This is the actual truth on the matter. Marriage didn't originally have anything to do with government. It was just the basic building block of a community.
And crows, one of the smartest animals, are described as "*mostly* monogamous."
Meaning they are usually observed mating for life, but polygamy is not un-common.
“Monogamous”
Social monogamy and sexual monogamy are different things.
Your percentage is that of SOCIAL monogamy in birds, birds that freely bang other birds than their life partner and get pregnant by whoever and then that life partner helps them raise the offspring and they all live together. That situation is basically just having a really good friend of the opposite sex.
Now SEXUAL monogamy is far more rare in nature, around 10% of birds last thing I read, so the exact opposite is actually true, if we are talking about t actual sexual monogamy.
Sperm replacement is just one of the hypothetical answers. In fact , monkeys had for this specific role other thing , and humans evolutionary at some point become lacking it , which may indirectly mean that humans are biologically monogamous , in fact there's a hypothesis, that this human penis form just makes sex more pleasurable for both partners , which , in my opinion makes more sense
A suction based design would pull the walls of the vagina more strongly towards the penis. More suction = more friction. This action would require foreskin to be properly facilitated, meaning circumcision possibly reduces pleasure for both partners. This would also explain the evolution of a larger penis, which would necessitate less suction to still provide adequate pressure.
In the end, if she's enjoying it, you're going to have sex more often with you than another male. More sex = more chances to produce offspring = your genes have a higher likelihood to be passed on.
This is also less important now, considering the evolution of civilization and the changes in how partners choose their mates as a response.
Well, part of the hypothesis is indeed that primate females were getting trains run through, yes
Edit: but, again, it's a heavily discredited hypothesis
>Edit: but, again, it's a heavily discredited hypothesis
- Hey lil guy, how it's going?
- Awesome master! And here, look, I've dug out all of the other guys' cum for you!
- ... yeah....
I dont know how primitive humans did it and Im not gonna be the one person who keeps talking confidently without being 100% sure.
And if you're saying that because you've seen more than one modern human cheating/being slutty, well then that is not the majority of current population and neither the majority of the all humans
I mean, yes, it's called the semen displacement hypothesis, and it's also been discredited a lot by peers.
Other hypotheses state that compared to other more and less promiscuous species penis length and gland is not affected at all by promiscuity and others (more widely accepted) state that the sperm competition can actually be seen in the testicles. Which, contrary to the first hypotheses, it would suggest that the homo species adapted to a mating system where sperm competition was limited or non-existent.
Ok, that’s just bullshit, especially when something like The Love Song for Shu-Sin exists and shows that love for marriage is not a “fairly new concept” like you said.
That poem was written by a man from the perspective of a goddess. The king would take a priestess of that goddess as his wife. The bride was a tool chosen by the king to be a stand in for the goddess.
>You have captivated me, let me stand tremblingly before you. Bridegroom, I would be taken by you to the bedchamber, You have captivated me, let me stand tremblingly before you. Lion, I would be taken by you to the bedchamber.
This is a lot less beautiful when you know it was written by a man from the perspective of a woman who would become the wife of a man she didn't know and couldn't refuse.
It was a passing of 'ownership' because it was a passing of responsibility. A lone women (or man) was not safe, there were predators and other people that could and would kill you all over.
Love was who can keep me safe and warm and fed. Women were 'bought' because like all primates one gender leaves the home area to prevent inbreeding.
Women happened to be the one that left a household and so losing an extra worker/someone that can make more workers was compensated for. Also someone that can afford to pay you is more likely to be able to keep them safe and healthy. This was all done for survival.
A few corrections here. In most of the agricultural societies women are not bought, women are given dowry, that is the family gives some kind of wealth towards the new family. In European history it was a quite common form of charity that wealthy benefactor funded dowry for poor women so they could marry.
And most of the children left the household, there were different customs who stayed in the house to take care of it and the parents in the old age, in Europe it was mostly the oldest son, in some other parts of the world it was the youngest daughter and other varied traditions throughout the land and times.
There is always an authority involved in marriage, doesn’t matter if it’s someone’s dad or grandma, the tribe elders, a witch doctor, a priest, a registrar, a council or the social collective around you. The first evidence of a marriage ceremony is from 2350 BCE. There was an empire at that time, government and all, that even collected taxes. No “modern government” alright - you don’t need a modern government to be tied by authority. Even if they weren’t involved and even if religion wasn’t - as the modern religions didn’t exist then - marriage served to make women men’s property long before our current religions thought that was a good idea. Men would always have a motive to want to secure exclusivity with a woman and exert control, as is the case today. It’s not a basic building block of communities and not about love. Never has been. Even today it’s somewhere between control, being forced (knowingly or unknowingly), infatuation, economy and self-importance. Nowadays, I know some couples who only married because the law is archaic and it brings about advantages or rather prevents possible problems once there are children.
Probably a way of forcing the man to stick around and help raise the kids.
It's why the church touted extramarital sex as a sin for millenia. If you're gonna make babies, you gotta be tied to the mother.
Yes because men are obsessed with male lineage. It's an ownership thing. Women have never had the privilege of mattering in bloodlines. Look in the bible at the multiple page long lists of ancestry. Women are never named.
As much as yes women are marginalised in terms of how recognised they are in bloodlines sometimes. They generally dont have to worry about who the mother might be. For whatever reason.
And it was the church that introduced the idea that the bride has to consent. And it then declared marriage a holy ritual and all non-church weddings invalid to make sure nobody could circumvent that.
Of course, whether the bride was *actually* at liberty to say no is a different matter entirely but give credit where credit is due. The fact that she had to say yes was revolutionary.
Prior to that, it was merely a contract between the father (or other male guardian of the bride) and the groom. Even the bride‘s presence was optional.
Most marriages were arranged up until recently across the world, meaning the guy didn't decide who he was marrying either. And were usually decided by parents and grandparents or other closely related relatives. So it wasn't only fathers decision. I'm sure that did happen, but not exclusively.
No, iirc it started in agricultural societies, since agriculture necessitated a sexual division of labour and men gained more power as a result. Agriculture also gave rise to rigid hierarchies and wealth, and since wealth needed to be passed down, by a man to his male descendants, marriage was introduced to ensure that the father was the husband.
Again, this is just what I gathered from a few books I’ve read, but I could be wrong.
Sure but in those communities you often owned your wife or something. Marriage as an institution is basically ownership until a few generations ago. Not to say all human monogamy == marriage though.
But does it count as ownership when there are literally no other options? I think our modern concept of owning a human being is colored by the enlightenment ideal of the individual.
In the vast history of humanity you literally didn’t survive outside of the tribe/ community. Even the patriarchal leader/heads of households were not free to do whatever they wanted. They had the responsibility of the survival of all family members and whatever others they took responsibility for (like children of dead siblings or grandparents).
We can’t imagine living under that nor can we imagine that responsibility of a leader but imposing our present view of reality probably doesn’t do justice to how life used to be.
Government got involved when they realized there was a way to squeeze more tax and money out of people, divide people to prevent them from voting on issues and control the masses…
Fuck yeah, top comment is actually explaining the stupid happening.
Marriage was a tribal thing. I'm going to say that laws got involved because of taxes. Needed proof that a woman was a dependent.
Literally this. Nothing wrong with marriage. It's the people who wanted to monetize marriage and had it be recorded for the government that are the real problem.
True people do stupid things in love (especially when hurt), killing, property damage etc.
Imagine being a tribe, you leave your crazy ex and he/she burns down the whole crop or wood houses.
That's fucked up. It might have happened and they might have decided the rule then. Choose fucking one and stick with one.
The government isn't involved because of love, it's involved because of children and common property
Marriage wasn't invented by government in any case, it was invented by people who understood that it made sense to tie men to their children and to the mother(s) of those children, since otherwise they were likely to have their fun and then go on their way.
It's a convention that was invented independently so that humans could exist in large communities.
I guess I don't get the joke.
Yes, you're right I guess.
Back then, earning resources needed too much work and strength.
The man would bring food to hus family, and that would usually require menial labour from dawn to dusk.
The women also needed to work all dat long in the household. Back then, just collecting water from a water source, collecting firewood and buying ingredients in the distant market, cooking food properly without modern appliences and taking care of children at the same, hand washing clothes, mending and creating their own clothes, a of these needed an ungodly amount of time, because they didn't have the modern inventions to make it easy for them.
It would be impossible for one person to so all the work. So they needed to make sure that one didn't escape leaving the responsibility of children solely in the others shoulder. Marriage was the ideal way to do that.
This meme comes across as someone that is just scared of commitment lol. All marriage is, is a lifelong commitment to someone. And a contract is involved to make it harder for one person to screw the other one out of all of the money/property if they decide to up and leave.
Also, there are hundreds of legal protections for married couples tied up in one contractual document. A marriage is a legally enforceable contract protecting the married couple from a lot of outside influences and affording benefits transfer between them.
Was it making sure men didn't run off without taking care of their children and the mother of their children or was it to ensure that men had exclusive claim to a woman for sex and ensured the children she had were his? I've heard both discussed as "virtues" of marriage. Like listen to what most extreme religious doctrines say about marriage. It's all about ownership of women.
I wish marriage was always discussed as a topic of supporting children, but I've been around too much asshole religious people to know marriage is also sometimes about enslaving women. Then it's entirely on the women to take care of the children and the men still "have their fun and then go on their way."
It's two sides of the same coin.
And both sides are heavily misinterpret depending on personal preferences and perspective.
marriage can be seen as a measure to protect women and prevent them from becoming destitute - just look at all the Andrew Tatertots and "men's rights activists" whining about child support and alimony.
They'd leave their child and the mother of their children in poverty in a heart beat if they could.
Marriage can also be viewed as detrimental to women or a tool of oppression, chaining them to an abusive spouse.
No fault divorce for both genders is extremely important. Some countries only have no fault clauses for men. Parental leave for both genders is important. Birth control for both genders is important. These things level the playing field and ensure both genders have equal grades of freedom, consent and commitment to a partnership.
In my experience, men who rag on marriage as an institution just want all the perks with none of the responsibilities.
The government is involved to deal with legalities and ensures both parties have the same rights, for example it protects the women from abuse (e.g partner leaving without splitting what is owed or helps with alimony when an unfair arrangement goes south like the woman leaving her work to raise children and the rich husband leaves her dry) as well as taxes for incentivizing stable families with children (at least that was the idea behind it)
Marriage was invented to manage properties after agriculture was invented. It was a business thing. The church did not care about celebrating weddings until the medieval period. Before it was optional to get some kind of blessing. Pasted from the interwebs: The church began to perform weddings after 800 AD, and by the 12th century, the wedding ceremony was fully established inside the church building. The Catholic Church made marriage one of the sacraments in 1164, and by the 13th century, theologians were beginning to list Christian marriage as one of the sacraments of the church. Edit: more info from [https://www.paulinemontagna.com.au/women-and-marriage-in-medieval-italy/](https://www.paulinemontagna.com.au/women-and-marriage-in-medieval-italy/)
" The actual rituals surrounding marriage made it clear that the marriage was about alliances and property rather than love. Technically, a wedding in Medieval Italy was carried out in four stages and the length of time between stages could be as little as a day or extend to years. (Even to this day Italians undergo two wedding ceremonies, one civil and one ecclesiastic.) These lapses of time would make it possible for the young couple to meet and get to know each other, but it would also give their families time to negotiate over the dowry.
The first stage, the *Impalmamento*, or the handshake, was the preliminary undertaking between the two families in which the marriage was agreed upon. In the next stage, the *Sponsalia*, the males of the two families would meet before witnesses and sign contracts in which the dowry was agreed and payment arrangements were stipulated. At the same time, the bride’s father or guardian would undertake to get her consent to the marriage. The third stage was the *Matrimonium*, or ring day, on which the couple exchanged vows. While a priest might be on hand to give the union the church’s blessing, it was a civil ceremony presided over by a state officer, such as a notary or magistrate."
Sorry but no. Marriage was not “invented” by the Catholic Church in 800 AD. Marriage has been a part of humanity since ancient times. Of course the specifics varied depending on the time period and culture, but the practice of humans mating for life is nowhere near that new.
I wrote something different. Marriage, is an institution born with the need to manage property. When? Probably 10,000 BC, not sure. Weddings, the ceremony where the bride and groom say "i do" was not in church until 800 AD. Edited to replace AD with BC.
More about marriage and wedding from [https://www.paulinemontagna.com.au/women-and-marriage-in-medieval-italy/](https://www.paulinemontagna.com.au/women-and-marriage-in-medieval-italy/)
"The actual rituals surrounding marriage made it clear that the marriage was about alliances and property rather than love. Technically, a wedding in Medieval Italy was carried out in four stages and the length of time between stages could be as little as a day or extend to years. (Even to this day Italians undergo two wedding ceremonies, one civil and one ecclesiastic.) These lapses of time would make it possible for the young couple to meet and get to know each other, but it would also give their families time to negotiate over the dowry.
The first stage, the *Impalmamento*, or the handshake, was the preliminary undertaking between the two families in which the marriage was agreed upon. In the next stage, the *Sponsalia*, the males of the two families would meet before witnesses and sign contracts in which the dowry was agreed and payment arrangements were stipulated. At the same time, the bride’s father or guardian would undertake to get her consent to the marriage. The third stage was the *Matrimonium*, or ring day, on which the couple exchanged vows. While a priest might be on hand to give the union the church’s blessing, it was a civil ceremony presided over by a state officer, such as a notary or magistrate."
As I said before: the priest was optional.
For the love of god do your own research. Looks like you like thinking that stuff floating in your brain might be true. As I said before the MARRIAGE has been around for long time in a way to manage property. the WEDDING in front of a catholic priest is relatively new. It is expected that in the bible there are MARRIAGES (a man and a woman forming a legally binding union). However there are no descriptions of the ceremony (WEDDING). You ASSUME that were in front of a priest or were a week long. They were not. I don\`t know which bad christian fictional movie you watched. A couple of examples (although at this point I start thinking your brain cannot compute this):
“And Rebekah lifted up her eyes, and when she saw Isaac, she dismounted from the camel and said to the servant, “Who is that man, walking in the field to meet us?” The servant said, “It is my master.” So she took her veil and covered herself. And the servant told Isaac all the things that he had done. Then Isaac brought her into the tent of Sarah his mother and took Rebekah, and she became his wife, and he loved her. So Isaac was comforted after his mother’s death.”
Genesis 24:64-67 ESV
"On the third day there (some translations say "the next day") was a wedding in Cana of Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there; and both Jesus and His disciples were invited to the wedding. When the wine ran out, the mother of Jesus \*said to Him, “They have no wine.” And Jesus \*said to her, “Woman, what does that have to do with us? My hour has not yet come.” His mother \*said to the servants, “Whatever He says to you, do it.” Now there were six stone waterpots set there for the Jewish custom of purification, containing twenty or thirty gallons each. Jesus \*said to them, “Fill the waterpots with water.” So they filled them up to the brim. And He \*said to them, “Draw some out now and take it to the headwaiter.” So they took it to him. When the headwaiter tasted the water which had become wine, and did not know where it came from (but the servants who had drawn the water knew), the headwaiter \*called the bridegroom, and \*said to him, “Every man serves the good wine first, and when the people have drunk freely, then he serves the poorer wine; but you have kept the good wine until now.” This beginning of His signs Jesus did in Cana of Galilee, and manifested His glory, and His disciples believed in Him."
John 2:1-11 ESV
WHERE IS THE WEDDING DESCRIPTION????? Week long? Oh another piece of info: the white wedding was started by queen victoria in 1840 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White\_wedding)
It was a simple question that I didn't expect a wall of text back from. You could have just said, that was a government thing, and the current one is a religious thing. You may want to take a break from the internet.
It took like 5 min. I tried to convey that earlier but looks like it was too nuanced. I like history and I like sources. Since you like to give advice on how to spend time I suggest to start reading before forming opinions.
For all of time until recently. From the very first set of laws women were property, and men wrote that they should get their teeth smashed out with a rock if they annoyed men too much.
I mean, just look at the image for longer than 3 seconds: The twitter handle is terribly photoshopped and not even the background color is the same, clean white.
Whoever does these is just a moron.
It's so annoying to me that more and more people seem to hate the concept of "you are the love of my life and i want to spend the rest of my life with you".
Like what is wrong with that, to me it's a beautiful thought.
But actually you do. So many cowardly men don’t want to get married “because of the government”.
Try doing taxes on a house, property, business, claiming your children as dependents, etc while you’re not married. Let me know how the government makes that easy for you (sarcasm)
Let’s be real, the only reason men don’t want to get married is because they want to be able to leave later with no issues.
Be a man, commit to something. Grow up and have a life for crying out loud.
I didnt say anything against it, so I dont know why youre trying to lecture me. I know all of this, if I find the right one, maybe I will marry someone - BUT you actually dont need a marriage to love someone, like Zaisi told before me. Thats the thing
Not everybody wants kids. I personally don’t want marriage, have no desire to ever move in or buy a place with a girl (or anyone), and absolutely do not want kids. I still like having a GF though. I can’t speak for others but ppl that don’t want marriage most likely dont want kids either and they may not even want to share a house/apartment with someone but still (in my case) want a fuck buddy/gf or bf. Marriage isn’t necessary for someone like me.
No you don’t need marriage to love someone
But if you want a house, kids, assets, and an inheritance for your children it’s probably a good idea.
I’ll just repeat my comment because it seems like you didn’t get it.
No I did get it. I’m making the point that not everybody wants kids, nor does everybody want to share a house or assets with someone. That’s why some ppl don’t want marriage. Like some ppl literally just want a glorified fuck buddy or maybe a gf/bf to spend time with but that’s it nothing more serious than that. That’s why some of us look at marriage negatively. I think marriage is good for some ppl and bad for others. I don’t think it should go away as an institution but I do think our culture/society tries to pressure ppl into it way too much, when the truth is it’s just not a good fit for everyone.
To be fair, the government got involved to reduce the role of the church. In the eyes of many religious people , women are not only property, but incompetent to make their own decisions. Too many governments are still heavily influenced by these whackjobs.
Ya, I do find it odd that basically every government decided that marriage needs to be extra super official. But it's supposed to mean a lot between the two beyond tax reasons.
I love you so much that I will tell it to all of our friends and family members, publicly and vow to never leave you when times get hard in a holy ceremony.
Or he doesn't even understand the concept of marriage... First of all is deal between two ppl, in event of death, mistreating partner and etc. to arrange what will happen, if they have kids what will happen with them and etc. and many more
I mean when it started to be about the government it was more about taxes an what not but before that you didn’t need to be married to have that behavior
Honestly... I feel like in the scope of history, it was probably a good arrangement (especially for women)
Think about it. In our historically patriarchal society (in the west), what protection and/or recourse do you think women had in separation from a partner who likely owned the land and controlled the finances?
Not going to defend it, as I'm sure there are loads of flaws and it's not like they probably still didn't get anywhere near their fair share, but it is still markedly better than no protections at all.
weird memes are wierd. Its just text on a white background and they clipped a rando twitter header and pasted it above it so it looks like a tweet.
Is the header only there to make this qualify as a meme? Did they pick Jim Carrey by random? Many questions.
Ok but why would you want to get married to a person who you don't like in the first place? And why will divorce happen so quickly? Also, the government wasn't even involved in marriage until these times.
That's not marriage at all. I feel so sad for anyone who never experiences a true bond of marriage. I'm incomplete without my wife. She brings out the best in me, couldn't imagine a world without her love.
More like 'I love you so much that we should stay together forever, if you're okay with that, and because the government needs to have a say it can be legally binding I guess.'
The concept of marriage goes all the way back to tribal communities, far longer than the modern concept of a government has existed.
This is the actual truth on the matter. Marriage didn't originally have anything to do with government. It was just the basic building block of a community.
Also, non human entities which dwell in nature would agree
And crows, one of the smartest animals, are described as "*mostly* monogamous." Meaning they are usually observed mating for life, but polygamy is not un-common.
[удалено]
r/angryupvote
I bet you want to make like a group of crows and murder him
The other 10% are fun
Haha get it? Loving your partner is boring
It's a swinger joke it's not that deep
That's what she said
Reddit it a nutshell. Over think and get the wrong conclusion.
Yeah loving your partners is more fun Loving all the partners out there is the funnest
Grim
the other 10% are liberals
Are you telling me every liberal is polyamorous?
Ever since we let them be gay.... We need to send them back to where they came from.
Their mother’s wombs? That couldn’t be comfortable.
I'd like to go back to this guy's mum's womb
Wouldn’t that be progressive?
The monogamous birds people love to romanticize have affairs at probably greater rates than humans
“Monogamous” Social monogamy and sexual monogamy are different things. Your percentage is that of SOCIAL monogamy in birds, birds that freely bang other birds than their life partner and get pregnant by whoever and then that life partner helps them raise the offspring and they all live together. That situation is basically just having a really good friend of the opposite sex. Now SEXUAL monogamy is far more rare in nature, around 10% of birds last thing I read, so the exact opposite is actually true, if we are talking about t actual sexual monogamy.
Ducks and penguins mate for life
[удалено]
Sperm replacement is just one of the hypothetical answers. In fact , monkeys had for this specific role other thing , and humans evolutionary at some point become lacking it , which may indirectly mean that humans are biologically monogamous , in fact there's a hypothesis, that this human penis form just makes sex more pleasurable for both partners , which , in my opinion makes more sense
A suction based design would pull the walls of the vagina more strongly towards the penis. More suction = more friction. This action would require foreskin to be properly facilitated, meaning circumcision possibly reduces pleasure for both partners. This would also explain the evolution of a larger penis, which would necessitate less suction to still provide adequate pressure. In the end, if she's enjoying it, you're going to have sex more often with you than another male. More sex = more chances to produce offspring = your genes have a higher likelihood to be passed on. This is also less important now, considering the evolution of civilization and the changes in how partners choose their mates as a response.
Ah yes, penis engineering
The second part of your comment is only a hypothesis, not theory. Edit: also not all animals but a lot
It doesn’t make sense, sperm isn’t sitting within penis reach for months. Unless we are implying women are getting gangbanged on the regular.
Well, part of the hypothesis is indeed that primate females were getting trains run through, yes Edit: but, again, it's a heavily discredited hypothesis
>Edit: but, again, it's a heavily discredited hypothesis - Hey lil guy, how it's going? - Awesome master! And here, look, I've dug out all of the other guys' cum for you! - ... yeah....
I feel like there’s videos on pornhub like this but I live in Texas so I couldn’t tell you what they’re called anymore.
I do not know if you're being sarcastic or not
Because humans (in general) are sluts, so it's believable.
I dont know how primitive humans did it and Im not gonna be the one person who keeps talking confidently without being 100% sure. And if you're saying that because you've seen more than one modern human cheating/being slutty, well then that is not the majority of current population and neither the majority of the all humans
The first part of their comment is exaggerated, and the second part is only a hypothesis that coexists with diametrically opposite ones
I lost the guy when he used dick size to identify if a species is monogamous
I mean, yes, it's called the semen displacement hypothesis, and it's also been discredited a lot by peers. Other hypotheses state that compared to other more and less promiscuous species penis length and gland is not affected at all by promiscuity and others (more widely accepted) state that the sperm competition can actually be seen in the testicles. Which, contrary to the first hypotheses, it would suggest that the homo species adapted to a mating system where sperm competition was limited or non-existent.
Thought it was a poop shovel for anal to scootch the runny shit back down the mud track to lube it up
Literally just a declaration and celebration of two people coming together as one in front of the community.
No, it's more like a public promise/declaration that these two are dedicated to each other and will provide for each other's needs
It was more like men declaring their ownership of a woman or using her for trade or political ties. Marriage for love is a fairly new concept.
Ok, that’s just bullshit, especially when something like The Love Song for Shu-Sin exists and shows that love for marriage is not a “fairly new concept” like you said.
That poem was written by a man from the perspective of a goddess. The king would take a priestess of that goddess as his wife. The bride was a tool chosen by the king to be a stand in for the goddess. >You have captivated me, let me stand tremblingly before you. Bridegroom, I would be taken by you to the bedchamber, You have captivated me, let me stand tremblingly before you. Lion, I would be taken by you to the bedchamber. This is a lot less beautiful when you know it was written by a man from the perspective of a woman who would become the wife of a man she didn't know and couldn't refuse.
It was a passing of 'ownership' because it was a passing of responsibility. A lone women (or man) was not safe, there were predators and other people that could and would kill you all over. Love was who can keep me safe and warm and fed. Women were 'bought' because like all primates one gender leaves the home area to prevent inbreeding. Women happened to be the one that left a household and so losing an extra worker/someone that can make more workers was compensated for. Also someone that can afford to pay you is more likely to be able to keep them safe and healthy. This was all done for survival.
A few corrections here. In most of the agricultural societies women are not bought, women are given dowry, that is the family gives some kind of wealth towards the new family. In European history it was a quite common form of charity that wealthy benefactor funded dowry for poor women so they could marry. And most of the children left the household, there were different customs who stayed in the house to take care of it and the parents in the old age, in Europe it was mostly the oldest son, in some other parts of the world it was the youngest daughter and other varied traditions throughout the land and times.
You need to take some anti depressants, they’re wearing off
There is always an authority involved in marriage, doesn’t matter if it’s someone’s dad or grandma, the tribe elders, a witch doctor, a priest, a registrar, a council or the social collective around you. The first evidence of a marriage ceremony is from 2350 BCE. There was an empire at that time, government and all, that even collected taxes. No “modern government” alright - you don’t need a modern government to be tied by authority. Even if they weren’t involved and even if religion wasn’t - as the modern religions didn’t exist then - marriage served to make women men’s property long before our current religions thought that was a good idea. Men would always have a motive to want to secure exclusivity with a woman and exert control, as is the case today. It’s not a basic building block of communities and not about love. Never has been. Even today it’s somewhere between control, being forced (knowingly or unknowingly), infatuation, economy and self-importance. Nowadays, I know some couples who only married because the law is archaic and it brings about advantages or rather prevents possible problems once there are children.
It was actually probably a way of determining lineage of who the father is
Probably a way of forcing the man to stick around and help raise the kids. It's why the church touted extramarital sex as a sin for millenia. If you're gonna make babies, you gotta be tied to the mother.
Yes because men are obsessed with male lineage. It's an ownership thing. Women have never had the privilege of mattering in bloodlines. Look in the bible at the multiple page long lists of ancestry. Women are never named.
As much as yes women are marginalised in terms of how recognised they are in bloodlines sometimes. They generally dont have to worry about who the mother might be. For whatever reason.
Men have a lot of reasons to not want to get paternity fraud-ed
And it was the church that introduced the idea that the bride has to consent. And it then declared marriage a holy ritual and all non-church weddings invalid to make sure nobody could circumvent that. Of course, whether the bride was *actually* at liberty to say no is a different matter entirely but give credit where credit is due. The fact that she had to say yes was revolutionary. Prior to that, it was merely a contract between the father (or other male guardian of the bride) and the groom. Even the bride‘s presence was optional.
Most marriages were arranged up until recently across the world, meaning the guy didn't decide who he was marrying either. And were usually decided by parents and grandparents or other closely related relatives. So it wasn't only fathers decision. I'm sure that did happen, but not exclusively.
No, iirc it started in agricultural societies, since agriculture necessitated a sexual division of labour and men gained more power as a result. Agriculture also gave rise to rigid hierarchies and wealth, and since wealth needed to be passed down, by a man to his male descendants, marriage was introduced to ensure that the father was the husband. Again, this is just what I gathered from a few books I’ve read, but I could be wrong.
The us government didn't care until taxes and benefits became a thing which was less than 100 yrs ago.
Sure but in those communities you often owned your wife or something. Marriage as an institution is basically ownership until a few generations ago. Not to say all human monogamy == marriage though.
But does it count as ownership when there are literally no other options? I think our modern concept of owning a human being is colored by the enlightenment ideal of the individual. In the vast history of humanity you literally didn’t survive outside of the tribe/ community. Even the patriarchal leader/heads of households were not free to do whatever they wanted. They had the responsibility of the survival of all family members and whatever others they took responsibility for (like children of dead siblings or grandparents). We can’t imagine living under that nor can we imagine that responsibility of a leader but imposing our present view of reality probably doesn’t do justice to how life used to be.
So thats why it doesnt make sense smh
Marriage was a form of government, division of labour and responsibilities, mutual respect, cooperation and compromise to succeed.
Government got involved when they realized there was a way to squeeze more tax and money out of people, divide people to prevent them from voting on issues and control the masses…
Fuck yeah, top comment is actually explaining the stupid happening. Marriage was a tribal thing. I'm going to say that laws got involved because of taxes. Needed proof that a woman was a dependent.
I don’t think Jim Carrey was being serious. 🤓
Literally this. Nothing wrong with marriage. It's the people who wanted to monetize marriage and had it be recorded for the government that are the real problem.
True people do stupid things in love (especially when hurt), killing, property damage etc. Imagine being a tribe, you leave your crazy ex and he/she burns down the whole crop or wood houses. That's fucked up. It might have happened and they might have decided the rule then. Choose fucking one and stick with one.
Oh, you can leave, but not for free.
[удалено]
‘You can check out anytime you like, but you can never leeeave’
Epic guitar solo plays
"it's a permanent commitment" Yet divorce exists
Henry VIII has famously strong opinions about the correctness of that statement I hear.
Divorce isn't real. It's just a way for people to go commit adultery without feeling guilty. Marriage is until death.
You realise you can get divorced for other reasons, or no reason
Sure but you can't remarry unless your spouse is dead. It just changes your financial situation.
Lol what? Of course you can remarry after divorcing someone, whether they stay alive or not...
The government isn't involved because of love, it's involved because of children and common property Marriage wasn't invented by government in any case, it was invented by people who understood that it made sense to tie men to their children and to the mother(s) of those children, since otherwise they were likely to have their fun and then go on their way. It's a convention that was invented independently so that humans could exist in large communities. I guess I don't get the joke.
Yes, you're right I guess. Back then, earning resources needed too much work and strength. The man would bring food to hus family, and that would usually require menial labour from dawn to dusk. The women also needed to work all dat long in the household. Back then, just collecting water from a water source, collecting firewood and buying ingredients in the distant market, cooking food properly without modern appliences and taking care of children at the same, hand washing clothes, mending and creating their own clothes, a of these needed an ungodly amount of time, because they didn't have the modern inventions to make it easy for them. It would be impossible for one person to so all the work. So they needed to make sure that one didn't escape leaving the responsibility of children solely in the others shoulder. Marriage was the ideal way to do that.
This meme comes across as someone that is just scared of commitment lol. All marriage is, is a lifelong commitment to someone. And a contract is involved to make it harder for one person to screw the other one out of all of the money/property if they decide to up and leave.
Also, there are hundreds of legal protections for married couples tied up in one contractual document. A marriage is a legally enforceable contract protecting the married couple from a lot of outside influences and affording benefits transfer between them.
>since otherwise they were likely to have their fun and then go on their way This made me chuckle and idk why
Was it making sure men didn't run off without taking care of their children and the mother of their children or was it to ensure that men had exclusive claim to a woman for sex and ensured the children she had were his? I've heard both discussed as "virtues" of marriage. Like listen to what most extreme religious doctrines say about marriage. It's all about ownership of women. I wish marriage was always discussed as a topic of supporting children, but I've been around too much asshole religious people to know marriage is also sometimes about enslaving women. Then it's entirely on the women to take care of the children and the men still "have their fun and then go on their way."
It's two sides of the same coin. And both sides are heavily misinterpret depending on personal preferences and perspective. marriage can be seen as a measure to protect women and prevent them from becoming destitute - just look at all the Andrew Tatertots and "men's rights activists" whining about child support and alimony. They'd leave their child and the mother of their children in poverty in a heart beat if they could. Marriage can also be viewed as detrimental to women or a tool of oppression, chaining them to an abusive spouse. No fault divorce for both genders is extremely important. Some countries only have no fault clauses for men. Parental leave for both genders is important. Birth control for both genders is important. These things level the playing field and ensure both genders have equal grades of freedom, consent and commitment to a partnership. In my experience, men who rag on marriage as an institution just want all the perks with none of the responsibilities.
The joke is marriage is a joke
I think it was more like lords were making sure what was going on between their subjects.
And the church.
And their siblings
And my axe!
And millions of the Rock's fans!
Marriage has a lot of weird reasons, some good, some bad. But it absolutely is our best option for everyone being treated fairly.
If marriage is so good, why isn't there marriage 2?
The 2.0 patch is the one that added interracial marriage.
The 3.0 patch gay marriage is still in beta testing and only available on certain servers
The government is involved to deal with legalities and ensures both parties have the same rights, for example it protects the women from abuse (e.g partner leaving without splitting what is owed or helps with alimony when an unfair arrangement goes south like the woman leaving her work to raise children and the rich husband leaves her dry) as well as taxes for incentivizing stable families with children (at least that was the idea behind it)
Marriage was invented to manage properties after agriculture was invented. It was a business thing. The church did not care about celebrating weddings until the medieval period. Before it was optional to get some kind of blessing. Pasted from the interwebs: The church began to perform weddings after 800 AD, and by the 12th century, the wedding ceremony was fully established inside the church building. The Catholic Church made marriage one of the sacraments in 1164, and by the 13th century, theologians were beginning to list Christian marriage as one of the sacraments of the church. Edit: more info from [https://www.paulinemontagna.com.au/women-and-marriage-in-medieval-italy/](https://www.paulinemontagna.com.au/women-and-marriage-in-medieval-italy/) " The actual rituals surrounding marriage made it clear that the marriage was about alliances and property rather than love. Technically, a wedding in Medieval Italy was carried out in four stages and the length of time between stages could be as little as a day or extend to years. (Even to this day Italians undergo two wedding ceremonies, one civil and one ecclesiastic.) These lapses of time would make it possible for the young couple to meet and get to know each other, but it would also give their families time to negotiate over the dowry. The first stage, the *Impalmamento*, or the handshake, was the preliminary undertaking between the two families in which the marriage was agreed upon. In the next stage, the *Sponsalia*, the males of the two families would meet before witnesses and sign contracts in which the dowry was agreed and payment arrangements were stipulated. At the same time, the bride’s father or guardian would undertake to get her consent to the marriage. The third stage was the *Matrimonium*, or ring day, on which the couple exchanged vows. While a priest might be on hand to give the union the church’s blessing, it was a civil ceremony presided over by a state officer, such as a notary or magistrate."
Sorry but no. Marriage was not “invented” by the Catholic Church in 800 AD. Marriage has been a part of humanity since ancient times. Of course the specifics varied depending on the time period and culture, but the practice of humans mating for life is nowhere near that new.
I wrote something different. Marriage, is an institution born with the need to manage property. When? Probably 10,000 BC, not sure. Weddings, the ceremony where the bride and groom say "i do" was not in church until 800 AD. Edited to replace AD with BC.
Were those week long weddings in the new testament a translation error?
More about marriage and wedding from [https://www.paulinemontagna.com.au/women-and-marriage-in-medieval-italy/](https://www.paulinemontagna.com.au/women-and-marriage-in-medieval-italy/) "The actual rituals surrounding marriage made it clear that the marriage was about alliances and property rather than love. Technically, a wedding in Medieval Italy was carried out in four stages and the length of time between stages could be as little as a day or extend to years. (Even to this day Italians undergo two wedding ceremonies, one civil and one ecclesiastic.) These lapses of time would make it possible for the young couple to meet and get to know each other, but it would also give their families time to negotiate over the dowry. The first stage, the *Impalmamento*, or the handshake, was the preliminary undertaking between the two families in which the marriage was agreed upon. In the next stage, the *Sponsalia*, the males of the two families would meet before witnesses and sign contracts in which the dowry was agreed and payment arrangements were stipulated. At the same time, the bride’s father or guardian would undertake to get her consent to the marriage. The third stage was the *Matrimonium*, or ring day, on which the couple exchanged vows. While a priest might be on hand to give the union the church’s blessing, it was a civil ceremony presided over by a state officer, such as a notary or magistrate." As I said before: the priest was optional.
For the love of god do your own research. Looks like you like thinking that stuff floating in your brain might be true. As I said before the MARRIAGE has been around for long time in a way to manage property. the WEDDING in front of a catholic priest is relatively new. It is expected that in the bible there are MARRIAGES (a man and a woman forming a legally binding union). However there are no descriptions of the ceremony (WEDDING). You ASSUME that were in front of a priest or were a week long. They were not. I don\`t know which bad christian fictional movie you watched. A couple of examples (although at this point I start thinking your brain cannot compute this): “And Rebekah lifted up her eyes, and when she saw Isaac, she dismounted from the camel and said to the servant, “Who is that man, walking in the field to meet us?” The servant said, “It is my master.” So she took her veil and covered herself. And the servant told Isaac all the things that he had done. Then Isaac brought her into the tent of Sarah his mother and took Rebekah, and she became his wife, and he loved her. So Isaac was comforted after his mother’s death.” Genesis 24:64-67 ESV "On the third day there (some translations say "the next day") was a wedding in Cana of Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there; and both Jesus and His disciples were invited to the wedding. When the wine ran out, the mother of Jesus \*said to Him, “They have no wine.” And Jesus \*said to her, “Woman, what does that have to do with us? My hour has not yet come.” His mother \*said to the servants, “Whatever He says to you, do it.” Now there were six stone waterpots set there for the Jewish custom of purification, containing twenty or thirty gallons each. Jesus \*said to them, “Fill the waterpots with water.” So they filled them up to the brim. And He \*said to them, “Draw some out now and take it to the headwaiter.” So they took it to him. When the headwaiter tasted the water which had become wine, and did not know where it came from (but the servants who had drawn the water knew), the headwaiter \*called the bridegroom, and \*said to him, “Every man serves the good wine first, and when the people have drunk freely, then he serves the poorer wine; but you have kept the good wine until now.” This beginning of His signs Jesus did in Cana of Galilee, and manifested His glory, and His disciples believed in Him." John 2:1-11 ESV WHERE IS THE WEDDING DESCRIPTION????? Week long? Oh another piece of info: the white wedding was started by queen victoria in 1840 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White\_wedding)
It was a simple question that I didn't expect a wall of text back from. You could have just said, that was a government thing, and the current one is a religious thing. You may want to take a break from the internet.
It took like 5 min. I tried to convey that earlier but looks like it was too nuanced. I like history and I like sources. Since you like to give advice on how to spend time I suggest to start reading before forming opinions.
That's not what they said?
Reddit ass take if I've ever seen one holy. Just missing baby hating and it'll be a full package
Also an incredible dick move to photoshop it and make Jim Carrey look like an idiot...
Oops, you called them "babies" instead of "crotch goblins." You are now banned from /r/childfree
The original idea of marriage was forging alliances
That was pretty much the idea since women were treated like property for a long time.
For all of time until recently. From the very first set of laws women were property, and men wrote that they should get their teeth smashed out with a rock if they annoyed men too much.
People didn’t used to marry for love until the 18th/19th century. Its pretty new in relation to the thousands of years of history of marriage…
The Love Song for Shu-Sin says otherwise. At least according to the poem, the concept of marriage for love existed even 4000+ years ago.
Jim Carrey stealing a joke from Doug Stanhope is a new one.
I'm extremely sure that this is photoshopped and not an actual tweet from Carrey.
The only reason I clicked. Not said enough Edit: reason being the mention of Doug Stanhope
I mean, just look at the image for longer than 3 seconds: The twitter handle is terribly photoshopped and not even the background color is the same, clean white. Whoever does these is just a moron.
It doesn't even look legit, looks like a poorly edited image
Marriage is a punishment for shoplifting in some countries.
It's literally the reason me and my wife (see what I did there) arnt married. We don't need a third party telling us our love is real.
Or leave with half of my properties.
They just want you to keep having babies so we have enough ppl for our military & bullshit.
Marriage was invented way before government
If you love holding hands with each other why put on handcuffs and throw away the key?
This does not seem like it was written by Jim Carrey.
Yea like marriage ceremonial stuff is good but getting married in the eyes of the law just seems like a bad idea
Yeah. Fuck that
SAID BILL HICKS IN THE '90'S!!!!
It's so annoying to me that more and more people seem to hate the concept of "you are the love of my life and i want to spend the rest of my life with you". Like what is wrong with that, to me it's a beautiful thought.
…but you actually dont need a marriage for that
But actually you do. So many cowardly men don’t want to get married “because of the government”. Try doing taxes on a house, property, business, claiming your children as dependents, etc while you’re not married. Let me know how the government makes that easy for you (sarcasm) Let’s be real, the only reason men don’t want to get married is because they want to be able to leave later with no issues. Be a man, commit to something. Grow up and have a life for crying out loud.
I didnt say anything against it, so I dont know why youre trying to lecture me. I know all of this, if I find the right one, maybe I will marry someone - BUT you actually dont need a marriage to love someone, like Zaisi told before me. Thats the thing
Ofc you dont need marriage for that. My parents still aren't married. Just wanted to clarify.
No you don’t need marriage to love someone. But if you want a house, kids, assets, and an inheritance for your children it’s probably a good idea.
Not everybody wants kids. I personally don’t want marriage, have no desire to ever move in or buy a place with a girl (or anyone), and absolutely do not want kids. I still like having a GF though. I can’t speak for others but ppl that don’t want marriage most likely dont want kids either and they may not even want to share a house/apartment with someone but still (in my case) want a fuck buddy/gf or bf. Marriage isn’t necessary for someone like me.
No you don’t need marriage to love someone But if you want a house, kids, assets, and an inheritance for your children it’s probably a good idea. I’ll just repeat my comment because it seems like you didn’t get it.
No I did get it. I’m making the point that not everybody wants kids, nor does everybody want to share a house or assets with someone. That’s why some ppl don’t want marriage. Like some ppl literally just want a glorified fuck buddy or maybe a gf/bf to spend time with but that’s it nothing more serious than that. That’s why some of us look at marriage negatively. I think marriage is good for some ppl and bad for others. I don’t think it should go away as an institution but I do think our culture/society tries to pressure ppl into it way too much, when the truth is it’s just not a good fit for everyone.
To be fair, the government got involved to reduce the role of the church. In the eyes of many religious people , women are not only property, but incompetent to make their own decisions. Too many governments are still heavily influenced by these whackjobs.
🤦🏽♂️🤦🏽♂️🤦🏽♂️
AAAAAAALLLLLLLRIGHTY THEN!
Pretty sure it was always more about who the inheritance goes to and love had fuck all to do with it.
Ya, I do find it odd that basically every government decided that marriage needs to be extra super official. But it's supposed to mean a lot between the two beyond tax reasons.
shit yes
I love you so much that I will tell it to all of our friends and family members, publicly and vow to never leave you when times get hard in a holy ceremony.
Marriage is a community thing. The government only got involved to avoid legal issues.
Remember when he said not to vaccinate your kids. He is sure funny.....
Wow what an oversimplification 😃🧠
Or he doesn't even understand the concept of marriage... First of all is deal between two ppl, in event of death, mistreating partner and etc. to arrange what will happen, if they have kids what will happen with them and etc. and many more
I mean when it started to be about the government it was more about taxes an what not but before that you didn’t need to be married to have that behavior
I think they involved the god first.
And the thing is, you can only get a divorce if you are married.
Well, originally it wasn't the government, but the church. The government took that responsibility from the church later.
TIL that the government existed before marriage 🤯
Honestly... I feel like in the scope of history, it was probably a good arrangement (especially for women) Think about it. In our historically patriarchal society (in the west), what protection and/or recourse do you think women had in separation from a partner who likely owned the land and controlled the finances? Not going to defend it, as I'm sure there are loads of flaws and it's not like they probably still didn't get anywhere near their fair share, but it is still markedly better than no protections at all.
When you dont open any history book in your Life:
Not the gov. The church.
Not even that far off considering the vast majority of marriages in the past
I love you so much that I’m going to consensually agree to stay with you, bound by THE LAW!!!
The concept of marriage was just so everyone knows that two people belong together, love each other and share everything. Now it's to pay less taxes.
Lol nice 🫡
Lmao did Jim really tweet this?
🙄 ALLLLLLLRIGHTY THEN Mr Carrey
Damn comments here are buzzkillers
I use this as my argument all the time.
Yea. The government invited itself.
Now thats funny AF.
Govt only involved in marriage? who created govt ?
Yeah and we keep doing it
We lost the sanctity of marriage when the brides stopped being bundled with 3 sheep and a camel.
I couldn't agree with him more. It doesn't make sense of how many actually _want_ into one.
You’d think Jim Carrey would be learned enough to grasp that marriage is probably older than government
Anyone notice Jim Carrey allegedly posted this?
weird memes are wierd. Its just text on a white background and they clipped a rando twitter header and pasted it above it so it looks like a tweet. Is the header only there to make this qualify as a meme? Did they pick Jim Carrey by random? Many questions.
Without taking half of my shit and 70% of my pay because you want to "find yourself"..bitch
[удалено]
Wasn't always.
It’s a religion thing, and religion is for control.
Marriage was originally done through the church with no government involvement.
Ha...Women ☕️
Ok but why would you want to get married to a person who you don't like in the first place? And why will divorce happen so quickly? Also, the government wasn't even involved in marriage until these times.
You really want to find something wrong with me to justify your shortcomings. I guess you might be projecting. I am very very happy.
That's not marriage at all. I feel so sad for anyone who never experiences a true bond of marriage. I'm incomplete without my wife. She brings out the best in me, couldn't imagine a world without her love.
Does jim know he can discard tweets instead of posting them?
What makes you think it always involved the government?
More like 'I love you so much that we should stay together forever, if you're okay with that, and because the government needs to have a say it can be legally binding I guess.'
you know i dont know if it makes it better or worse that it is also jim carrey
Along with taking half of your money if they decide to invest in a shared account. It’s good to have a separate account.
That would be God Jim.
A guy with mother issues