Would the institution of marriage have developed in the absence of religion?

[LazyGun]

This question has arisen as a consequence of reading a notion posted by a contributor to a book I was reading. The author suggested that the institution of marriage as we understand it only happened because of religion - but thinking about that, I am not so sure. So what do you think? Would marriage have come about in a hypothetical world absent of any religious thinking?

[Mamyalynne]

I think it quite possible that people would have paired for life, as the strength of love is hard to avoid. Whether you would call it marriage I don`t know.

[WaldoMcFroog]

"The institution of marriage as we understand it only happened because of law"

There - fixed that for you. ;-)

[jno]

the church did commandeer the marriage ceremony in the middle ages (in England anyway). But people have always paired off, as mamya says. Partly out of love but partly out of male concern to be sure they're the fathers of their children. It's had various legal as well as religious implications.

Lots of stuff in wiki

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage#History

[society]

" Partly out of love but partly out of male concern to be sure they're the fathers of their children. "

How many children are out there who doesn't know who their father is? How many mothers are out there who doesn't know who their baby daddy is?

[Mamyalynne]

society that`s a very sad but true point, I was speaking from the comfort of my traditional and wonderful life I`m afraid. Do we know enough about the kind of behaviour you mention in times long ago? Not sure we do.

[jno]

in olden days I think the concern was as much about inheritance laws as anything - landed gents didn't want to be leaving their hard-won property to someone else's kids by mistake.

[society]

Long ago people had pride and shame.

Nowadays the majority are shameless and with false pride.


Hi mamyalynne! x

[beso]

The figure for extramarital paternity in England is supposed to be around ten percent. We all know someone who has a child who looks nothing like their father. They often look a lot like ex-boyfriends of the mother. The similarities between Prince Harry and a certain Royal staff member have oft been commented. The depth of the folklore is demonstrated in the exploits of William Wallace in Mel Gibson's movie Braveheart.

Study of the human genome suggests that until ten thousand years ago most of the children were fathered by by a very small proportion of the men. Aggressive tough guys probably ruled and rape would have been commonplace. Sometime since our anachistic past some smart woman suggested that the small guys could get together to beat the cr@p out of the rapists while the women agreed to providing regular sex with one guy.

Then to avoid having to do the beatings they invented an idea that you would get a beating after you died. This got organised into marriage and was part of the development of the church.

However a woman also has competing needs for the best genes and the best social support group. Fathering her children with agood genes and mating with a responsible guyfrom a well off family is a very good move for her genes. Clearly we still see this behaviour in a significant proportion of modern women if the ten percent figure is corrent.

[Ankou]

the old testament in the bible does mention a little about marriage as it was considered a family and household affair. the oldest male relative was the caretaker of the girls and the prospective husband would ask the father for the girl after first bringing him gifts to win his approval. the mother was dominated by the father and had no choice in the matter. the father would transfer the daughter to the prospective husband in public as this showed that he approved this transfer and that the groom had the father's approval. after this transfer the bride and groom ate a meal together with the families and then the groom took the bride home. in the old testament of the bible there is no mention of a formal exchange of vows or of a preacher or priest being present at this union.

in the time of the roman empire the lower classes who became christians later had common law or free marriages. the father would deliver the bride and the agreement of the two was called a consensus to wed. then eventually as christianity spread the church interpreted a "free" marriage as a conscience marriage. this agreement meant that each partner was to keep the marriage vows and the marriage intact.

whilst the ‘ceremony’ as we know it today may seem predominantly religious in origin, in times gone by it was more to do with social climbing, household/dynasty unity, or financial gain. as said above, the legally binding aspect of 'marriage' was far more important than the religious as that meant you could claim your title, social status or the dowry.

[naomi24]

Yes, it would, because as has already been said, it provides practical solutions in matters of legality. Although religion didn't 'invent' the idea, it embraces it, and has endowed it with its own 'spin'. According to religion without marriage we 'live in sin', and therefore religion perceives marriage as a moral requirement, rather than a legal one.

[Ankou]

many early societies formed relationships by the man simply capturing and detaining the woman. often a man would buy or barter a daughter from her father. once that deal was concluded, the couple were considered "married" with no further action or ceremony.

while many ancient goverments recognised the existence of marriages, they did little to determine what constituted a marriage. if a man claimed a woman as his wife, and the wife's family did not dispute the claim, that was enough. at that point, the wife became the property and legal responsibility of the husband rather than her father. beyond vague protections of wives as property, government had almost nothing to do with marriage.

in the 6th c ad, the justinian code placed some limits on who could marry. a girl could not be betrothed before she was seven years old and could not marry until she was 12. close relatives could not marry. christians and jews could not inter-marry. senators could not marry commoners.

the other issue that really mattered to government was legitimacy of children for purposes of inheritence. but this only really mattered to the propertied classes and those marriages were recognized without any necessary ceremony or record. the church got involved in marriages in the ninth century. it began simply by blessing unions that had been declared but quickly became a necessary part of the marriage process. governments at the time were intertwined with the church so government simply recognized the church's authority in this area and did not attempt to interfere.

contd

[Ankou]

when oliver cromwell took over england in the mid-1600's, he banned religious marriages and tried to institute a civil process for marriage. most people objected to this and the attempt soon fizzled. civil marriages did not become possible again in england until 1837.

civil marriages became more common in places where government and the church were at odds. but even where civil marriages existed, they seemed to be very rare.

marriage licenses are an even newer invention. in the mid-1800's some states allowed inter-racial couples to marry in an exception to anti-misegination statutes. some states did issue marriage certificates, but these were not required. a general requirement for a license to get married was not common until the early 20th century.

[LazyGun]

Thanks for your answers folks - My instinctive reaction was similar to that of mamyalynnes, that pairing would have occurred, and as jno waldo and others mentioned, that is very likely to have become codified in law as society developed.
I think the original author was being rather generous in attributing the institution of marriage solely to religion, perhaps brought about by an overly simplistic view of the competing reproductive imperatives between males and females.

[Ankou]

but the 'as we understand it' statement could have merit if it refers to legitimacy and ceremony i suppose, particularly if you are primarily unaware of historical context and binding.

[LazyGun]

Ankkou - I must have crossposted whilst you were posting.Very interesting historical perspective - thanks for the input.

[naomi24]

LG, you're right in saying the pairing would have occurred regardless - it does occur without the institution of marriage - and nature provides many examples of animals that pair for life.

[Ankou]

thats kinship. the natural world has no concept of the 'institute of marriage', that is a human development.

thanks lazygun

[naomi24]

That obviously goes without saying.

[Ankou]

clearly not

[naomi24]

Well, maybe not to you, but it's pretty clear to most people I'd have thought.