Marriage is just one of these stupid inventions by the church to
control people.This is outdated now.

People who don´t want to be part of the "system" don´t marry , they do
what they want!

Marriage is really outdated crap and should be abandoned forever , the
only ones winning from marriages are lawyers specialiced in divorces.

Better not become part of this "system" , the "system" only wants to
steal your money.

Adam Ben Nalois wrote:
Marriage is just one of these stupid inventions by the church to control people.This is outdated now. People who don´t want to be part of the "system" don´t marry , they do what they want!

Duh...

Adam Ben Nalois wrote: Marriage is just one of these stupid inventions by the church to control people.This is outdated now.

My understanding is that it is a mechanism to maximize
the security of children, allowing a greater investment
of time and attention into children... and encouraging
the male to invest more as well.

<SARCASM>
Now if we switched to creches and avoided any ability of
a mother to have an emotional investment in her offspring
then we could do away w/ 90+% of the males in the
population.
</SARCASM>

There *are* evolutionary advantages to our evolving an
institution like marriage. Few come to mind right now.

--
Jack C Lipton | cupasoup@softhome.net | http://www.asstr.org/~CupaSoup/
"Sure the Belgians invented French Fries, but they managed to pin the blame
for 'em on the French. I bet the first fries looked like waffles. though."

> My understanding is that it is a mechanism to maximize the security of children, allowing a greater investment of time and attention into children... and encouraging the male to invest more as well.

Gee, it doesn't seem to be working, now does it?

SD

Shashay Doofray wrote: My understanding is that it is a mechanism to maximize the security of children, allowing a greater investment of time and attention into children... and encouraging the male to invest more as well. Gee, it doesn't seem to be working, now does it?

(shrugs)

For some, yes. For others, no.

(shrugs again)

Humans are weird and keep thinking of themselves as "above
nature".

--
Jack C Lipton | cupasoup@softhome.net | http://www.asstr.org/~CupaSoup/
"Sure the Belgians invented French Fries, but they managed to pin the blame
for 'em on the French. I bet the first fries looked like waffles. though."

Okay, so this is a troll, but:

"Adam Ben Nalois <misternalois@yahoo.ca>" wrote: Marriage is just one of these stupid inventions by the church to control people.

Marriage predates the life of Christ and exists in societies in which
Christianity is not a major cultural force.

Marriage is really outdated crap and should be abandoned forever , the only ones winning from marriages are lawyers specialiced in divorces.

The problem with this is that people do pair off. Some mechanism has to
be in place to deal with the legal ramifications (property ownership,
custody of children, etc) of such pairings.

The institution of marriage may have its problems, but with no structure
at all the situation would be significantly worse.


Darren Provine ! kilroy@elvis.rowan.edu ! http://www.rowan.edu/~kilroy
"fool me once -- shame on --- shame on you ------ ehh foo ma you can't
get fooled again." (George W. Bush)

Dr Nancy's Sweetie wrote: Okay, so this is a troll, but:

Agreed, but sometimes you can get some good straight lines.
Adam Ben Nalois trolled the following bait: Marriage is just one of these stupid inventions by the church to control people. Marriage predates the life of Christ and exists in societies in which Christianity is not a major cultural force.

In fact, until the introduction of Hellenistic (Greek)
culture, polygyny was fairly common for the Hebrews. It
seems that the Romans took this on.

I wonder if monogamy actually increased the frustrations
of _all_ males so there was more greed...
Marriage is really outdated crap and should be abandoned forever , the only ones winning from marriages are lawyers specialiced in divorces. The problem with this is that people do pair off. Some mechanism has to be in place to deal with the legal ramifications (property ownership, custody of children, etc) of such pairings.

If marriage is outlawed, only outlaws would have in-laws.
The institution of marriage may have its problems, but with no structure at all the situation would be significantly worse.

The problem is that if we did away with it (and all memory
of it) human beings would end up re-inventing it all over
again.

--
Jack C Lipton | cupasoup@softhome.net | http://www.asstr.org/~CupaSoup/
"Sure the Belgians invented French Fries, but they managed to pin the blame
for 'em on the French. I bet the first fries looked like waffles. though."

Dr Nancy's Sweetie wrote: Okay, so this is a troll, but: "Adam Ben Nalois <misternalois@yahoo.ca>" wrote:Marriage is just one of these stupid inventions by the church tocontrol people. Marriage predates the life of Christ and exists in societies in which Christianity is not a major cultural force.

He didn't say anything about Christian marriages, he just
mentioned "the church". Could be any kind of religion.

Marriage is really outdated crap and should be abandoned forever , theonly ones winning from marriages are lawyers specialiced in divorces. The problem with this is that people do pair off. Some mechanism has to be in place to deal with the legal ramifications (property ownership, custody of children, etc) of such pairings.

How do you think unmarried couples deal with these
issues?

Jack C Lipton <cupasoup@softhome.net> wrote: Adam Ben Nalois wrote: Marriage is just one of these stupid inventions by the church to control people.This is outdated now. My understanding is that it is a mechanism to maximize the security of children, allowing a greater investment of time and attention into children... and encouraging the male to invest more as well.

"It's for the childrun..."

So... no.

Marriage evolved over time, and it's existence _now_ as a partnership
between two consenting adults isn't that new; it has nothing per se to do
with children, although for those married couples who choose to have
children the same benefits of security, pooled resources, etc that apply to
the parents as adults do tend to help the adults raise the children.

In the past, the "Western" tradition of marriage evolved out of an economic
transaction between the husband-to-be and the woman's father, and was
essentially a property transaction.

Marcus Ulpius Traianus wrote: Jack C Lipton wrote: Adam Ben Nalois wrote: Marriage is just one of these stupid inventions by the church to control people.This is outdated now. My understanding is that it is a mechanism to maximize the security of children, allowing a greater investment of time and attention into children... and encouraging the male to invest more as well. "It's for the childrun..." So... no.

I was referring to why any kind of marital relationship
evolved for human beings; I suspect that once we got past
primitive pre-tribal communities (and with agriculture
providing the ability to be more than hunter-gatherer) we
needed to evolve better systems...

You know, I'm not an anthropologist, so I'm just blowing
smoke up your butt.

It strikes me that the pre-tribal system which was, in
effect, a polygamous family (where paternity wasn't a big
deal) that could do the most to protect children and care
for all of them.
In the past, the "Western" tradition of marriage evolved out of an economic transaction between the husband-to-be and the woman's father, and was essentially a property transaction.

I'm wondering about the transition to "marriage" from that
earlier social phase where males could "acquire property"
which would include that blonde over there with the nice
empty uterus for me to use...

Do we have an anthropologist in the group who can use words
small enough that I might understand them?

--
Jack C Lipton | cupasoup@softhome.net | http://www.asstr.org/~CupaSoup/
"Sure the Belgians invented French Fries, but they managed to pin the blame
for 'em on the French. I bet the first fries looked like waffles. though."

Jack C Lipton <cupasoup@softhome.net> wrote: Marcus Ulpius Traianus wrote: Jack C Lipton wrote: My understanding is that it is a mechanism to maximize the security of children, allowing a greater investment of time and attention into children... and encouraging the male to invest more as well. "It's for the childrun..." So... no. I was referring to why any kind of marital relationship evolved for human beings;

Except that it's not why it developed; in at least several cases it looks
like it developed to make some attempt at securing paternity around the same
time agriculture (/herding) developed... and less for the "investment of
time and attention in children" than for ensuring the transfer of property
along controlled lines.

It's not that well documented, for obvious reasons, and while it's possible
to make minor inferences from the archaeological record, _most_ of the
things we know are on the assumption that existing (or existing as of the
19th and through middle 20th century) simpler societies are like the
developing parts
I suspect that once we got past primitive pre-tribal communities (and with agriculture providing the ability to be more than hunter-gatherer) we needed to evolve better systems...

There have been a number of systems evolved,
You know, I'm not an anthropologist, so I'm just blowing smoke up your butt.

It's an interesting way of looking at it, but it seems to be more projecting
current values backwards, rather than trying to look at historical societies
on their own terms
It strikes me that the pre-tribal system which was, in effect, a polygamous family (where paternity wasn't a big deal) that could do the most to protect children and care for all of them.

By and large, yes -- in many simpler societies, that's true. Another very
common pattern in somewhat more complex socieites is a matrilocal system
(children living with their mothers) without what we'd think of as
"marriage" -- liasons tended to be non-permanent and men tended to take part
in raising their sisters' children.
In the past, the "Western" tradition of marriage evolved out of an economic transaction between the husband-to-be and the woman's father, and was essentially a property transaction. I'm wondering about the transition to "marriage" from that earlier social phase where males could "acquire property" which would include that blonde over there with the nice empty uterus for me to use...

The transition is to "modern partnership" marriage; the model of "acquiring
property" marriage, while not really a "Christian" model, persists in some
ways in prejudices even today ... and arguably, only ceased to be the
dominant model with the end of the middle ages (although in Western society,
it's always had some degree of linkage to social class -- if you were poor
enough, you either might not get married at all, get married to whomever
your lord wanted you to marry, or be free to marry for love...)
Do we have an anthropologist in the group who can use words small enough that I might understand them?

My undergraduate work was in Anthropology, although I haven't been
"practicing" in a long while. Like many of my generation, the tech industry
proved too tempting.

"Adam Ben Nalois" <misternalois@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:fd16a342.0312081517.13f25fb8@posting.google.c om... Marriage is just one of these stupid inventions by the church to control people.This is outdated now. People who don´t want to be part of the "system" don´t marry , they do what they want! Marriage is really outdated crap and should be abandoned forever , the only ones winning from marriages are lawyers specialiced in divorces. Better not become part of this "system" , the "system" only wants to steal your money.

People confuse marriage with legal marriage and church marriage. In fact legal
and church marriages both started out by recognising pre-existing customary
marriages. And even if the marriage laws were repealed, and canon law too,
people would still form themselves into couples, and undertake to be faithful
and supportive for each other. And their tendency to do that would form social
customs of doing it, and rituals and ceremonies, etc. But the custom of doing it
would also be marriage, and a good thing it is too. It is true that the
interference of the church and the government in the whole thing is bad.

Adam Ben Nalois <misternalois@yahoo.ca> wrote:
Marriage is really outdated crap and should be abandoned forever , the only ones winning from marriages are lawyers specialiced in divorces.

I think you meant to post this on the "marriage is crap" newsgroup and
not the "marriage support" newsgroup. Right?

On 8 Dec 2003 15:17:19 -0800, misternalois@yahoo.ca (Adam Ben Nalois)
wrote:
Marriage is just one of these stupid inventions by the church tocontrol people.This is outdated now.People who don´t want to be part of the "system" don´t marry , they dowhat they want!Marriage is really outdated crap and should be abandoned forever , theonly ones winning from marriages are lawyers specialiced in divorces.Better not become part of this "system" , the "system" only wants tosteal your money.

Marriage is just societies way of telling the man and woman that they
can legally fornicate. That is just because for some stupid reason,
it is illegal for two people to fornicate without marraige. Not that
this law is gererally enforced, but the law is in the books.