Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Philosophy, in all its guises. => Topic started by: Nearly Sane on April 17, 2018, 11:52:43 AM
-
I've had 2 longterm relationships in my life, one unmarried and the second married, It hasn't made a great deal of difference and the second decision was in part a desire not to 'fight city hall' over next of kin etc.
https://aeon.co/essays/why-marriage-is-both-anachronistic-and-discriminatory
-
As long as the children of any relationship are safe and secure, whether the parents are married or unmarried, it matters not, imo.
-
I largely agree with the article. In fact, far from protecting the vulnerable, it gives an abuser the mightiest of weapons. It’s a torture chamber.
-
As long as the children of any relationship are safe and secure, whether the parents are married or unmarried, it matters not, imo.
I agree with you. So many married people divorce and that is expensive, the court fees alone are more than £4,000.
A couple can commit to eachother without a bit of paper - yet marriage is still popular.
-
I agree with you. So many married people divorce and that is expensive, the court fees alone are more than £4,000.
A couple can commit to eachother without a bit of paper - yet marriage is still popular.
Weddings are a status symbol.
Marriage does serve a purpose in the case of bereavement, sadly. I once spoke to a woman whose husband died when they were on holiday abroad; apparently had they not been married the local authorities should have spoken only to his parents.
-
An interesting article but I think (on the basis a quick read through it) that it perhaps rather ignores an important point.
The primary purpose of marriage - originally - was not to define the nature of the relationship between a man and a woman but to protect the ownership of property. To ensure that the wealth of a family would stay in that family and not be dispersed to heaven know who. This could only be accomplished by ensuring that any child could only be the offspring of an individual man and so ensuring that the mother was only sexually available to that man became institutionalised.
Then along came religion and a dash of magic sanctity was added to the mix together with sin (and guilt) ... and "God" became involved.
-
An interesting article but I think (on the basis a quick read through it) that it perhaps rather ignores an important point.
The primary purpose of marriage - originally - was not to define the nature of the relationship between a man and a woman but to protect the ownership of property. To ensure that the wealth of a family would stay in that family and not be dispersed to heaven know who. This could only be accomplished by ensuring that any child could only be the offspring of an individual man and so ensuring that the mother was only sexually available to that man became institutionalised.
Then along came religion and a dash of magic sanctity was added to the mix together with sin (and guilt) ... and "God" became involved.
Evidence? Otherwise I will regretfully have to file this under "bollocks".
-
Isn't that inherent in the idea of anachronism, HH?
-
Evidence? Otherwise I will regretfully have to file this under "bollocks".
I do not have any formal evidence, but I do recall hearing someone interested in the history of biblical times giving a similar explanation.
Why do you say "regretfully"?
-
Isn't that inherent in the idea of anachronism, HH?
Possibly. But I am simply pointing out that the article only appears to be concerned with "relationship" aspects of marriage, not other cultural considerations which may implicit in the way the occupants of a marriage may be regarded.
-
I do not have any formal evidence, but I do recall hearing someone interested in the history of biblical times giving a similar explanation.
Why do you say "regretfully"?
Because I was being sarcastic.