We're still nibbling away at the religionists.

[Gordon]

I cannot disagree with you that legal marriage is a civil institution.
I cannot disagree with you that holy matrimony has no legal validity.

Excellent

What I disagree with is your petty but typical secular humanist insistence on people accepting your notion that those who go in for Holy Matrimony do so because it is just the icing on the cake and an add on.

In legal terms, and since marriage is a legally defined institution, those who opt for the 'holy' bit are no more married than those who don't.

That people yearn to be married by a government official and that the state's acknowledgement of there marriage with a bit of paper is what puts the magic into a marriage is just laughable.

So you say, but then most of your your comments are, Vlad - there (sic) there (sic).

After Manger Danger, Gordon, that a young bride yearns to have a file in a government department is one of your more potty notions.

Careful with all that straw!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Excellent

In legal terms, and since marriage is a legally defined institution, those who opt for the 'holy' bit are no more married than those who don't.

So you say, but then most of your your comments are, Vlad - there (sic) there (sic).

Careful with all that straw!

Vlad looks at watch.............

[Shaker]

Vlad asks a grown up to run that big hand/little hand business past him one more time ...

[Hope]

In legal terms, and since marriage is a legally defined institution, those who opt for the 'holy' bit are no more married than those who don't.

Precisely, only in the legal sense - the sense by which someone relates to government.  That has no influence on how they might relate to a deity.

[Shaker]

Precisely, only in the legal sense - the sense by which someone relates to government.  That has no influence on how they might relate to a deity.

Professor D. covered that in #90.

[Outrider]

Precisely, only in the legal sense - the sense by which someone relates to government.  That has no influence on how they might relate to a deity.

Many of those people aren't bothered about bronze aged ideas about powerful spirits, though, Hope. They're concerned with the culture and society in which they live, a culture which views marriage as the basis of a family, as something to aspire to.

Marriage means different things to different people, and the law defines the minimum standards of what it entails in terms of legal entitlements, tax allowances, obligations and freedoms in court testimony and parental access and the like. Society the interprets that - and any changes in it - and exerts a social pressure based on the idea of marriage.

That's not a purely religious thing, although it can have religious overtones, and within some subcultures - say the Christian community - that religious element can be emphasised, but it's neither intrinsic nor necessary.

Marriage as a concept predates Christianity, and as a word is as open to reinterpretation to take it away from a purely religious view as it was to reinterpretation by the religious whilst it was a purely religious concept.

Times move on, concepts adapt to the new society.

O.

[ProfessorDavey]

How can one remain silent when we have a laddy.....

My comment in reply 93 was due to the fact that you posted completely nothing originally in reply 92 although you subsequently edited it (check the timings if you don't believe).

Given the paucity of your argument I thought it rather apt that you had posted nothing at all, which is of course no less convincing as an argument to your usual posts.

[ProfessorDavey]

You did not believe that when Gays were not allowed to be married and I doubt you believe it beyond a ploy to shore up your deranged non argument.

I thought that gay people should be allowed to get married prior to the law change. But I didn't think they were married prior to the introduction of equal marriage. The law sets the rules on marriage and if your ceremony is authorised by and conducted under that law then you are married, if not then you are not.

[ProfessorDavey]

I'm ok with the law of the land which deals with civil marriages.

The law applies to all marriages not just those held within a civil setting. And has done since 1837 (as far as I am aware).

[Hope]

Many of those people aren't bothered about bronze aged ideas about powerful spirits, though, Hope. They're concerned with the culture and society in which they live, a culture which views marriage as the basis of a family, as something to aspire to.

Oh, I quite agree, O.  That is why I said what I said.  As a Christian, I'm not

bothered about bronze aged ideas about powerful spirits

; I'm concerned about the day-to-day life of the late 20th/early21st Century, a period of time that I understand God to intimately involved in.

You may not think he is, and that's your prerogative, but then not everythin you think or belief is necessarily correct.

Marriage means different things to different people, and the law defines the minimum standards of what it entails in terms of legal entitlements, tax allowances, obligations and freedoms in court testimony and parental access and the like. Society the interprets that - and any changes in it - and exerts a social pressure based on the idea of marriage.

Precisely, O.  Society, through its laws, "defines the minimum standards of what it entails in terms of legal entitlements, tax allowances, obligations and freedoms in court testimony and parental access and the like".  That's just another way of saying what I said.    There are, of course, those who regard those 'minimums' as just that, minimalist, and seek to life to a higher 'minimum' level.

That's not a purely religious thing, although it can have religious overtones, and within some subcultures - say the Christian community - that religious element can be emphasised, but it's neither intrinsic nor necessary.

Except that marriage was always first and foremost a religious, as opposed to a civil, contract.  The balance has only changed in the last 2-300 years here in the West.

Marriage as a concept predates Christianity, ...

I'm glad you've realised that - but have you also understood that it predates 'civil society'

... and as a word is as open to reinterpretation to take it away from a purely religious view as it was to reinterpretation by the religious whilst it was a purely religious concept.

I'm not convinced that civil society can amend the meaning of a term that long predates it as easily as you think.  Perhaps you ought to consider whether civil society can amend the idea of 'law' (another concept that long predates the concept of civil society) as easily as that.

[Aruntraveller]

This is an interesting read:

http://theweek.com/articles/475141/how-marriage-changed-over-centuries

The last paragraph is interesting in particular.

I just wonder at what point in time some people would want to freeze the concept of marriage?

Some people seem to be implying that the meaning of marriage is set in stone - whereas in fact it has been a changing, morphing beast throughout its existence.

[Hope]

This is an interesting read:

The last paragraph is interesting in particular.

I just wonder at what point in time some people would want to freeze the concept of marriage?

Some people seem to be implying that the meaning of marriage is set in stone - whereas in fact it has been a changing, morphing beast throughout its existence.

But only ever within a single gender-balance context.

[Aruntraveller]

But only ever within a single gender-balance context.

But not so according to the article quoted.

Although, even if that was the case, why you think that is an important point in favour of your argument I really can't see.

[Shaker]

But only ever within a single gender-balance context.

Not necessarily, as trent's article will tell you. But let's suppose you're right for the sake of the argument; so what? That situation has now changed, quite rightly.

[Outrider]

Precisely, O.  Society, through its laws, "defines the minimum standards of what it entails in terms of legal entitlements, tax allowances, obligations and freedoms in court testimony and parental access and the like".  That's just another way of saying what I said.    There are, of course, those who regard those 'minimums' as just that, minimalist, and seek to life to a higher 'minimum' level.

Which is fine, they can hold themselves to whatever other surplus standards they wish - it's when they seek to try to impose that surplus standard to everyone else that we get a problem.

Except that marriage was always first and foremost a religious, as opposed to a civil, contract.  The balance has only changed in the last 2-300 years here in the West.

Is that your take on it? My take on history is that it was a way for religious institutions to exert power and authority over the wealthy by controlling the means they had of selling off their daughters to create the mergers and acquisitions of their time. It was given a religious veneer for appearances, but it was about authority, money and land, not faith. If it were a 'religious' contract, and not a civil one, it wouldn't have been pretty much exclusively for the wealthy, but for all of the 'faithful'.

I'm glad you've realised that - but have you also understood that it predates 'civil society' I'm not convinced that civil society can amend the meaning of a term that long predates it as easily as you think.  Perhaps you ought to consider whether civil society can amend the idea of 'law' (another concept that long predates the concept of civil society) as easily as that.

Law is the codification of acceptable standards - the idea remains, but the content updates with time as various things are clarified or fall in or out of the remit of law. Similarly, marriage (or handfasting, or lifebonding, or whatever term you use for the joining of people into a family unit) is a concept, what is involved in that changes with time, from the financial arrangements of taking an unwanted daughter from someone's household through to the modern day.

O.

[Outrider]

But only ever within a single gender-balance context.

A - you're wrong, there have been recognised single-sex joinings at various points through history in various cultures
B - once upon a time Western/Christian marriage was only ever within a single-race context. That changed, why shouldn't this?

O.

[ProfessorDavey]

Except that marriage was always first and foremost a religious, as opposed to a civil, contract.  The balance has only changed in the last 2-300 years here in the West.

I think you need to do a little more research - historically in ancient times marriage was much more about cementing power and wealth in civil society and governed by that civil society than about religion. So for example look at marriage in ancient Rome or Greece or China - example of marriage within a civil rather than a religious context that pre-date Christianity.

I'm glad you've realised that - but have you also understood that it predates 'civil society'

Well that depends on how you define civil society - to me it means the laws and regulation put in place within a society to organise and control that society, so civil society is certainly older than Christianity and probably goes back to the very earliest organised human societies.

Don't forget that the term 'civil society' is generally regarded to have been coined by Aristotle, writing some 350 years before Jesus was born.

In reality marriage is synonymous with civil society - any society that develops a type of marriage and the ceremonies and rules that surround it, must be, by definition a civil society - so civil society can predate marriage, but I struggle to see how marriage can predate civil society as the former arises out of the latter.

[ad_orientem]

The idea that Romans snd Greeks somehow separated the religious from the civil is the misnomer. It's simply nonsense to suggest that marriage the was one at the exclusion of the other, religious practice being so entwined with civil affairs.

[Hope]

So for example look at marriage in ancient Rome or Greece or China - example of marriage within a civil rather than a religious context that pre-date Christianity.

All good examples of how marriage was both a religious and civil process.  One without the other wouldn't have taken place. 

Well that depends on how you define civil society - to me it means the laws and regulation put in place within a society to organise and control that society, so civil society is certainly older than Christianity and probably goes back to the very earliest organised human societies.

Don't forget that the term 'civil society' is generally regarded to have been coined by Aristotle, writing some 350 years before Jesus was born.

In reality marriage is synonymous with civil society - any society that develops a type of marriage and the ceremonies and rules that surround it, must be, by definition a civil society - so civil society can predate marriage, but I struggle to see how marriage can predate civil society as the former arises out of the latter.

What's all this emphasis on 'pre-Christianity'?  Only those with absolutely nil inkling are not aware that religious and civil marriage had been taking place for centuries, if not millennia before Christianity arrived on the scene.  Note however, that - regardless how much cementing of power might have been taking place, it was done in the context of a religious ceremony.

[Hope]

B - once upon a time Western/Christian marriage was only ever within a single-race context. That changed, why shouldn't this?

I don't deny that, but then that was a development that wasn't originally within Christianity, suggesting that (as we see in a number of other areas, sadly) the church wasn't exempt from making mistakes.

[ProfessorDavey]

The idea that Romans snd Greeks somehow separated the religious from the civil is the misnomer. It's simply nonsense to suggest that marriage the was one at the exclusion of the other, religious practice being so entwined with civil affairs.

Marriage in ancient Rome and Greece was a civil institution rather than a religious one. This is entirely different to the Judeo/Christian approach where marriage is seen as a religious institution, instituted by god. This is not the same at all.

So from Ermatinger's definitive 2 volume Enclyclopedia 'The world of ancient Rome' - in the initial section on marriage:

'Marriage in ancient Rome was a matter of legal distinctions and civil responsibilities but not religious.'

Were there religious elements during the ceremonies - well often yes, but these aren't in the same context as for Judeo/Christian weddings where religion is integral to the ceremony. In ancient Greece of Rome religion was largely restricted to the couple making offerings to the gods to bless the marriage or bring them good luck rather than being an integral part of the wedding itself. This is entirely different to the marriage being fundamentally in 'the eyes of god' and instituted by god.

Rather in Greece and Rome marriage was a civil institution - so perhaps the best comparison would be for a modern civil marriage where the couple also have a religious blessing of their marriage, but not a religious wedding.

[ProfessorDavey]

All good examples of how marriage was both a religious and civil process.  One without the other wouldn't have taken place. 

You seem to be changing your tune.

Previously you were claiming that 'Except that marriage was always first and foremost a religious, as opposed to a civil, contract.  The balance has only changed in the last 2-300 years here in the West.'

Now you seem to be accepting that (at the very least) marriage has been 'civil' as long as it has been 'religious'. This seems to be a massive U-turn on your part.

The reality is that marriage is always a civil institution and always has been - it is also often a religious institution too, but not always - as indicated by most marriages in the UK today (over 70% are civil and not religious) and amongst many ancient societies such as those I indicated in my earlier posts.

[Hope]

This is entirely different to the Judeo/Christian approach where marriage is seen as a religious institution, instituted by god. ... 

but these aren't in the same context as for Judeo/Christian weddings where religion is integral to the ceremony.

I find the unspoken assumption that the Judeo-Christian pattern of weddings is the only one that can be compared with the Greco-Roman form somewhat simplistic.  After all, long before Greece or Rome came to prominence, the Hindus were marrying in a ceremony that has barely changed in the interim that was primarily religious and only secondarily civil.  The same goes for the tribes of Europe and East Asia, and from what I have read for those of N. and S. America. 

Marriage that involved religion has been in existence for millennia and the civil aspect has often been attached 'after the event', insofar as it was often a secondary aspect of the ceremony.

[Hope]

You seem to be changing your tune.

Previously you were claiming that 'Except that marriage was always first and foremost a religious, as opposed to a civil, contract.  The balance has only changed in the last 2-300 years here in the West.'

PD, as the sentence I have underlined shows, I have never suggested that the religious and civil haven't gone hand in hand.  What I have said is that the religious aspect took precedence until very recently - in historical terms - in the west and often retains its primacy in other parts of the world.

The reality is that marriage is always a civil institution and always has been - it is also often a religious institution too, but not always ...

Whereas all my sociological and anthropological reading would seem to suggest that the subjects of the phrases 'always' and 'but not always' are the other way round.

[ProfessorDavey]

I find the unspoken assumption that the Judeo-Christian pattern of weddings is the only one that is compared with the Greco-Roman form.  After all, long before Greece or Rome came to prominence, the Hindus were marrying in a ceremony that has barely changed in the interim that was primarily religious and only secondarily civil.  The same goes for the tribes of Europe and East Asia, and from what I have read for those of N. and S. America. 

Marriage that involved religion has been in existence for millennia and the civil aspect has often been attached 'after the event', insofar as it was often a secondary aspect of the ceremony.

Or the other way around as was the case in ancient Rome, Greece or China.

But there has always been a civil element to marriage because it is first and foremost a civil institution that impacts on how society considers married couples in law in comparison with unmarried ones. As I have said before there is often a religious element too - but not always - there is always a civil element.