Lord Shplane
The end result was you being with someone you loved. Like I said before, THAT'S the important part. Marriage was just a way to allow that to happen for you.

A pretty damn important, expensive, and difficult part. >_>

Whether marriage is "fluff" or not is very subjective, and depends on the importance you personally assign to it. For me, having spent two years fighting for it, and having spent vast amounts on lawyer and Visa fees, I ascribe not only being with my husband but being MARRIED to him a lot of importance in my life. This contract is a commitment, a binding promise that I personally consider to be of great importance in my life.

If you were to get married, perhaps it would be fluff to you. You could say you FEEL or you THINK marriage is fluff, or that to you it would be, and that of course would be correct, as you would only be speaking for yourself, but to say all marriages are fluff is silly, as it depends on the individual. I assure you, my marriage is NOT fluff to me.

Marriage has to be influenced by love and not lust or greed.

Oh, the thread will probably get locked after I do this (you can thank me later if that happens, Lastcall), but there's an element of marriage that no one's discussed.

There's a side to marriage concerning its origins and - whether you believe in it or not -- that is the spiritual side. Marriage was (and still is) a contract before God saying you commit to this person for life, a joining of the two to become one flesh, so to speak.

Sure, there were legal provisions made as far back as the Old Testament days for divorce but that was only because of people's stubbornness and not taking the commitment seriously before and after getting married. Marriage shouldn't be entered into lightly, as it really needs to be considered and understood by both people. Even if there are no children, it is legally binding, as some have already said, and emotionally and socially significant. The repercussions of divorce can last a lifetime.

And yes, while people can get married at the Justice of the Peace and with the Elvis impersonators and via the internet and whatever, the origins of marriage are spiritual as well as legal. And that's why they're not fluff...at least to me.

When I married my wife, it was on every level...after we went through great challenges just to get to that point because we're an interracial couple. I sacrificed finishing college because my parents were against the marriage. My wife and I both lost relationships with friends and relatives because of our decision to marry. My parents did end up coming to the wedding but it literally took an Act of God (no, I'm not exaggerating, but that's a story for another day -- or at least another reply :) ).

My folks did end up coming to terms with my wife (and me), too, by the time we started having kids, and all's well that ends well. But I had to be prepared to have problems with them for the rest of their lives.

I knew and had no doubt that this was the woman I had fallen in love with (and am still in love with) and was committing to -- for better or worse, richer or poorer, in sickness and in health, till death do us part -- for the rest of my life. It's a total commitment. And when people get married not knowing the depth of the relationship of marriage, of course it's bound to cause problems and heartache.

Quite frankly, I had to -- and still have to -- be willing to die for this woman, and now for our children as well. They come first. And I know my wife feels the same way, she would die for us. That's the level of commitment and responsibility.

I wasn't offended by Lord Shplane's comment about marriage being fluff, I understood it...but I don't agree. While he's right that the person you love is so important -- no doubt about that -- but marriage goes so much deeper than the piece of paper or the ceremony or the gifts or the lawyers. Marriage IS the relationship! It's what each person has emotionally, financially, legally and spiritually invested themselves in.

I treasure my marriage, just like I treasure my wife. And I thank God for her and our marriage every day.

My nickel... B)

I agree entirely with the courage and determination you express, dueeast - and I too think marriage is not a bit of fluff, but rather a serious commitment. Probably the most serious one you can make - if not, certainly up there.

But just to play devil's advocate... contrary to what a lot of Christians believe, marriage predates Christianity. The Ancient Egyptians practised marriage - or at least, there's a lot of evidence to suggest a form of legal bond of monogamy, a life partner. hmt (or hemet - heiroglyphics almost always omits vowel sounds) is the ancient Egpytian word for "wife" (and hi is "husband", though this is infrequently used since most funerary texts are written by men, about men).

Yet from the 13th Dynasty (1795-1650 BC) on polygamy was common among kings and some of the ruling elite. While one principal wife (hemet nesw weret) was chosen, others were probably taken by the king in order to assure a royal heir, or cement relationships with foreign countries or even powerful regional leaders.

However, Ancient Egyptian marriage was not necessarily a monogamous affair. Kings, as noted above, often had hundreds of wives, and it was an early practice to pay the father of your bride a dowry - usually the same as one would pay for a slave. However, marriage was a social institution practiced by all classes in Ancient Egpyt.

For a more humanistic form of pre-Christian marriage, try Ancient Rome. There was no specific civil ceremony required, but marriages were frequently accompanied by much revelry and partying, religious blessings and ceremonies, and many traditions - all it took beyond that was the acceptance of both parties that they wished to join in marriage.

Although not a legal necessity, some weddings, usually the first marriage of elite couples was accompanied by much revelry and song, as featured in one of Catullus' poems. It describes the celebration of the marriage with dancing, singing and the brandishing of torches. Ribald jokes are shouted at the bride and nuts are scattered as she makes her way towards her husband's house. The groom arrives before the bride so that he can personally invite her to come and share his home.

The woman also gained her husband's social status once married - clearly an advantage for us women! In fact, a wife and mother, a matrona, held a position of respect and responsibility, and even had a role in public worship.
Roman marriage was monogamous and also for life - in as much as marriages are today, or probably more so. Divorce was only for the upper classes and the very rich, and in early Roman history, unheard of since marriage was considered a sacred institution (much like the Roman Catholic church considers it today).

An Ancient Roman bride wore an engagement ring - in fact, the engagement ring seems to be one of the oldest surviving traditions, possibly even predating the Romans and certainly appearing in many different cultures. It was once believed that a vein ran from the third finger of the left hand to the heart - and the circle of metal symbolises eternity. Roman brides also wore white, and a veil, and had a bridesmaid.

And for something a little more obscure, how about this from pre-Christian scandinavian history?

During pre-Christian times the process of becoming husband and wife was a five-step process following the courtship period. The first step was the betrothal, when what was already known was announced: the couple was going to marry. The second step was the marriage ceremony, when the father of the bride gave the bride to the groom and the bride's parents gave a party. The third step was the trip from the bride's home to the groom's home, which was dangerous because of the risk of bandits. The fourth step was the wedding party to which all important persons—friends and relatives of the bride's parents—were invited. The final step was the bedding, when the guests at the wedding party followed the newly married couple home and watched them go to bed (Carlsson 1965). The two were now a married couple.

I by no means intend to belittle what your marriage meant to you, dueeast, but I think study of our cultures is extremely interesting... and marriage is something that has been around for a lot longer than Christianity.
I mean, China has marriage, as does India, and neither of them are known to practice Christianity widely. :)

Hi Pixie,

I appreciate your in-depth response and the tone of it. You obviously put a great deal of thought and reference into it. But I was referring to Judao-Christianity, which includes Judaism, which pre-dates Christianity by several thousand years. To Jews and Christians, it's the same God and the same Old Testament scriptures.

I am in no way belittling any other culture or beliefs, either. As you say, there are ancient cultures that had forms of what could be considered marriage, but they are not quite the same commitment or the same concept as a devotion to the Judao-Christian God being at the center, and later, to Christians, the inclusion of Christ in the marriage. Probably any further analysis of that would get this shifted to Debate and Discussion or locked. :)

Probably.

But then, I didn't have a religious ceremony anyway. :3 My marriage was purely a civil ceremony.

dueeast
Sure, there were legal provisions made as far back as the Old Testament days for divorce but that was only because of people's stubbornness and not taking the commitment seriously before and after getting married. Marriage shouldn't be entered into lightly, as it really needs to be considered and understood by both people. Even if there are no children, it is legally binding, as some have already said, and emotionally and socially significant. The repercussions of divorce can last a lifetime.
My nickel... B)

I find it rather sad that so many people assume to know the hearts and minds of others. For some reason I thought you were more open minded than the bold statement implies.
(btw-not trying to be an ass, I was genuinely taken off-guard)

On another note, I think this should be moved to Debate & Discussion or should be locked since it's moving really far from it's origins.

Rori speaks truth.

To D&D. Away!

Sweet, now everyone can talk about the anthropological origins of marriage and the early Christian Church's frowning on marriage, and, and, polygamy! And gay marriage! and civil unions! huzzah!

If I were to categorize marriage, first and foremost I'd categorize it as a social construct necessary for the building of certain societies based upon linear inheritance. The religious part, although personally important to some, and indispensable for use in social control, would come much later. Now, in our lovely post-modern world, much of that falls by the wayside, so maybe it's a moot point! But I don't really think so, because I have a passing familiarity with the US tax code :D

That hieroglyphics is a joke right??? Cuz I could swear I see corresponding genitalia for each "word."

Rori
If I were to categorize marriage, first and foremost I'd categorize it as a social construct necessary for the building of certain societies based upon linear inheritance.

I'd have to agree. Makes perfect sense.I used to think of it in a legal sense, but then why just two people together forever? (old idea)

I don't know how anybody could cope with polygamy though. Managing a single relationship can be hard enough! But then, in polygamous relationships (generally one husband and several wives), the wives have their own separate friendship and support structure, and that's usually a lot closer than their relationship with the husband.

mlai
That hieroglyphics is a joke right??? Cuz I could swear I see corresponding genitalia for each "word."

Interestingly, no, it's not a joke. :) Yes, that is a phallus symbol. Want me to translate for you...?

(I will anyway, I need more practise at this!)



So we have our two words here, the first comprised of three heiroglyphs (hmt = wife), and the second of four (hi = husband). Ancient Egyptian heiroglyphics are not really written in order, as the alphabet is, but rather usually arranged in pleasing blocks, as artistically as possible given the space, which can make translating them a little tricky. A good rule of thumb is to read the topmost symbol first and then the one underneath it, and then move right (or left). They can read either right or left, depending, but you can usually tell because of the direction of some of the signs. In this case, the symbols of people sitting are looking to the left, which tells us the signs read left to right.

Now... with Ancient Egyptian Heiroglyphics, you first have to transliterate (ie, translate into our alphabet), before you can translate. So lets take the first block first - the one that reads "hmt", or "wife".



So that block of symbols reads "hmt" or "wife". Bear in mind that (another complication), in Ancient Egyptian heiroglyphics, rarely are the vowels spelled out. So "hmt" is probably pronounced something like "hemet", with that first h (with a dot under it) being an emphatic h sound made in the back of the throat. :)

Oh, and incidentally - heiroglyphics which translate directly (ie, if I wanted to say "well full of water") are called ideograms, and not all symbols can be used as ideograms. You can usually tell which by, again, context and practise.

Easy, huh? So we can translate husband also...



"i" is one of the few vowel sounds the Ancient Egyptians bother to write, by the way. :)

Oh, and incidentally, the Ancient Egyptians often had several ways of spelling words, some much longer than others (but meaning the same thing)... and they don't always use determinatives, either. A lot of the purpose of heiroglyphics was to look decorative, and therefore if you have a certain amount of space to fill up on that tomb you're carving, you might choose to put in the shorter version because the longer version won't fit. Or put in the longer version because the shorter version will leave a gap that you don't like. Or whatever.

Determinatives aren't used for every word - sometimes the word doesn't have one, sometimes they merely omit it (and you're expected to know)... but you quickly figure out how to divide heiroglyphics into chunks and transliterate and then translate them like that. Helps if you have some sort of reference material dictionary type thing. :)

Ancient Egyptian Heiroglyphics is one of my weird hobbies, apologies. I hope people enjoyed this and didn't find it too boring! Sorry to go off on such a tangent - I'll shut up about this now, and we can get back to talking about marriage! :3

ozoneocean
I don't know how anybody could cope with polygamy though. Managing a single relationship can be hard enough! But then, in polygamous relationships (generally one husband and several wives), the wives have their own separate friendship and support structure, and that's usually a lot closer than their relationship with the husband.

Double the bitching. Double the nagging. Double crying. Double the emotional blackmailing. Then they start getting competitive. What dumb ass thought that would be a good idea?

Rori,

I'm not trying to be a jerk, either. Actually, since I was discussing the Old Testament, I was paraphrasing Jesus from the New Testament when he was discussing divorce stemming from the Old Testament. My apologies for any confusion caused.

Here is the original reference:
Matthew 19: 3 - 9 (King James Version)

The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?

And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,

And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?

He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.

And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

Rori

dueeast
Sure, there were legal provisions made as far back as the Old Testament days for divorce but that was only because of people's stubbornness and not taking the commitment seriously before and after getting married. Marriage shouldn't be entered into lightly, as it really needs to be considered and understood by both people. Even if there are no children, it is legally binding, as some have already said, and emotionally and socially significant. The repercussions of divorce can last a lifetime.
My nickel... B)

I find it rather sad that so many people assume to know the hearts and minds of others. For some reason I thought you were more open minded than the bold statement implies.
(btw-not trying to be an ass, I was genuinely taken off-guard)

On another note, I think this should be moved to Debate & Discussion or should be locked since it's moving really far from it's origins.

Oh religion...

Muslims make divorce easy for the man. You just have to say it three times or something... Not so simple for the ladies, but it depends on how conservative the form of Islam they practise. The same could be said for all sorts of Christian religious flavours.

The divorce issue was part of the reason King Henry the 8th created his own version of Christianity lol!
But I think that was really about centralising and consolidating his power within his own borders: and as part of that he needed an heir, powerful and advantageous unions...

That seems to be one of the key things with marriage: transferral of property and consolidation of power. Rori's point about inheritance is extremely important.

I remember now this alternative creation story featuring Adam and Eve that I was once, long ago, told. This is supposedly to be how the creation story was like before the bible was rewritten for Christianity. Unfortunately all my attempts to find any references to this has failed and I'm starting to doubt this claim which I rely dislike because I like this version allot and would like it to have been the original creation story.

In the beginning.... you know what I'm gonna fast forward.... and on the 6th day god created a being in his own image. This being was perfection and had no other equivalent. It did all kinds of cool things like give names to all the animals of the earth in one day and so on. Why he called that funny critter in Australia platypus is beyond me but that's not the point.

Well so far it's the same thing. So where's the difference? Well... That creature was called Hadam and was sexless. It was the perfect being modeled after the image of God and was supposed to rule over earth as God ruled over the heavens. Eventually Hadam grew lonely and wished for companionship. God solved that by splitting Hadam into two beings, Adam and Eve. On their own they are imperfect, flawed even, but together they form the perfect being.

If this story was the general version back in the days then it explains perfectly why people would have viewed marriage as an important event. It represents the fusion of two beings to form perfection. The true image of god.

Oh and why was the story changed? I was told back then that as Christianity was forming certain individuals who did not want females to rise in power edited the story so that Adam came first and Eve later. Thus God must be a male since Adam was made in his image and Eve is only Adams servant. Now which version do you like better?

There's also another verison of that story.

In this story... There was Hadam, the sexless one. but when it was spilt up into two, it was Adam AND LILITH.
Lilith was adam's equal in every way, but supposedly she was "too equal" for adam's tastes, espeically when she insisted on being on top. *nudge, nudge, wink*
So Adam didn't want to claim her as his wife, as seeing she imdiated him too much.
So Lilith leaves adam and goes off on her own to make her own paraside elsewhere. This is where they say that's the reason why Adamn and eve found people out there earler on. Because Lilith had supposedly mated with angels and demons, to create her own offspring. She was also said to have been pregant with adam's children when she left. In later verisons they also say that the reason why she had children is because she raped Adam on different seperate occisons.

anyway, God creates a second woman in front of adam.

But Adam, having seen all the gory details of how the human body was made in front of him, didn't see the second woman as appealing at all. Plus, the woman was said to have the tendecy to be overemtional, another turn-off for adam.

So That second lady gets kicked out, and she dies alone..without a name or anything else.

So God put adam to sleep, creates eve out of one of his ribs. And Adam finally was happy. after all, he had a woman who wasn't too equal in terms of power, etc. A woman who could be obident to adam and be the perfect wife.

And get this... Lilith becomes a demon in the christain and the herbew texts just for being an uppity woman. She also gets all dieases and various natural diasters blamed on her. Much like how Eve is blamed for all of mankind's sins just because she was gulliable.

Horray for sexism in biblical mythlogy.
http://www.lilitu.com/lilith/lilit.html
http://www.lilitu.com/lilith/rappoport.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lilith [en.wikipedia.org]

So basically Adam is a stupid asshole who got kicked out of the house by the most generous/benevolent parent in existence, and then had dysfunctional kids who killed each other because he played favorites.

Yeah. I also have heard of Lilith, but never in the same story as Hadam. If memory serves me right then she is popular in wicca.

The way I heard the story of Lilith, Adam was always Adam. But you know, I think there are dozens of creation stories of those disfunctional couple floating around.

Don't forget about the part where Adam was, uh, "knowing" animals in the absense of Lilith.

The Hadam story sounds a bit like the story of the beast with two backs, with an alternate version claiming a jealous Demiurge ripped them apart due to their shared bliss.

Product Placement
Yeah. I also have heard of Lilith, but never in the same story as Hadam. If memory serves me right then she is popular in Wicca.

A lot of things are popular in Wicca... it's a bit of a magpie thingo... pick and choose from all over. Lilith was Adam's first wife, so the stories go that I've heard. Since then she's been popularised into a witch etc. blah...
Lilith reminds me a little of Loki's daughter Hel, at least in as much as how she's often seen now.

These stories acquired from Judaism get quite twisted don't they?

Rori
beast with two backs

Wow, that's a story? I always just assumed that was a kenning for sex... you know, in the missionary position. :)

Eh, what about other cultures though? How was Marriage practised in China for example? From the little I know it seemed just a husband and wife, and maybe concubines for the wealthy, aristocratic, or government officials. Is that right?

ozoneocean
Lilith reminds me a little of Loki's daughter Hel, at least in as much as how she's often seen now.

These stories acquired from Judaism get quite twisted don't they?

Are you actually saying that the Northen faith had stories acquired from Judaism or am I misunderstanding? Any similarities that resembles Christianity or monotheism in general are there because that the man responsible for putting the tales into print was a Christian. He salvaged the dying faith 200 years after it stopped being the official faith of the country and saved it from extinction but there were purely academic reasons behind it. It's quite well known in fact that some of the stories regarding the faith had slipped into the everlasting darkness and the only and that the little people now knew regarding those tales were hearsays and sayings. That meant that the author had to assemble the little he knew regarding those things and make something up.

Also
kenning

Hmmm... that's not an word I would expect an English speaker to utter. That word is Scandinavian in origin. The fact that you used it and seemed to have fairly good grasp in the northern pagan faith seems to suggest that you have some Scandinavian ties. Am I right?


I don't know much about Chinese mariage but I did see the movie The Red Lantern.
China in the 1920's. After her father's death, nineteen year old Songlian is forced to marry Chen Zuoqian, the lord of a powerful family. Fifty year old Chen has already three wives, each of them living in separate houses within the great castle. The competition between the wives is tough, as their master's attention carries power, status and privilege. Each night Chen must decide with which wife to spend the night and a red lantern is lit in front of the house of his choice. And each wife schemes and plots to make sure it's hers. However, things get out of hand...

What I do know is that in India, where Hinduism is practiced, marriage is considered to be the purest moment for a human being. The life goes downhill from there ^^

You can read about Hindu weddings here [en.wikipedia.org].