roronoa3000
Banned
:thumbsup:
I am surprised your mental hospital allows you, Blueballs, STDiva and whimsy anywhere near computers or women (men in blueballs case)
Divorce dilemma: Texas says gays can't get divorce
- Thread starter Hot Mega
- Start date
:thumbsup:
I am surprised your mental hospital allows you, Blueballs, STDiva and whimsy anywhere near computers or women (men in blueballs case)
I keep asking that myself.:o (As my post count rises with another post that has nothing to do with the OP).
Well then, if it means so much to you, get your picket signs and rally the troops then, champ.
Was it really necessary to quote his entire post?
I have done. . .er, "champ".
Sure thing, sport. :thefinger
No shit...
The origins of marriage can actually be traced back all the way to the Neolithic revolution. As people slowly stopped being nomadic hunter/gatherers and settled down to build the first communities property became more important as a measure of power. It is around this time that the concept of marriage was formed as a way for a man to "possess" a woman. Marriage has absolutely no roots in religion.
Lets get back to those good olde days! & bloody sharpish!
I hope I'm not breaking any news but wouldn't it be obvious humans formed social habits before they developed religious doctrine?
Some legal decisions are absolutely stupid. Gays should be able to marry and divorce as they see fit.
Good point. Very well put.
You'd think, however there seems to be a sentiment that Christianity and its traditions are timeless, and mankind has never known any other way.
Lust
Lost at Birth
:hatsoff: love it!
Probably so, but it's hard to say, and it probably depends on how broadly somebody wants to define what "religious doctrine" is.
Setting aside Christianity and dealing broadly with religiosity (or any other doctrine/teaching), at minimum what's needed is some social order for which to apply the teaching to.
To espouse or teach a doctrine infers you need at least an espouser or teacher and a listener or student. Implying the need for the most basic, crude "society".
Point is, it's fairly obvious that social habits and practices would predate doctrines and teachings.
Even if you believe in the concept of a deity and the timelessness that would entail, it still wouldn't mean religious (teaching) predates human socialism. As you most certainly would need one (human socialism) before the other.
To the topic of this thread...it's been mentioned that marriage started as a tool for a man to own or possess a woman. While that may have some element of truth throughout history and even today in the practical life of some marriages, it's pretty clear the overwhelming objective was/is to perpetuate a bloodline (of the man) and partition people into families.
If it was mainly a tool to "possess" women...why have extravagant ceremonies, exchange oaths/vows, exchange tokens of commitment, etc.? You don't need all that...certainly not some mutual oath in order to take ownership of something or someone.
If it were a matter simply of some ownership you would expect to see a history of auctioning and/or currency exchange. The only remotely similar case is in some cultures where maybe head of cattle or goats are given to the family of the wife to be. But that's more out of some courtesy, respect, etc. than an exchange of some currency for the women.
Clearly the nature of marriage as a custom is not just a legal one but in many cultures it is a religious sacrament. That is the reality. In the same respect, a couple need not be religious to be able to marry...therein lies the rub IMO.
For same sex couples I don't get the need to claim marriage when at the same time many are seeking to "divorce" the concept from a religious custom as a means of attaining family rights. If it's merely about attaining family rights, etc., why not for purposes of expedience accept some equal alternative? (Just a question).
Setting aside Christianity and dealing broadly with religiosity (or any other doctrine/teaching), at minimum what's needed is some social order for which to apply the teaching to.
To espouse or teach a doctrine infers you need at least an espouser or teacher and a listener or student. Implying the need for the most basic, crude "society".
Point is, it's fairly obvious that social habits and practices would predate doctrines and teachings.
Even if you believe in the concept of a deity and the timelessness that would entail, it still wouldn't mean religious (teaching) predates human socialism. As you most certainly would need one (human socialism) before the other.
I don't dissent from what you're saying, however fellow members clearly don't subscribe to this knowledge.
That's where religion comes in. Prior to the rise of popular religion, marriage dating back to ancient Rome and well before sometimes consisted of a ring to announce your connection to another person, but most often, nothing. Religion essentially stepped in and introduced the idea of "sanctity" and "holy matrimony". That is why marriage has, since the rise of mainstream religious ideals, become such an ornate and extravagant ceremony.
You mean like the bride prices that date back to the Code of Hammurabi? The ones referenced in Exodus 22:16-17? Seems like a direct exchange of currency.
Only since religion began being spread across the world in the late BCE era. Before that, it was strictly a legal custom, same as buying something.
In America, that's a violation of the First Amendment. Viz, you can't enforce a religious ceremony and make it a right, which is what heterosexual couples are granted right now. Marriage is predominantly still a legal ceremony, where people may choose to make it religious, however that has absolutely no bearing on whether or not you can get married.
It's not about that. It's about following the 14th Amendment.
Similar threads
