriage garuntees them house, family, stability, and safety.. But that is all an illusion..

Interesting indeed.. :O
Huh :confused Are you playing devil's:devil advocate here again?
How did you come up with Marriage = owning a house, family etc?
 

Jason kiDD

Super Moderator
Pebbles362436 said:
Huh :confused Are you playing devil's:devil advocate here again?
How did you come up with Marriage = owning a house, family etc?
Read the first post again and you will know more about the origins of "marriage".. :O
 

pennywhine

Registered User
don't know how i passed this piece.......great article SJ!....makes me look at the whole culture and origin of Marriage in a different light,i noticed nowhere in there was a mention of African input,so i'm left to assume that the views of (correct me if i'm wrong) Hebrews(who take several wives) Romans and Greeks(the inventors of bullahism) these invading and opressive peoples are what so many of us base our values on for the most part today?



"THAT IS THE ULTIMATE MIND################"
 

Kamasutra

MLO, CTA 4 LIFE
good article ....adding a piece from another source i was reading


"In the Christian Church the 'sacraments' of baptism, confirmation, marriage, the Eucharist (Communion), and so on were attempts to institutionalize gnosis (direct knowledge), and keep people dependent on the grace that only the Church could confer. They replaced the substance with a symbol.

This teaching has in effect cut centuries of Christians off from the possibility of true spiritual development, since the Christian world is socialized to look outside of itself for transformation, for 'salvation'. That image of the Christ returning at some future date, 'coming out of the clouds' to purge the earth and set things right, has led to the pervasive passivity we see in Christians when they face real-life issues of injustice, of racism, of political corruption. "
 

dollbabi

Earth Angel
The entire article bothers me because....

Everything 'Christian' is explained by European and Roman Catholic history. A entire section of Christianity is left aside.

As the Bible does discuss 'marriage' does it really go back as far as the Greeks? Why did the article not discuss the actual reasons for the practice in Mesopotamia? Point being that everything did not begin with Europeans.

Personally, I believe that we all come from one origin and as we spread, our ideas did the same. Our reason for marriage probably changed as well, depending on the peoples. The term Christianity was coined at a certain point but the Old Testament/Oral traditions predated it. As people branched out and their relationships with God developed...many different religions/traditions came about.

In my opinion, Marriage was most likely of religious origin as it is found in most religions and established to serve multiple purposes. But with time comes change...

However, to me, this article is too limited.
 

Jason kiDD

Super Moderator
I would read it again and note the times and facts provided. It is pretty adept and the timelines shows the progression of the term "marriage" as it was used and abuse by the "Church" to gain power over the people.. :)


currygyal said:
The entire article bothers me because....

Everything 'Christian' is explained by European and Roman Catholic history. A entire section of Christianity is left aside.

As the Bible does discuss 'marriage' does it really go back as far as the Greeks? Why did the article not discuss the actual reasons for the practice in Mesopotamia? Point being that everything did not begin with Europeans.

Personally, I believe that we all come from one origin and as we spread, our ideas did the same. Our reason for marriage probably changed as well, depending on the peoples. The term Christianity was coined at a certain point but the Old Testament/Oral traditions predated it. As people branched out and their relationships with God developed...many different religions/traditions came about.

In my opinion, Marriage was most likely of religious origin as it is found in most religions and established to serve multiple purposes. But with time comes change...

However, to me, this article is too limited.
 
Top