|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Who gives this woman?
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
... which leads right into the interesting question of what happens when various churches refuse to recognize the non-state ecclesiastical marriages of others. What happens when you change denominations? Or when an ecclesiastically but not state-married couple wants to split up and one or both go on to other churches and ecclesiastically-marry new people while remaining married to one another in the eyes of their previous denomination?
I can see whole daisy chains developing.
Kinda like how churches now don't all recognize each other's baptisms?
Generally speaking, they DO. The only case I can think of of "We don't recognize that baptism" has to do with people baptized as infants who later turn up to adult-baptism-only churches. And even then it's discrimination based on age--if someone (me, for instance) who was baptized as an adult (more or less) decided to jump ship and head for the Southern Baptists, they'd recognize my baptism, even though I came of an infant-baptizing church.
This is one of the encouraging things I try to keep in mind when I'm feeling down on the church in general.
But marriages--now that's another kettle of fish entirely.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
The only case I can think of of "We don't recognize that baptism" has to do with people baptized as infants who later turn up to adult-baptism-only churches. And even then it's discrimination based on age--if someone (me, for instance) who was baptized as an adult (more or less) decided to jump ship and head for the Southern Baptists, they'd recognize my baptism, even though I came of an infant-baptizing church.
Not necessarily. Most Southern Baptist churches in these parts would not recognize your baptism even if you were baptized as an adult, but not immersed. And there are quite a few Southern Baptist churches around here who would require re-baptism to join that particular church, even if you were previously baptized in another Baptist church. (Though to be fair, that has less to do with not recognizing another church's baptism and more to do with a different understanding of baptism.)
Then there's the issue of not recognizing the baptisms of another denomination because of the possibility that a non-standard formula was used, such "in the name of the Creator, Redeemer and Sustainer." (See the thread on male language.)
Besides that, mousethief can certainly speak more to this than I can, but it's my understanding that there are some among the Orthodox who do not recognize any baptisms except for Orthodox baptisms.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
Besides that, mousethief can certainly speak more to this than I can, but it's my understanding that there are some among the Orthodox who do not recognize any baptisms except for Orthodox baptisms.
There are. Others will accept those triple-dunked with the F/S/HS formula. Depends on who's your bishop, and what jurisdiction he's in.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
Besides that, mousethief can certainly speak more to this than I can, but it's my understanding that there are some among the Orthodox who do not recognize any baptisms except for Orthodox baptisms.
There are. Others will accept those triple-dunked with the F/S/HS formula. Depends on who's your bishop, and what jurisdiction he's in.
Thanks. Will any accept baptism with the F/S/HS formula, but with pouring rather than triple-dunking?
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
Besides that, mousethief can certainly speak more to this than I can, but it's my understanding that there are some among the Orthodox who do not recognize any baptisms except for Orthodox baptisms.
There are. Others will accept those triple-dunked with the F/S/HS formula. Depends on who's your bishop, and what jurisdiction he's in.
Thanks. Will any accept baptism with the F/S/HS formula, but with pouring rather than triple-dunking?
No, none that I've heard tell of, although there are microchurches (autocephalous* churches generally coterminous with a single nation, like Japan or Finland) that do things their own way, thank you very much. Except in cases of emergency, baptism is by dunking. Leading many churches to own or occasionally rent horse troughs for adult baptisms.
_______________________
*literally, self-headed. Not under the purview of any other church. Orthodoxy is not a single big church with one head like the RCC; it is a collection of inter-communing but self-ruling churches. Indeed the Patriarch of Rome thinking he was the head of all the ancient Patriarchates (which included Rome, Jerusalem, Alexandria, Constantinople (later), Antioch, and one more I'm forgetting), rather prima inter pares (first among equals), that led ultimately to the Great Schism of 1054. Resulting in the Catholics, a single patriarchy under a single Patriarch, and the Orthodox, the remaining patriarchies, each under its own patriarch, as per the original arrangement. But now we are far, far afield.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by anne:
... And anyone proposing to have petals scattered in their path is asked for the name of the member of the wedding party who will be cleaning them up, so that I can give them a dustpan and brush.
That definitely gets a ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
Perhaps they could also be issued with a little bag like the ones people use for picking up their dog messes.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
I know of a church near here which erected a new building. The baptismal area is built right in, behind the altar -- a long narrow pool, accessed by steps on either side. Any time someone feels like being baptized, they raise the curtain and send him in.
In our more traditional church there is a font, for ladling water over the baptismal candidate. And under the floor (you have to move the altar) is a hot tub, for dunking. A dunking baptism thus calls for forewarning and some organization (especially in winter when you definitely want the hot in the hot tub going). We have an entire suite of towels, keyed to match the carpeting.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
Thanks mousethief.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
St Deird
Shipmate
# 7631
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
Besides that, mousethief can certainly speak more to this than I can, but it's my understanding that there are some among the Orthodox who do not recognize any baptisms except for Orthodox baptisms.
There are. Others will accept those triple-dunked with the F/S/HS formula. Depends on who's your bishop, and what jurisdiction he's in.
Thanks. Will any accept baptism with the F/S/HS formula, but with pouring rather than triple-dunking?
No, none that I've heard tell of, although there are microchurches (autocephalous* churches generally coterminous with a single nation, like Japan or Finland) that do things their own way, thank you very much. Except in cases of emergency, baptism is by dunking. Leading many churches to own or occasionally rent horse troughs for adult baptisms.
What about those of us who have been dunked, but not thrice-dunked?
--------------------
They're not hobbies; they're a robust post-apocalyptic skill-set.
Posts: 319 | From: the other side of nowhere | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by St Deird:
What about those of us who have been dunked, but not thrice-dunked?
Were you to wish to become Orthodox, you would have to be baptized with the triple-dunk method. Anything else doesn't "count" as a baptism at all.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
I stand corrected. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Though the debate seems to be entirely about methods and not about "You did it, and we didn't, so it's invalid."
I presume that if I had been triple-dunked at the age of 30 using the F/S/S formula I'd be okay pretty much everywhere?
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
St Deird
Shipmate
# 7631
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by St Deird:
What about those of us who have been dunked, but not thrice-dunked?
Were you to wish to become Orthodox, you would have to be baptized with the triple-dunk method. Anything else doesn't "count" as a baptism at all.
Well, there go my chances of ever joining the Orthodox church. Ah well.
--------------------
They're not hobbies; they're a robust post-apocalyptic skill-set.
Posts: 319 | From: the other side of nowhere | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by St Deird:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by St Deird:
What about those of us who have been dunked, but not thrice-dunked?
Were you to wish to become Orthodox, you would have to be baptized with the triple-dunk method. Anything else doesn't "count" as a baptism at all.
Well, there go my chances of ever joining the Orthodox church. Ah well.
And any chances of mutual respect of differing Christian traditions (and, yes, I recognise that Baptists can be naughty on this subject, too).
[ 27. August 2016, 09:29: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
And any chances of mutual respect of differing Christian traditions (and, yes, I recognise that Baptists can be naughty on this subject, too).
An Orthodox could well ask, what kind of respect is it when a group departs from the age-old practice of the church, and then from that standpoint judges those who have held fast to the traditions handed down to them (as we are commanded to do in Scripture)? This game plays in all directions and one could argue it's not respectful to bring it up in most contexts.
A: What does your church believe about X?
B: Y.
A: I have lost all respect for you.
B: Hardly helpful.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
Getting back to the OP, this afternoon I took a wedding. The bride's father was dead, so her son (aged 8?) walked in with her - and then gave her away. Not quite what I'm used to, but it was important for her.
(A lovely wedding, even if she did have American style bridesmaids.)
--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin
Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
It would be interesting, if one could live indefinitely, to witness just how long the shadow of patriarchy hangs over the human race, or even if it is ever fully discarded.
The idea that a woman is a thing to be 'given' must surely be the the root cause of sociological misogyny the world over. Being such an ancient cultural tradition it is understandable that many women, even in today's free society, are still unable to completely reject it.
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
Until the care of children is viewed as being as natural for men as for women, even at a very early stage in a child's life, I think there will always be a sense that women need to be 'protected'.
Even pregnancy and childbirth are challenges to female liberty. The sci-fi freak hidden deep inside me feels that until pregnancy is divorced from the female body, and fears about paternity are banished, then patriarchal control will always exist in some form.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
The concept has been thoroughly explored in the genre, certainly. In SF you can even split off the carrying and birth of the infant from the parents.
This is unlikely to happen any time soon in real life. I think the most important thing for women to get, and hang onto, is the vote. With equality in the law, we can manage everything else. I assure you that the giving away of the bride at the wedding is nowhere near the most difficult issue.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pigwidgeon
Ship's Owl
# 10192
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
The concept has been thoroughly explored in the genre, certainly. In SF you can even split off the carrying and birth of the infant from the parents.
When I first read this I thought you meant San Francisco.
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
--------------------
"...that is generally a matter for Pigwidgeon, several other consenting adults, a bottle of cheap Gin and the odd giraffe."
~Tortuf
Posts: 9835 | From: Hogwarts | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
So in America the priest doesn't lead the bridal procession, but is already in place up at the front? That does feel strange to me, and I haven't had anyone ask for it - yet.
That's what I was taught to do and I've never taken a service in America. At a team ministry where I was the Curate I was told that my colleagues in ministry led the bride up to the altar. My instinctive response was "they are here to see her, not me".
Also, if you nip in first you can give the organist the nod to tell him/ her that it's time to stop twiddling and to whack out the Bridal March in the way that God and Mr Richard Wagner intended, and also to give the evil eye to the groom and best man to stop lolling around and to assume the demeanour of a couple of captured resistance members being offered a last cigarette by the Haupsturmfuhrer in charge of the firing squad.
The only time I've interfered with the bridal procession is when a young and extremely faithful and able server was a student at the school at which the bride was a popular and fashionable teacher, and so I hastily invented a tradition of a crucifer leading them in, in order to give the server bragging rights about having had a key role at Miss Smith's wedding.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
angelfish
Shipmate
# 8884
|
Posted
I come from a low Anglican, happy clappy, guitars and tamborines type of tradition, but my wedding was from the 1662 prayer book - a completely trad white [just typed "s" instead of "w"!] wedding. I was given away by my Dad and I promised to obey my husband.
The reasoning behind this possibly bizarre choice is complex. Going old fashioned avoided any arguments with my Mum who hates anything a bit unusual. It was a peace-keeping device. It had the added advantage of surprising my university Christian Union conevo friends who thought we would have a Matt Redman-fuelled attempt to convert the heathen relatives. Also, I like the idea of being linked through the centuries with other couples who started their married life in that old church, by using the same form of words they did. If there were older words than the 1662 ones, I'd have used them (I think the church was built in the eleventh century)
I don't think either my husband or I ever took the promise to obey seriously... although I've never disobeyed him, because he never tells me what to do.
I can't remember what the Rector said at the end re kissing the bride, but we did have a little kiss. It was nice. To me, the actual substance of my relationships with my father and my husband is more important than what someone might have inferred from the form of words used at my wedding.
--------------------
"As God is my witness, I WILL kick Bishop Brennan up the arse!"
Posts: 1017 | From: England | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by angelfish:
I don't think either my husband or I ever took the promise to obey seriously... although I've never disobeyed him, because he never tells me what to do.
Mrs Eliab promised to obey me. At the time (her views have since changed) she believed that the Biblical command that wives should submit to their husbands was binding on Christians, and finding that unpalatable, married someone who would never insist on it.
I viewed it (and still do) as a vow made to God, not to me. My job is to love and honour her, which I do imperfectly enough that I have no safe ground from which to criticise how she fulfils her promise to obey. If I were taking the vows again, I'd probably suggest that we both promise to obey each other. We'd both fail, of course, but maybe there would be times when the other person's expressed view, and the recollection of that promise, might be what was needed to motive the performance of an unwelcome moral duty.
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
It would be interesting, if one could live indefinitely, to witness just how long the shadow of patriarchy hangs over the human race, or even if it is ever fully discarded.
The idea that a woman is a thing to be 'given' must surely be the the root cause of sociological misogyny the world over. Being such an ancient cultural tradition it is understandable that many women, even in today's free society, are still unable to completely reject it.
I think this is an effect of the sociological misogyny, not the cause. Societies that do not have this feature still can have deeply embedded sexism. As I mentioned way upthread, there is no "giving" in the Orthodox marriage service. But we both know that Russian and Greek (etc.) societies are every bit as misogynistic as those in Western Europe (and indeed world over).
[ 09. September 2016, 05:28: Message edited by: mousethief ]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by angelfish:
I come from a low Anglican, happy clappy, guitars and tamborines type of tradition, but my wedding was from the 1662 prayer book - a completely trad white [just typed "s" instead of "w"!] wedding. I was given away by my Dad and I promised to obey my husband.
The reasoning behind this possibly bizarre choice is complex. Going old fashioned avoided any arguments with my Mum who hates anything a bit unusual. It was a peace-keeping device. It had the added advantage of surprising my university Christian Union conevo friends who thought we would have a Matt Redman-fuelled attempt to convert the heathen relatives. Also, I like the idea of being linked through the centuries with other couples who started their married life in that old church, by using the same form of words they did. If there were older words than the 1662 ones, I'd have used them (I think the church was built in the eleventh century)
I don't think either my husband or I ever took the promise to obey seriously... although I've never disobeyed him, because he never tells me what to do.
The cynic in me thinks this might be one reason (among others) why church weddings have declined so much as a percentage. Many people probably don't want to prioritise tradition over making promises that they mean.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
So in America the priest doesn't lead the bridal procession, but is already in place up at the front? That does feel strange to me, and I haven't had anyone ask for it - yet.
Isn't it that way in Britain/Ireland, too? Was in all the churches I knew of. I've never led a bridal procession as minister. Can't imagine why the minister would need to?
I presume it's a left-over from the good old days when bride and groom just walked down the aisle together, in order to meet the witnesses and priest at the altar step to begin the ceremony.
--------------------
Irish dogs needing homes! http://www.dogactionwelfaregroup.ie/ Greyhounds and Lurchers are shipped over to England for rehoming too!
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I think this is an effect of the sociological misogyny, not the cause. Societies that do not have this feature still can have deeply embedded sexism. As I mentioned way upthread, there is no "giving" in the Orthodox marriage service. But we both know that Russian and Greek (etc.) societies are every bit as misogynistic as those in Western Europe (and indeed world over).
It might appear then that misogyny, if that is what we want to call it, predates even marriage.
Looking at the earliest development of marriage we could even conclude that it was built into it from the start. Ancient records from Mesopotamia suggest the first ever marriage was carried out in order to Protect widows and orphans. Not sure where the widows came from ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
I lead brides in, and have done so for a couple of decades now. We have a good long space between me and the bridal party because, as others have said, people want to see the bride, not the vicar. It helps the bride to know when to start off, and it also helps to regulate the pace.
Also, although the 1662 question was "Who giveth this woman to be married to this man?", the modern Church of England Common Worship form is a much more acceptable "Who brings this woman to be married to this man?"
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
Svitlanav2 wrote:
quote:
The cynic in me thinks this might be one reason (among others) why church weddings have declined so much as a percentage. Many people probably don't want to prioritise tradition over making promises that they mean.
That makes perfect sense as a theory. The problem is that most people who choose to marry outside church seem to use the almost identical vows as are used in the church ceremony (which are the promises they make, and which are optional in a civil ceremony). So the reasons are more likely to be in the "among others" category I suspect.
Anyone wishing to use the "giving away" words will need to do so as a conscious choice, as they are not there in the standard liturgy.
(Oh, PS - agreed on that last point mousethief)
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
rolyn:- quote:
It might appear then that misogyny, if that is what we want to call it, predates even marriage.
Sure. But this is one way of framing the issue, and any answers you get will be conditioned by that. If you want a fuller view you need to ask loads of other questions too.
Probably a good starting point might be a history of marriage, as understood in different places and different times. These books exist. There's a good one on the record of what women thought about marriage in the Elizabethan period in England, though I would need to go away and look up the details. And marriage is one of those things both understood and conducted on a different basis in different communities, let alone different countries.
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
quote:
That makes perfect sense as a theory. The problem is that most people who choose to marry outside church seem to use the almost identical vows as are used in the church ceremony (which are the promises they make, and which are optional in a civil ceremony). So the reasons are more likely to be in the "among others" category I suspect.
Given that a lot of venues now allow you to have the ceremony in the same place as you have the reception, it's not difficult why people might want avoid the logistics of getting people from the church to the nice hotel which may well be several miles away.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pigwidgeon
Ship's Owl
# 10192
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
So in America the priest doesn't lead the bridal procession, but is already in place up at the front? That does feel strange to me, and I haven't had anyone ask for it - yet.
Isn't it that way in Britain/Ireland, too?
Not always...
--------------------
"...that is generally a matter for Pigwidgeon, several other consenting adults, a bottle of cheap Gin and the odd giraffe."
~Tortuf
Posts: 9835 | From: Hogwarts | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
I have never seen a Nonconformist wedding where the Minister came in with the bridal procession.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
Ancient records from Mesopotamia suggest the first ever marriage was carried out in order to Protect widows and orphans. Not sure where the widows came from
War?
ETA: Wait, I see, you're saying it's a closed loop. "Widows" then must mean widows of what we'd call common-law husbands. Then they codify the marriage laws to protect same.
[ 09. September 2016, 17:39: Message edited by: mousethief ]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
ETA: Wait, I see, you're saying it's a closed loop. "Widows" then must mean widows of what we'd call common-law husbands. Then they codify the marriage laws to protect same.
Yeah. I read the origins of marriage a while back, and it only just came to me that you can't have widows unless you've already got marriage.
Coming to the here and now I think the whole concept of women needing to be protected runs much deeper than many are inclined to realise. Maybe it is something that has gotten all twisted up in our heads leading to a certain amount of marital strife. Dunno, just a thought.
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I think this is an effect of the sociological misogyny, not the cause. Societies that do not have this feature still can have deeply embedded sexism. As I mentioned way upthread, there is no "giving" in the Orthodox marriage service. But we both know that Russian and Greek (etc.) societies are every bit as misogynistic as those in Western Europe (and indeed world over).
It might appear then that misogyny, if that is what we want to call it, predates even marriage.
Looking at the earliest development of marriage we could even conclude that it was built into it from the start. Ancient records from Mesopotamia suggest the first ever marriage was carried out in order to Protect widows and orphans. Not sure where the widows came from
Can you supply a link? At best, this would be the first ever recorded marriage in Mesopotamia as marriage is thought to precede written records.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
Not good with links LB.
It was many years ago when my own marriage sank.
If I remember correctly is was on seemingly well researched Catholic website.
To be fair it did not pinpoint the first ever recorded marriage. More like the first ever evidence of marriage was found in Mesopotamia, which is understandable as this was the place of the earliest known organised human civilisation.
The phrase 'protect of widows and orphans' stuck in my mind. Don't think I dreamt it. Admittedly it could have been based on assumption of the writer.
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
