Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: EveningStar
Our modern view of marriage — one that has generally predominated in Western societies over the past 200 years — is the outlier. Historically, marriage has been about finding good in-laws and securing economic advantage. And marrying for love is a thoroughly modern invention ...

But it has always been between a man and a woman.

The article is claptrap.

5 posted on 05/13/2015 10:51:16 AM PDT by MortMan (All those in favor of gun control raise both hands!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: MortMan

It’s a bad headline.


9 posted on 05/13/2015 10:54:45 AM PDT by EveningStar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]

To: MortMan

Actually, there were long stretches of history in many places where marriage was not between a man: polygamy among the Jews, evidenced in the accounts of the patriarchs in the Old Testament (Jacob had two wives as did Lamech), was not abolished until the middle ages under pressure to conform to the Christian legal norm, then, of course, there is Islam which keeps up the Near Eastern custom of polygamy, places where Buddhists have practiced both polygyny and polyandry (different places), the Hindi record that in Vedic times polygamy was common (though Hindus are now monogamous), claims the Celtic pagans practiced polyandry, and a folk custom of polyandry in the Himalayas in which brothers share a wife.

Of course, except for oddities like Nero who “married” a eunuch and was mocked as a degenerate for it by his fellow pagans, it was always men marrying women, and involved a single spouse of one sex or the other.


24 posted on 05/13/2015 11:04:22 AM PDT by The_Reader_David (And when they behead your own people in the wars which are to come, then you will know...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]

To: MortMan

Let’s see... Adam, Eve, and... well, no one else.


35 posted on 05/13/2015 11:12:04 AM PDT by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter admits whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]

To: MortMan

No “modern invention” to it.

What IS “modern” is that marriage has been separated from the function of procreating and raising children. And it is not even a NEW “modern” take on marriage. The Romans of the Imperial Age were well into the various forms of “non-traditional marriage” arrangements, all without the benefit of divine blessing. It was not uncommon for, say, a patrician Roman to marry his horse, or take multiple wives, or even an exclusive homosexual relationship. For the lower levels of society, trying to emulate these fanciful versions of “marriage” was just too expensive and rarely indulged in.

The pagan tribes within the Roman Empire, as a matter of course, did pair off as man and woman, as this was the most efficient economic unit that could be formed below the clan and tribal level. Had just about nothing to do with “divine” or “moral” standards. Or even “love”, for that matter.


42 posted on 05/13/2015 11:17:25 AM PDT by alloysteel ("Before I refuse to take your questions, I have an opening statement..." Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]

To: MortMan

I actually read the whole article on Cato’s web site. There were exceptions to the rule, but you are largely correct.


72 posted on 07/24/2015 7:19:44 PM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks (Cancer-free since 1988! US out of UN! UN out of US!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson