4 ms·

The major religions have had traditions around marriage since antiquity. Arguably it exists today in the form that it does because of religion. Outside of relig

by proc0 3y ago

The major religions have had traditions around marriage since antiquity. Arguably it exists today in the form that it does because of religion. Outside of religion, marriage has no real meaning, and to the extent that it is promoted by government, it is a fragment of how everyone had a religion up until the 20th century. This is probably the best case against gay marriage, because it could easily just be about civil union that is acknowledged by the government and granted the same benefits, without needing to call it marriage, which should be the matter for each religion to decide.

skywhopper 3y ago
Sounds like the only objection you have here is calling it “marriage”. But why is that the line you choose to draw?
- proc0 3y ago
  Changing language causes changes in culture, which may have catastrophic consequences at the civilization level. Personally, I think this is were the wisdom of thousands of previous generations have converged on religious practices and beliefs, which we are dismantling at our own risk. We are already seeing reports of population replacement problems across the developed world, which are also increasingly secular. At a personal level, I have zero pressure from society to reproduce and I suspect this is the case for millions, and because the problem spans across generations, it becomes invisible to people who are currently alive. This is what religion addresses that science may be incapable of. Now in post-modernity, we are embracing this miopic perspective at the risk of our civilization. Maybe 200 years from now the world will be 100% Muslim, and the Enlightenment will need to re-emerge, only to restart this cycle once again.
kibwen 3y ago
> Outside of religion, marriage has no real meaning, and to the extent that it is promoted by government, it is a fragment of how everyone had a religion up until the 20th century. I think this is making too much of a distinction between religion and government. For most of human history, most humans were not privy to clearly-defined centralized institutions (like our modern state bureaucracies). Religious traditions were decentralized emergent phenomena that codified ways of perpetuating a functioning society in a low-trust, low-organization environments. As far as marriage specifically goes, it evolved as a practice in order to make the process of material inheritance simple, nonviolent, and easy for anyone to execute. This is where the notion of "legitimate" children comes from: legitimate in the sense of being eligible for inheritance, specifically because your parents were married. When strong centralized states started emerging, they codified this practice and built new structures on top of it.
kjksf 3y ago
[flagged]
- proc0 3y ago
  ChatGPT is wrong a lot. I love AI, but it still in its early stages. Also, I think we're going back even before the time of all of the current major religions. During those times religion was different, and the line between religion, culture and government were much blurrier. Romans would definitely have religious beliefs, but probably didn't see it as a separate institution. So I would be surprised if the marriage rituals of the Romans were completely empty of any religious symbolism or traditions. Same with Greeks and Babylon. Religion was much more embedded in the identity of every individual, as being secular is a relatively new "option" in society.
  - orwin 3y ago
    According to Peter Berresford Ellis, for Celts, marriages were a legal agreement before being even an economic one, and wasn't supervised by any gods. Multiple marriage type existed, depending on who brought most to the house, whose house was used for the union... Marriage weren't all monogamous, it us unclear what kind of relationship it brought, but it's very clear that it wasn't a religious affair,but a legal one. Romans and Greeks probably had rite concerning the marriage in city state and big cities, but the majority of Roman estates did not have priests.
    - proc0 3y ago
      I would question the line between government, society, and religion back in that time. I don't think people were secular, with myths and superstitions being an integral part of how people lived (no source here, but I'm pretty sure secular societies are fairly new). It wouldn't be much different than how people today might not be going to church every Sunday but they still get married in a church with a priest. Maybe there weren't priests but people might had certain beliefs and myths associated with marriage that drove their incentive to carry out the ritual. Without these shared beliefs, it's hard to for me to imagine people just got married because they were consciously trying to increase the population.
dkjaudyeqooe 3y ago
Attachment and partnership between human individuals presdates everything, it's a biological imperative. Many animals mate for life or long term. It has nothing to do with religion. Religion is a social construct which has co-opted various parts of life, not the other way around. It has no right to dictate to society what is allowable, only government has that right, given to it by the people themselves. Marriage is a legal agreement that gives the parties certain rights and responsibilities that single people do not have. Historically governments have discriminated against homosexuals just like they've discriminated against other minorities. Discrimination is wrong. That religion promotes discrimination doesn't excuse it. Some people think homosecuallity isn't acceptable, but it's something that occurs naturally in various species, including humans.
- proc0 3y ago
  > It has no right to dictate to society what is allowable, only government has that right, given to it by the people themselves. Arguably religion came before government, with early governments blurring that line. If so, then religion was the first to formalize reproductive union for the purpose of growing your group's population. I think early humans probably discriminated against sexual activities that didn't promote reproduction and building a family because there weren't that many people back then, so not reproducing could mean the end of your civilization.

by proc0 3y ago

skywhopper 3y ago

Sounds like the only objection you have here is calling it “marriage”. But why is that the line you choose to draw?

proc0 3y ago
Changing language causes changes in culture, which may have catastrophic consequences at the civilization level. Personally, I think this is were the wisdom of thousands of previous generations have converged on religious practices and beliefs, which we are dismantling at our own risk. We are already seeing reports of population replacement problems across the developed world, which are also increasingly secular. At a personal level, I have zero pressure from society to reproduce and I suspect this is the case for millions, and because the problem spans across generations, it becomes invisible to people who are currently alive. This is what religion addresses that science may be incapable of. Now in post-modernity, we are embracing this miopic perspective at the risk of our civilization. Maybe 200 years from now the world will be 100% Muslim, and the Enlightenment will need to re-emerge, only to restart this cycle once again.

kibwen 3y ago

> Outside of religion, marriage has no real meaning, and to the extent that it is promoted by government, it is a fragment of how everyone had a religion up until the 20th century. I think this is making too much of a distinction between religion and government. For most of human history, most humans were not privy to clearly-defined centralized institutions (like our modern state bureaucracies). Religious traditions were decentralized emergent phenomena that codified ways of perpetuating a functioning society in a low-trust, low-organization environments. As far as marriage specifically goes, it evolved as a practice in order to make the process of material inheritance simple, nonviolent, and easy for anyone to execute. This is where the notion of "legitimate" children comes from: legitimate in the sense of being eligible for inheritance, specifically because your parents were married. When strong centralized states started emerging, they codified this practice and built new structures on top of it.

kjksf 3y ago

[flagged]

proc0 3y ago
ChatGPT is wrong a lot. I love AI, but it still in its early stages. Also, I think we're going back even before the time of all of the current major religions. During those times religion was different, and the line between religion, culture and government were much blurrier. Romans would definitely have religious beliefs, but probably didn't see it as a separate institution. So I would be surprised if the marriage rituals of the Romans were completely empty of any religious symbolism or traditions. Same with Greeks and Babylon. Religion was much more embedded in the identity of every individual, as being secular is a relatively new "option" in society.
- orwin 3y ago
  According to Peter Berresford Ellis, for Celts, marriages were a legal agreement before being even an economic one, and wasn't supervised by any gods. Multiple marriage type existed, depending on who brought most to the house, whose house was used for the union... Marriage weren't all monogamous, it us unclear what kind of relationship it brought, but it's very clear that it wasn't a religious affair,but a legal one. Romans and Greeks probably had rite concerning the marriage in city state and big cities, but the majority of Roman estates did not have priests.
  - proc0 3y ago
    I would question the line between government, society, and religion back in that time. I don't think people were secular, with myths and superstitions being an integral part of how people lived (no source here, but I'm pretty sure secular societies are fairly new). It wouldn't be much different than how people today might not be going to church every Sunday but they still get married in a church with a priest. Maybe there weren't priests but people might had certain beliefs and myths associated with marriage that drove their incentive to carry out the ritual. Without these shared beliefs, it's hard to for me to imagine people just got married because they were consciously trying to increase the population.

dkjaudyeqooe 3y ago

Attachment and partnership between human individuals presdates everything, it's a biological imperative. Many animals mate for life or long term. It has nothing to do with religion. Religion is a social construct which has co-opted various parts of life, not the other way around. It has no right to dictate to society what is allowable, only government has that right, given to it by the people themselves. Marriage is a legal agreement that gives the parties certain rights and responsibilities that single people do not have. Historically governments have discriminated against homosexuals just like they've discriminated against other minorities. Discrimination is wrong. That religion promotes discrimination doesn't excuse it. Some people think homosecuallity isn't acceptable, but it's something that occurs naturally in various species, including humans.

proc0 3y ago
> It has no right to dictate to society what is allowable, only government has that right, given to it by the people themselves. Arguably religion came before government, with early governments blurring that line. If so, then religion was the first to formalize reproductive union for the purpose of growing your group's population. I think early humans probably discriminated against sexual activities that didn't promote reproduction and building a family because there weren't that many people back then, so not reproducing could mean the end of your civilization.