Customer Discussions > Religion forum

The origin of marriage


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 299 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Dec 2, 2012 10:58:58 PM PST
R.M. says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 2, 2012 11:16:50 PM PST
Astrocat says:
So which brand of marriage are you using as the definition, Rick? There are plenty to choose from:

Polygyny
Polyandry
Endogamy
Exogamy
Common Law Marriage
Arranged Marriage
Group Marriages
Monogamy - usually meaning monogamy for the woman, with a little extra on the side for the man
Dynastic Marriages
Marriages between nations
Incestuous Marriages (see the Bible for examples)
Levirate Marriages (see the Bible)
A man, a woman and her slave (kind of a threesome there, see the Bible)
A man, one or more wives and a lot of concubines (see the Bible)
A male soldier and a female prisoner of war (see the Bible)
A male rapist and his victim (see the Bible)
A male and a female slave (see the Bible)

Posted on Dec 2, 2012 11:17:44 PM PST
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 2, 2012 11:26:08 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 2, 2012 11:27:24 PM PST
Are you arguing that the term 'institution' is such a theological construct or ordinance that there can be no such thing as 'secular' or 'civil' institutions?

To imply such is to pretend that marriage performed by a Justice of the Peace doesn't conform to the definition of 'institution'. Which is why I asked. Otherwise, do you believe that unless two people are joined together by mythological beings, they cannot be a married couple? I try to avoid being very specific about explaining my own beliefs about the role of mythological beings in the complications of love. But I do believe. And however it might facilitate marriage, it seems 'love' hasn't always been the prerequisite nor the outcome of marriage, whether or not it was arranged with heaven's blessing.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 2, 2012 11:43:20 PM PST
dischism says:
Rick

< The anti-theists have been spreading the lie that marriage is a secular, civil institution. Do not be fooled. It is just another lie to harm marriage and further the atheist agenda.>

You should check your facts.

As far as Christianity is concerned, marriage became an official Christian sacrament in the sixteenth century, which means that for three quarters of its history, marriage *wasn't* sacramental.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 3, 2012 12:06:12 AM PST
R.M. says:
I accept that there is such a thing as 'secular' or 'civil' marriage. When our government was founded there were already marriages in existence. The government chose to recognize those marriages and codify them into a civil meaning. I think that was our governments first mistake; to recognize a religious institution was a violation of the separation of church and state.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 3, 2012 12:08:30 AM PST
R.M. says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 3, 2012 12:13:42 AM PST
dischism says:
Rick

Why do you keep ignoring the fact that marriage provides a legal framework for inheritance, property ownership and guardianship of children ?

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 3, 2012 12:22:34 AM PST
Because it doesn't fit his agenda to recognize that.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 3, 2012 12:29:22 AM PST
dischism says:
Rick

< Marriage is not a Christian sacrament. Catholics do consider marriage a sacrament; but besides them, there are many many Christians that do not share that doctrine.>

Prior to the Reformation (also sixteenth century), Catholics were Christianity in the western world. In the east, Orthodox also consider marriage to be sacramental.

< Our history actually extends 1000's of years father back than even Christ's birth and marriage has always existed under the authority of God and as he designed it. >

You mean God as the Roman emperors, Jupiter, Mars, Juno (note the female) etc or as their Greek predecessors, Zeus, Ares, Juno etc or perhaps their Norse guises as Odin, Tyr, Frigga etc?

Or perhaps you're talking about the Celtic pantheons or ...

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 3, 2012 12:33:26 AM PST
[Deleted by the author on Dec 3, 2012 12:46:52 AM PST]

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 3, 2012 12:37:14 AM PST
[Deleted by the author on Dec 3, 2012 12:51:34 AM PST]

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 3, 2012 12:44:12 AM PST
dischism says:
Rick

< Can you quote the words I said that state I'm ignoring anything? >

< The government chose to recognize those marriages and codify them into a civil meaning. I think that was our governments first mistake; to recognize a religious institution was a violation of the separation of church and state. >

The legal framework provided by those marriages was the reason for your government's acceptance of them. What do you think the reaction of the powerful and wealthy would have been if their property rights had been thrown over?

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 3, 2012 12:46:41 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 3, 2012 12:49:05 AM PST
dischism says:
Rick

< We aren't even on a second page of messages and you are trolling already. >

Back to the pattern of being unable to answer pertinent but difficult questions, so resorting to insult I see.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 3, 2012 12:51:07 AM PST
[Deleted by the author on Dec 3, 2012 1:14:43 AM PST]

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 3, 2012 1:01:16 AM PST
G. Heron says:
Rick Maxon

Can you please explain why an atheist would wish to harm marriage?

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 3, 2012 1:02:08 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 3, 2012 1:04:53 AM PST
dischism says:
Rick

< Insulting is the term to describe your comparison of God to false mythologies like Frigga and Ares. Then after you blatantly insult you wish to not be considered a troll. >

History is insulting? I was going to ask whether you were aware of the history of monotheism, but your posts themselves demonstrate that you haven't studied it.

Faux outrage does not an argument make.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 3, 2012 1:14:15 AM PST
R.M. says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 3, 2012 1:26:05 AM PST
G. Heron says:
Rick Maxon

What lies do you think I want to spread?

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 3, 2012 2:44:44 AM PST
Menkaure says:
Rick Maxon says:

"Marriage is not a Christian sacrament. Catholics do consider marriage a sacrament; but besides them, there are many many Christians that do not share that doctrine. Marriage has always existed for followers of God."

True, as well as for the followers of many other gods, and no gods at all. Do you have a point in there somewhere?

"Our history extends farther back than 500 years. Our history actually extends 1000's of years father back than even Christ's birth and marriage has always existed under the authority of God and as he designed it."

Rick, my friend, open a history book. Unless you are of Jewish descent, your ancestors 1000s of years ago were pagan.

"It is a violation of the first amendment for the government to impose any definition on the citizens and force them to accept a doctrine that goes against their religion."

As far as I know, nobody is trying to do that. I suppose at some point in the future, the government could attempt such force, but until that attempt is made, there's no point in starting the battle. You're really not making much sense in this post.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 3, 2012 2:45:31 AM PST
G. Heron says:
Rick Maxon

I think if I was interested in the origin of marriage I would ask an anthropologist. As I am not an anthropologist I can assure you that I have not been putting forward any theories concerning the origin of marriage.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 3, 2012 3:00:03 AM PST
Bruce Bain says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 3, 2012 3:06:08 AM PST
What is the scientific justification for heterosexual marriage?

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 3, 2012 3:36:59 AM PST
G. Heron says:
Bruce Bain

I am in favor of same sex marriage but not on any scientific basis rather on moral grounds. However if I was looking at it from a scientific point of view I would suggest that Human overpopulation and the subsequent damage to the Earth's ecosystem presents a grave danger to the survival of the human species, which gay marriage does not,

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 3, 2012 3:46:27 AM PST
di: Or perhaps you're talking about the Celtic pantheons or ...

He doesn't know what he is talking about, d.
‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


Recent discussions in the Religion forum

 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Religion forum
Participants:  29
Total posts:  299
Initial post:  Dec 2, 2012
Latest post:  Dec 8, 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 3 customers

Search Customer Discussions