Marriage - Religious or Not

[Kitsune]

I am watching a lecture on the early middle ages and I noted that at least some Kings were Pagans yet were married to Christians. Many Roman aristocrats were the next thing to being atheists as well from teh documentary.

Historically, has marriage been a religious institution?

[Enforcer Talen]

Not to my knowledge. I usually see it come up as an inheritance/wealth distribution measure.

[Andrew_Fireborn]

Aye, every culture has had some form of marriage if it's had a sufficient reason to.

Most, it did boil down to property rights and continuing the blood line. Hence that the vast majority of marriages were prearranged affairs, and love was considered an illness. (Also, conveniently where the main double standard about sex arises from...)

[Stark]

Different cultures had different approaches to marriage. For the Romans it was a very legal, political thing for the upper classes. Even for the poor it was primarily an inheritance-insurance thing.

[Darth Wong]

If marriage is a religious concept, why does every major culture on Earth have it, no matter how different their religions are?

PS. In light of the fact that most people who promote this "marriage is a religious institution" bullshit actually think it's a Judeo-Christian institution, I have a follow-up question: If marriage comes from the Jewish religion, why has marriage changed so much compared to the early marriages depicted in the Old Testament?

[Guardsman Bass]

Marriage was usually an institution for combining estates and to create economically viable units of organization. Religious concepts (the specific religion didn't matter)usually combined with whatever customs governed marriage in a society, which was further amplified by the fact that in societies like medieval Europe, the church usually was the one that kept marriage records.

[Omeganian]

In Christianity, matrimony only became a sacrament on a very late stage - I think it was something like the fifteenth century. After all, it has to do with a sin, simply the church decided in the end this was the path to the lesser evil.

As for Judaism - there is no sacrament at all. The wedding is a legal procedure, with a rabbi overseeing the formalities.

[Dark Lord of the Bith]

Even hunter/gatherer cultures had marriages, such as the Bambuti in Africa. It served the primary purpose of forging alliances and making sure everyone in the village/band is fed. The wife becomes the responsibility of the husband, lightening the burden of her father. And in times of trouble, they can call on family members to help out, and marriages make that circle of allies bigger.

There's no religion involved there at all. Sure, they have superstitions and rituals, but they're mostly for keeping the spirits of the forest happy. A happy forest is a happy village.

[eyl]

As for Judaism - there is no sacrament at all. The wedding is a legal procedure, with a rabbi overseeing the formalities.

Strictly speaking, you don't even need a rabbi - all you need for a binding marriage in Judaism is a groom, bride, ring, and two witnesses.

[LadyTevar]

As for Judaism - there is no sacrament at all. The wedding is a legal procedure, with a rabbi overseeing the formalities.

Strictly speaking, you don't even need a rabbi - all you need for a binding marriage in Judaism is a groom, bride, ring, and two witnesses.

And I believe 10 pieces of silver, as the 'bride price'?
In the Bible, Jesus tells a parable of a woman who searched her whole house for a missing silver coin. The Bible doesn't clarify why the coin was important to her, but tradition of the time had the wife wearing the 10 silver pieces as a necklace or headdress, possibly as proof of her marriage, even as we wear rings today.

[Zixinus]

To answer the original question: no, its not a religious thing by itself. There is certainly religion tied to it over different regions of the world, but by itself it is a more of a contract between two familys/factions. Even dirt poor peasentry used it as a contract to tell who's land is who's.

[Darth Wong]

Paul actually discouraged marriage: something the "Christian family values" brigade often ignores. And Jesus himself never married. I thought these people were trying to be "Christ-like".

[Kitsune]

Paul actually discouraged marriage: something the "Christian family values" brigade often ignores. And Jesus himself never married. I thought these people were trying to be "Christ-like".

There is a minority view that Jesus did marry

[MichaelFerrariF1]

Paul actually discouraged marriage: something the "Christian family values" brigade often ignores. And Jesus himself never married. I thought these people were trying to be "Christ-like".

From my understanding, Paul discouraged marriage because he thought the second coming was going to be in a few weeks/months, so why bother. I could be wrong, though, or have this confused with his 'reason' to not have sex outside of marriage.

Side note: After 2000 years of waiting, you'd think the religious right fundies would lighten up 'cause it's going to be a while.

[Justforfun000]

From my understanding, Paul discouraged marriage because he thought the second coming was going to be in a few weeks/months, so why bother. I could be wrong, though, or have this confused with his 'reason' to not have sex outside of marriage.

Paul wasn't too fond of women actually. It's very easy to see that in his writings. He basically espoused the view that it'd be good in God's eyes to marry, but even better if you could remain single and be the "groom" or "bride" to God in the next life. Not literally, but they talked of the marriage to the holy spirit and other vague concepts. However he admitted that many could not control their sex drives competently enough and so marriage was a good thing to keep them on the somewhat holy path.

[LadyTevar]

Paul actually discouraged marriage: something the "Christian family values" brigade often ignores. And Jesus himself never married. I thought these people were trying to be "Christ-like".

From my understanding, Paul discouraged marriage because he thought the second coming was going to be in a few weeks/months, so why bother. I could be wrong, though, or have this confused with his 'reason' to not have sex outside of marriage.

Side note: After 2000 years of waiting, you'd think the religious right fundies would lighten up 'cause it's going to be a while.

Paul actually discouraged marriage so you could 'devote ones life' to Jesus.
And because he was a misogynist prick

Those that believe Jesus was married points to the Wedding at Canna, where the guests tell Mary they are out of wine, and she goes to Jesus to tell him about the problem, and Jesus turns water to wine.

Now, according to the "Jesus is Married" crowd, in a Jewish wedding of the time, the Bridegroom's family was the one to provide food and drink to the wedding feast. So why go to Mary, and then to Jesus about the lack of wine? Because he was the Bridegroom!

I myself don't know if this works out or not. Even if Mary was the Mother of the Groom, it may not have been Jesus that was getting married. She did have other children

[Omeganian]

As for Judaism - there is no sacrament at all. The wedding is a legal procedure, with a rabbi overseeing the formalities.

Strictly speaking, you don't even need a rabbi - all you need for a binding marriage in Judaism is a groom, bride, ring, and two witnesses.

And I believe 10 pieces of silver, as the 'bride price'?
In the Bible, Jesus tells a parable of a woman who searched her whole house for a missing silver coin. The Bible doesn't clarify why the coin was important to her, but tradition of the time had the wife wearing the 10 silver pieces as a necklace or headdress, possibly as proof of her marriage, even as we wear rings today.

There was a debate about the minimal cost, one point of view was one Denarius (Must be those ten silvers), but the point which was accepted in the end said - one pruta (1/40 grams of silver is given by the Hebrew Wikipedia, or about a cent and a half).

And actually, the ring is not a necessity. That's merely the form the price takes today. It can just as easily be a pen (BTW, the wife has a complete right to sell it), or any other object with the minimal value, with a single condition - All 100% of it must be owned by the groom.

So long as the man gives the woman that object stating his intention, there are two legitimate witnesses, and the woman doesn't throw the object away immediately, they are considered married.

[Kanastrous]

So long as the man gives the woman that object stating his intention, there are two legitimate witnesses, and the woman doesn't throw the object away immediately, they are considered married.

For an orthodox or conservative wedding (not sure about reform) you also need a ketuvah, a written wedding contract.

[Omeganian]

So long as the man gives the woman that object stating his intention, there are two legitimate witnesses, and the woman doesn't throw the object away immediately, they are considered married.

For an orthodox or conservative wedding (not sure about reform) you also need a ketuvah, a written wedding contract.

There are three stages in marriage. First one is promising (shidukhin), then betrothal(kidushin), and then the wedding(nissuin). Once, the first two were combined, now the latter two are (since with the first option, there was a good chance for the bride to show up pregnant). The second part is what I described, and gives the limitations of marriage (adultery is applicable). To get the rights, the last stage is required, and that is the wedding. It includes kettubah ahd chuppah (the first one is not strictly part of the ceremony, but it is required), but still, the marital status is fixed by the second part.

[Omeganian]

If marriage comes from the Jewish religion, why has marriage changed so much compared to the early marriages depicted in the Old Testament?

Suffice to say, the only form of wedding given by the original Jewish law (there are two more ways, money and document, but those are from the sages) is simply the man and woman agreeing, and having sex to seal the pact. Not exactly consistent with the Christian idea of sacrament.

Paul actually discouraged marriage: something the "Christian family values" brigade often ignores. And Jesus himself never married. I thought these people were trying to be "Christ-like".

From my understanding, Paul discouraged marriage because he thought the second coming was going to be in a few weeks/months, so why bother. I could be wrong, though, or have this confused with his 'reason' to not have sex outside of marriage.

Side note: After 2000 years of waiting, you'd think the religious right fundies would lighten up 'cause it's going to be a while.

Paul actually discouraged marriage so you could 'devote ones life' to Jesus.
And because he was a misogynist prick ;)

Those that believe Jesus was married points to the Wedding at Canna, where the guests tell Mary they are out of wine, and she goes to Jesus to tell him about the problem, and Jesus turns water to wine.

Now, according to the "Jesus is Married" crowd, in a Jewish wedding of the time, the Bridegroom's family was the one to provide food and drink to the wedding feast. So why go to Mary, and then to Jesus about the lack of wine? Because he was the Bridegroom!

I myself don't know if this works out or not. Even if Mary was the Mother of the Groom, it may not have been Jesus that was getting married. She did have other children

Well, her having other children is somewhat inconsistent with her being a virgin (she is claimed to have stayed one forever). But I think the main argument is about Magdalene using her hair to wash Jesus' legs - a most intimate rite, claimed to be reserved for spouses.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Paul actually discouraged marriage: something the "Christian family values" brigade often ignores. And Jesus himself never married. I thought these people were trying to be "Christ-like".

I have maintained for a long time that Jesus (as well as David) were not actually straight if they existed... I mean, only a gay man can make a crown of thorns look that good, and only a gay man can say "come unto me and know me" with such sincerity.

That is not even mentioning the wandering about for three years with 12 other men.

[Darth Wong]

Paul actually discouraged marriage: something the "Christian family values" brigade often ignores. And Jesus himself never married. I thought these people were trying to be "Christ-like".

I have maintained for a long time that Jesus (as well as David) were not actually straight if they existed... I mean, only a gay man can make a crown of thorns look that good, and only a gay man can say "come unto me and know me" with such sincerity.

That is not even mentioning the wandering about for three years with 12 other men.

I've always had the same suspicion, assuming the whole story isn't simply made up out of thin air. If they weren't gay, they sure did a really good job of acting like they were.

[Stark]

While they don't mention women much in the Jesus stories, aren't there suspiciously always women around when needed? I feel maybe that there were women there, but that Paul (or whoever) just edited as many mentions of them out as possible to make the Apostles seem more 'pure'.

[eyl]

So long as the man gives the woman that object stating his intention, there are two legitimate witnesses, and the woman doesn't throw the object away immediately, they are considered married.

For an orthodox or conservative wedding (not sure about reform) you also need a ketuvah, a written wedding contract.

As Omegian said, you can be legally married even without that (note that the full marriage ceromony, in addition to the Ketubah, also involves various blessings and such).

In Israel, where religious marriage ceremonies are legally binding, this has been an occasional problem - I've heard of a few caes (mind you, this was years ago - they may have found a workaround by now) where teenage couples would perform a faux "marriage" and then find out they were legally wed.

[eyl]

So long as the man gives the woman that object stating his intention, there are two legitimate witnesses, and the woman doesn't throw the object away immediately, they are considered married.

For an orthodox or conservative wedding (not sure about reform) you also need a ketuvah, a written wedding contract.

As Omegian said, you can be legally married even without that (note that the full marriage ceromony, in addition to the Ketubah, also involves various blessings and such).

In Israel, where religious marriage ceremonies are legally binding, this has been an occasional problem - I've heard of a few caes (mind you, this was years ago - they may have found a workaround by now) where teenage couples would perform a faux "marriage" and then find out they were legally wed.