UBB.classicTM 6.5.0
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
, it's the attachments and entanglements that cause all the grief when things unravel, not the mere existence of a license = legal ligature.
quote:I expected it to be Messrs. Sue, Grabbit & Runne.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
When I clicked on the link I expected to find that the lawyer behind the article is Lionel Hutz.
quote:That, or they don't expect to have the level of emotional attachment to their partner that the partner playing away or ending the lease would matter very much to them.
Originally posted by Enoch:
Am I being cynical, old fashioned and prejudiced in suspecting that all those who advocate 'open' marriage, 'polyamorous relationships' and 'leasehold' or 'fixed term' marriages have one thing in common. They assume they will be the one that can leave or play away. Their partner will be faithful and put up with it for the sake of the honour of being linked to their so desirable selves?
quote:Based on the polyamorous folks I know, the answer is... sometimes. I know a long term polyamorous couple, both female, one transgendered, and they've been sharing a house for close to 10 years, both of them having other long term lovers but never breaking up themselves. It's way outside what I would consider right from a personal, moral standpoint, but no obvious harm seems to arise from their relationships. Others I've known have used polyamory effectively as an excuse to sleep with someone else while emotionally bullying their long term partner into accepting it. That particular gentleman is what one might call a bounder and a cad. The eventual break-up was not pretty. Polyamory has the potential to be a mess worse than anything monogamy or celibacy can manage, and is a lot harder to get right, but for a small number of people it does seem to work. Unless I can see demonstrable harm or people ask for my opinion I'm not going to pass judgement on other people's relationships.
Originally posted by Enoch:
Am I being cynical, old fashioned and prejudiced in suspecting that all those who advocate 'open' marriage, 'polyamorous relationships' and 'leasehold' or 'fixed term' marriages have one thing in common. They assume they will be the one that can leave or play away. Their partner will be faithful and put up with it for the sake of the honour of being linked to their so desirable selves?
quote:Is there evidence for this? It doesn't seem consistent with the Early Church's admiration for virginity and general suspicion of concupiscence in any shape or form.
Originally posted by leo:
It also happened in Christian circles before marriage was declared to be 'a sacrament'. ....
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:Is there evidence for this? It doesn't seem consistent with the Early Church's admiration for virginity and general suspicion of concupiscence in any shape or form.
Originally posted by leo:
It also happened in Christian circles before marriage was declared to be 'a sacrament'. ....
quote:Adrian Thatcher
The importance of the distinction between betrothal and marriage, and the transition from one to the other, cannot be overestimated. The distinction continued until well after the Reformation (A. Macfarlane, Marriage and Love in England). Up to the 16th century, the spousal or spousals "probably constituted the main part of the contract." Children born to couples conceived during betrothal would be regarded as legitimate, provided they married. According to Macfarlane, "it was really only in the middle of the 16th century that the betrothal, which constituted the 'real' marriage, was joined to the nuptials or celebration of that marriage. Consequently, during the Middle Ages and up to the 18th century it was widely held that sexual cohabitation was permitted after the betrothal." In France sexual relations regularly began with betrothal, at least until the 16th century when the post-Tridentine church moved against it (see J. Rémy, The Family in Crisis or in Transition: A Sociological and Theological Perspective). In Britain, "Until far down into the 18th century the engaged lovers before the nuptials were held to be legally husband and wife. It was common for them to begin living together immediately after the betrothal ceremony" (Macfarlane). According to the social historian John Gillis, "Although the church officially frowned on couples taking themselves as 'man and wife' before it had ratified their vows, it had to acknowledge that vows 'done rite' were the equivalent of a church wedding" (For Better, For Worse: British Marriages, 1600 to the Present).
The term "processual marriage" is sometimes used to describe these arrangements, that is, "where the formation of marriage was regarded as a process rather than a clearly defined rite of passage" (S. Parker Informal Marriage, Cohabitation and the Law, 1750-1989).
It is no longer generally recognized that the Anglican marriage service was an attempt to combine elements of two separate occasions into a single liturgical event. Alan Macfarlane develops the point in detail: "In Anglo-Saxon England the 'wedding' was the occasion when the betrothal or pledging of the couple to each other in words of the present tense took place. This was in effect the legally binding act: It was, combined with consummation, the marriage. Later, a public celebration and announcement of the wedding might take place -- the 'gift', the 'bridal', or 'nuptials', as it became known. This was the occasion when friends and relatives assembled to feast and to hear the financial details. These two stages remained separate in essence until they were united into one occasion after the Reformation. Thus the modern Anglican wedding service includes both spousals and nuptials (Macfarlane).
This pre-modern distinction between spousals and nuptials has been largely forgotten; indeed, its very recollection is likely to be resisted because it shows a cherished assumption about the entry into marriage -- that it necessarily begins with a wedding -- to be historically dubious. Betrothal, says Gillis, "constituted the recognized rite of transition from friends to lovers, conferring on the couple the right to sexual as well as social intimacy." Betrothal "granted them freedom to explore any personal faults or incompatibilities that had remained hidden during the earlier, more inhibited phases of courtship and could be disastrous if carried into the indissoluble status of marriage."
It has also been forgotten that about half of all brides in Britain and North America were pregnant at their weddings in the 18th century (L. Stone, "Passionate Attachments in the West in Historical Perspective," in K. Scott and Mr. Warren [eds.], Perspectives on Marriage: A Reader). According to Stone, "this tells us more about sexual customs than about passionate attachments: Sex began at the moment of engagement, and marriage in church came later, often triggered by the pregnancy." He concludes that "among the English and American plebs in the last half of the 18th century, almost all brides below the social élite had experienced sexual intercourse with their future husbands before marriage."
quote:I remember reading about this somewhere bu Thatcher is nearest to what I was looking for. It was quoted in response to a query of something I posted about marriage being treated in stages - like the RCIA does with initiation and religious orders do with vows.
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Leo, how does any of the Thatcher stuff you cite give a shred of weight to your claim that the early Church was open to temporary, fixed term unions?
quote:I can see one advantage to this. In the past (alas) I've done a number of long distance walks and have sometimes felt like giving up. I'd say "Well, just finish the day and then stop". After a rest, a meal and a good night's sleep I'd think "Maybe one more day" and so eventually, a day at a time, I'd get there. Maybe this would be the same.
Originally posted by Pearl B4 Swine:
Choose a term of so many years, and either renew, or cancel. He says it would relieve people from the expense and hassle of divorce. What do you think are the pros and cons of this arrangement?
quote:There was also a report 'Something to Celebrate' from the C of E's board of social responsibility arguing for cohabitation to be blessed as a step along the path.
Originally posted by leo:
quote:I remember reading about this somewhere bu Thatcher is nearest to what I was looking for. It was quoted in response to a query of something I posted about marriage being treated in stages - like the RCIA does with initiation and religious orders do with vows.
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Leo, how does any of the Thatcher stuff you cite give a shred of weight to your claim that the early Church was open to temporary, fixed term unions?
quote:If the church was open to the betrothal system as described, and one of the purposes of said system was "to explore any personal faults or incompatibilities that had remained hidden during the earlier, more inhibited phases of courtship and could be disastrous if carried into the indissoluble status of marriage", then it's not hard to reach the conclusion that someone having more than one sexually-active betrothal prior to entering the indissoluble state of full marriage was OK with them.
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Leo, how does any of the Thatcher stuff you cite give a shred of weight to your claim that the early Church was open to temporary, fixed term unions?
quote:He won't be able to answer that because the early church wasn't open to such things so there is no evidence.
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Leo, how does any of the Thatcher stuff you cite give a shred of weight to your claim that the early Church was open to temporary, fixed term unions?
quote:And that's the very bit of the paper I think has no evidence behind it at all. What do you think happened to women who were betrothed and fell pregenant if their betrothed man buggered off? No recriminations on either side? No pressure to "seal the deal"? Both were free to pursue other sexual betrothals without stigma and see how things went second time round? Is there any evidence for this whatsoever?
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:If the church was open to the betrothal system as described, and one of the purposes of said system was "to explore any personal faults or incompatibilities that had remained hidden during the earlier, more inhibited phases of courtship and could be disastrous if carried into the indissoluble status of marriage" [...]
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Leo, how does any of the Thatcher stuff you cite give a shred of weight to your claim that the early Church was open to temporary, fixed term unions?