True story- recent too

[_Analytics]

It's only considered religious in nature by religious folk. I doubt many atheists regard their marriages are religious in nature.

I don't see how they couldn't. The whole idea of one man and one woman being united as man and wife, is deeply rooted in religion, beginning with Adam and Eve. Atheists could live with the opposite sex if they wanted, but why would they want to get married? Getting married means making covenants that are rooted in religious principles, and usually the process usually involves a minister of some sort.

I don’t believe that marriage is inherently religious. In addition to being a well-defined legal status, on its fundamental level it is established and maintained by two human beings making promises to each other, by society recognizing those promises, and by the individuals keeping those promises. Religious beliefs about marriage are ancillary and often contradictory.

by the way, are you claiming that Adam and Eve are historical people and that marriage began with them?

[_dartagnan]

Currently, it is just as much a legal/political category, than a religious one, if not more so.

Of course. I am talking about its origin though. The earliest recorded histories all come from religious texts and marriage is described as a divine institution ordained by God. Religious myths and traditions predate all of the modern political economic reasons for marriage.

If I am an atheist, the only reason I could justify marriage would be economic reasons. Aren't there tax advantages in some states, if you are married? The whole idea of being with one sexual partner is based in religious principles. Anything else is considered adultery, which of course is defined in ancient religious texts such as the Bible. Of course polygamy was also permitted, but it was always important to marry in the eyes of God, not the state.

This is why I think polygamy will eventually be legalized in the same way homosexual marriages are being legalized. The whole idea of telling someone they can marry only ONE person is religiously based. So for the government to do this means it is letting religion make decisions for the people. I bet that within 20-30 years polygamy will be legalized.

[Guest]

I don’t believe that marriage is inherently religious. In addition to being a well-defined legal status, on its fundamental level it is established and maintained by two human beings making promises to each other, by society recognizing those promises, and by the individuals keeping those promises. Religious beliefs about marriage are ancillary and often contradictory.

Marriage can mean whatever you want it to mean. I am simply saying that it originated as a divine religious principle and has been followed through the ages as such. Only recently have atheists decided to use it as some kind of social symbol of sorts.

by the way, are you claiming that Adam and Eve are historical people and that marriage began with them?

It doesn't matter if they really existed or not. The earliest recorded histories define marriage as a divine concept sanctioned by God. This was always understood as such until recent times. It is too difficult to discard such an integral element of human society, so atheists just adapted to it and tried to squeeze out the religious basis for it by pushing for legislation that said non-religious persons could administer it.

The atheist who are trying to outlaw Christmas because of its religious heritage, should also reject the concept of marriage. The whole idea of faithfulness to one's spouse is a religious grounded principle that has been accepted through the ages. Atheists just don't like to admit it is based in religion concepts.

I doubt the cave men were devoted to one wife. More likely, they went about raping anything that looked female. At some point in time, something in human evolution/civilization had to establish a rule that said a man should be faithful to a woman and support her throughout his life; likewise for the woman towards the man. The earliest hint of this being established is found in religious texts when scripture authors claimed God established this rule.

[_Blixa]

Religious myths and traditions predate all of the modern political economic reasons for marriage.

Religious myths and traditions are grounded in political and economic reasons; in other words, they don't stand outside the social (even though they define themselves this way). But, don't want to derail the thread into this. Just sayin'.

[_Runtu]

Religious myths and traditions predate all of the modern political economic reasons for marriage.

Religious myths and traditions are grounded in political and economic reasons; in other words, they don't stand outside the social (even though they define themselves this way). But, don't want to derail the thread into this. Just sayin'.

That seems painfully obvious to the nonreligious, doesn't it?

[_dartagnan]

Religious myths and traditions are grounded in political and economic reasons

Oh really? So what were the political and economic reasons for Moses' ten commandments?

Or the much older Mesopatamian and Ugaritic texts?

You're generalizing too much about the political backdrop of religious texts. Only a very small fraction of the Torah can be attributed to political motives. I doubt any of them could find economic motives.

[_Blixa]

I was simply refering to the way that myth making works in general--its made by people for people and people create out of their "needs" (which are "economic" in a basic sense). Just pointing out that not everyone sees religious myth as predating "history." Its obvious you are working from a different premise and my point was less to argue that, than to acknowledge other ways of making sense of the world.

[_Analytics]

It doesn't matter if they really existed or not. The earliest recorded histories define marriage as a divine concept sanctioned by God. ...

The atheist who are trying to outlaw Christmas because of its religious heritage, should also reject the concept of marriage. The whole idea of faithfulness to one's spouse is a religious grounded principle that has been accepted through the ages....

I doubt the cave men were devoted to one wife...

I disagree with almost everything you are saying here, but I don’t have time to debate you on all of the details. I will simply claim that marriage is primarily about human beings and the way we interact with each other, and that its origin and nature is best explained by Sociology, not about the contradictory things that diverse ancient cultures believed that their varied gods had to say about it.

[_The Nehor]

Yeah, I can see how being degraded could make someone happy. Sure.

They're not degraded, they do have an interesting role system I could not live in nor do I want my spouse to live in them but they're not degraded.

[_Some Schmo]

If, at the time I was married 12 years ago, I thought that marriage was only a divine religious ceremony, I'd never have been motivated to do it.

We got married by a Justice of the Peace in my wife's parents' house, had some friends over, and spent way more money on our honeymoon than the ceremony itself (I think we spent something like $600 for the whole thing, including dress and rings, and about $2000 on the two week vacation after). The main reason we did it was because we thought raising children in a house with married parents would be best for the kids when we had them, but we also felt like we were family (we'd been living together 3.5 years at that point), so why not benefit from the tax breaks?

God, religious myths, and Santa Claus had nothing to do with it.

As for the original story, I think it's pretty damn funny (in a tragic comedy sort of way) that your SIL got mad at you for telling the truth. How dare you obey the lord?

LOL