What does history tell us about how the marriage institution started..... and when did it start?

We are often made to believe that marriage is a 'natural' phenomenon and humans have always had 'marriage', but surely there are no concrete evidences to prove that --- while there are enough evidences to show otherwise.

What do you guys think? Also, is there an expert opinion on this?

You possess 'enough' negative evidence that marriage didn't exist throughout human history.

Well, let's hear it then. I'm sure this will revolutionize the field.

You possess 'enough' negative evidence that marriage didn't exist throughout human history.

Well, let's hear it then. I'm sure this will revolutionize the field.
No, I really want to know what scientists have found out about the marriage institution, and what they teach at sociology etc. before I can use my analysis on them.

Clearly, it has existed for long enough.

You possess 'enough' negative evidence that marriage didn't exist throughout human history.

Well, let's hear it then. I'm sure this will revolutionize the field.
It seems you're quite insecure about the established scientific information. Well, I'd be too, if I were you, considering the mounting evidence against it.

Marriage predates history. Here is some reading of early marriage contracts in Mesopotamia.

http://ehistory.osu.edu/world/articles/ArticleView.cfm?AID=58

If you've read the site, can you provide a gist of it. I don't have a printer, and don't want to read it on my computer as it strains my eyes.

Is that roughly 3000 BC or more?

The gist is that women were property. A male would negotiate a contract with the future father-in-law. The contract was a guarantee from the wife's family, that the husband would have a mate from their family, or the wife's family would have to give back everything that was agreed upon. If the husband were to die, his family would be required to give a replacement male or give up all the things that was agreed upon. Woman were the binding entity that joined a contract between two households.

Is that roughly 3000 BC or more?

The information is based on numerous documents from the Sumerian period 2500 BC.

If you've read the site, can you provide a gist of it. I don't have a printer, and don't want to read it on my computer as it strains my eyes.

You wimp. Or are you just lazy? ;)

You wimp. Or are you just lazy? ;)
Jaylee, I hope we maintain the respect we have shown for each other!

I asked you to provide the gist in a friendly spirit, for I really don't see why we have to see each other as enemies when we discuss from opposite points of views.

But its true that I'm hesitant to read a lot of material. I do prefer, and that I hope is one reason why I use internet discussions, for they are a source of ready information. People share what they have read and know, and you don't have to wade through loads of text.

I don't care for 'external links' unless I have reasonable doubts that the other person is making up information --- which I have never seen happening.

Jaylee, I hope we maintain the respect we have shown for each other!

I'm kidding with you, hence the. ;)

I'm kidding with you, hence the. ;)
Sure thing Pal :)

The gist is that women were property. A male would negotiate a contract with the future father-in-law. The contract was a guarantee from the wife's family, that the husband would have a mate from their family, or the wife's family would have to give back everything that was agreed upon. If the husband were to die, his family would be required to give a replacement male or give up all the things that was agreed upon. Woman were the binding entity that joined a contract between two households.

I asked you to provide the gist in a friendly spirit, for I really don't see why we have to see each other as enemies when we discuss from opposite points of views.


We're not entirely on opposite ends since the last thread. You opened my eyes to realize my warped western society. I love America, but you provided yet another reason to combat the influences of the media, which propagates heterosexual relations.

in my opinion marrige institutions started when somebody figured out they could make money off it.

So we have evidence of marriage in 2500 BC. Are there evidences for it before that!

I think it is to anthropology rather than to history that you must look for the origins of marriage. When Europeans made contact with the stone age people of Africa, the Americas and Australasia in the past several centuries, they observed marriage ceremonies in diverse communities and cultures. Sometimes, of course, missionaries tried to revise things, so that the man did not assume sexual rights over his bride's sisters as well (or whatever), or that the chieftain or warrior class did not enjoy a general 'droit de seigneur'.

However, I think we can assume that societies sought to govern the relations between men and women by exclusive arrangements of one sort or another way back before the dawn of civilisation. There is no need to believe that our own stone age ancestors were much different from the stone age people of more recent time. (I use 'stone age' to refer to the level of technology.)

When Europeans made contact with the stone age people of Africa, the Americas and Australasia in the past several centuries, they observed marriage ceremonies in diverse communities and cultures. Sometimes, of course, missionaries tried to revise things, so that the man did not assume sexual rights over his bride's sisters as well (or whatever), or that the chieftain or warrior class did not enjoy a general 'droit de seigneur'.
Histories written by missionaries are to be taken with a pinch of salt --- considering their own history of destroying evidences that went against their own 'values' and of misrepresenting facts.

When you say stone age --- it means 'stone age'. You can't refer to tribal people living in the medieval times --- 'stone age'.

Missironaries are known to have affected many behaviours and customs of these tribal people --- including their 'nakedness' and way of worshipping --- when they sought to change them to 'Christianity'.

However, I think we can assume that societies sought to govern the relations between men and women by exclusive arrangements of one sort or another way back before the dawn of civilisation. There is no need to believe that our own stone age ancestors were much different from the stone age people of more recent time. (I use 'stone age' to refer to the level of technology.)
I don't think how you can assume that so easily. Afterall, 'marriage' like behaviour is not witnessed in any other mammalian species, so their is no basis to assume that marriage is 'natural', in that sense.

Unless, of course you have evidence to the contrary.

The following passage describes marriage among the San (bushmen) of southern Africa. They are among the few societies still following the hunter-gatherer lifestyle that was typical of the life led by the ancestors of all of us, and their traditions may be unchanged in thousands of years. Descriptions by European explorers and missionaries of other (now modernised/urbanised) tribal societies often gave similar accounts. It does seem reasonable to suggest that our own hunter-gatherer forebears adhered to similar rituals and practices in regard to exclusive domestic/sexual arrangements.

San marriages can be polygamous, but a man rarely has more than one wife, as it is simply not practical in a hunter-gatherer lifestyle where additional adults and young children would place further demands on the individual family and on the group as a whole. Both boys and girls are permitted to marry only after they have gone through initiation. The girl's initiation takes place at the time of her first menstruation, when the celebratory "eland dance" is performed by the women to the accompaniment of the ageless "eland music" of the ancestors. The boy is initiated only after he has proved himself as a hunter. Incestuous relationships are not allowed and usually the parents arrange a marriage, but this is not enforced if the girl is against the idea. However, husbands are chosen with care as it is usual for a man to join his wife's community and a good hunter is a great asset. The marriage ceremony is a simple procedure, during which the bride's face is painted with red ochre mixed with eland fat and the groom presents the bride's parents with an animal he has hunted and killed. The couple then build their own shelter with their own campfire.

The following passage describes marriage among the San (bushmen) of southern Africa. They are among the few societies still following the hunter-gatherer lifestyle that was typical of the life led by the ancestors of all of us, and their traditions may be unchanged in thousands of years. Descriptions by European explorers and missionaries of other (now modernised/urbanised) tribal societies often gave similar accounts. It does seem reasonable to suggest that our own hunter-gatherer forebears adhered to similar rituals and practices in regard to exclusive domestic/sexual arrangements.

San marriages can be polygamous, but a man rarely has more than one wife, as it is simply not practical in a hunter-gatherer lifestyle where additional adults and young children would place further demands on the individual family and on the group as a whole. Both boys and girls are permitted to marry only after they have gone through initiation. The girl's initiation takes place at the time of her first menstruation, when the celebratory "eland dance" is performed by the women to the accompaniment of the ageless "eland music" of the ancestors. The boy is initiated only after he has proved himself as a hunter. Incestuous relationships are not allowed and usually the parents arrange a marriage, but this is not enforced if the girl is against the idea. However, husbands are chosen with care as it is usual for a man to join his wife's community and a good hunter is a great asset. The marriage ceremony is a simple procedure, during which the bride's face is painted with red ochre mixed with eland fat and the groom presents the bride's parents with an animal he has hunted and killed. The couple then build their own shelter with their own campfire.
In science nothing can be assumed without adequate proof.

In science nothing can be assumed without adequate proof.
History is not science. "History is the singular. Science is the plural."

History attempts to describe and explain (generally complex) one-off events, e.g. how a particular tribe organised its domestic arrangements at a particular time. We may generalise across peoples and periods, but each is unique in its particulars, and the variables 'chaotic'.

Science attempts to describe and explain (basically simple) repeatable events, using experiment and observation. Each event may be separate, but they have a collective unity, varying by parameter or quantifiable variable.

The historian gathers evidence, and weighs it in his experience of the 'human condition'. The scientist uses statistical analysis to arrive at a degree of probability.

(The above is hopelessly simplified -- but I am not writing a thesis!)

History does not furnish "adequate proof" in the sense that science might.

You mean history is more prone to be understood in different ways according to one's perception of our society?

Does everyone agree that science has no role to play in deciding "histroy"?

History is not science. "History is the singular. Science is the plural."

History attempts to describe and explain (generally complex) one-off events, e.g. how a particular tribe organised its domestic arrangements at a particular time. We may generalise across peoples and periods, but each is unique in its particulars, and the variables 'chaotic'.

Science attempts to describe and explain (basically simple) repeatable events, using experiment and observation. Each event may be separate, but they have a collective unity, varying by parameter or quantifiable variable.

The historian gathers evidence, and weighs it in his experience of the 'human condition'. The scientist uses statistical analysis to arrive at a degree of probability.

(The above is hopelessly simplified -- but I am not writing a thesis!)

History does not furnish "adequate proof" in the sense that science might.

So let's say what you've told us here is generally what is believed to be a 'historical fact' based on our present knowledge about human nature and behaviour, and by judging how major societies have functioned for more than 2,500 years.

You make the important points very effectively River Ape. I would add this.
We know that humans differ significantly from other animals in the length of time the offspring are dependent upon adult support and guidance. Clearly there were strong evolutionary pressures to have this adult support consist of the mother and the father. The evolution of sexual intercourse as a recreational, as well as a procreational, activity helped bind the father to the mother, and thus provide support for the children as they progressed to adulthood.
The existence of alpha males and alpha females as power centres in troops of our primate cousins was doubtless duplicated amongst our technologically primitive ancestors. At what ever point language developed beyond the mere "give me a piece of that raw meat or I'll rip your arm off" stage, that heirarchy would have been formalised within the troop, with a tribal chief, medicine woman, and various hangers on.
I can think of absolutely no reason that the heterosexual bonding pattern, evolved to improve survival prospects for offspring, would not have been similarily formalised into an early form of marriage.
Thus, although some would prefer to shy away from this, we see that once again, a central facet of our culture is no more than a formal expression of our evolved animal character.

There is a fundamental flaw in the question posed by this thread.
One presupposes that marriage institutions did start.
Now. We can look at several cultures around the world and see that, in fact, marriage has become a prevalent method of social interaction, but because of the meddling of missionaries and other cultural smearing, we'll never know for sure just how common the institution was pre-Western hegemony, nor can we know what the institution would have been like if it were different from 'classical' western marriage or some of the other mainstream marriage styles.

Their are several aspects of the question to address.

First. There is Buddha's intent. I think that everybody here is well-aware of his anti-female (or pro-man) agenda. I wonder exactly what it is that he wants out of this thread. Several things have been brought up, and he seems to be unable to address them in any significant manner. Is here merely wanting to gather information without taking part in a discussion? I can see that he's found the discrepancy between history and science. And the difficulties in anthropological research. But, with this he seems to wish to invalidate marriage as a viable institution and in the end turn this to a discussion on how men should be with men and only with women to breed?

Buddha. You are a serious trip. Do you have anything else on your mind?

Second. One should beware of thinking too simplistically. How can one answer the question of the beginning of marriage? The question is poorly asked. There are a variety of cultures around the globe. Alive and dead. Marriage differs from one to the other. Some are surely connected. Some are not.

Marriage is likely a concept that arose spontaneously several times. I highly doubt that the institution has a single source. For it to do so, the earliest human culture pre-diaspora would have to have the institution. I seriously doubt that such is the case.

It shouldn't be a surprise that marriage has come up so often in so many cultures. Our bodies are designed for it in many ways. Look at testicle size. Halfway between gorilla and chimp. Gorilla the single male with a herd of females. Chimp who fucks like a nympho for purely social reasons. Man exists in the middle. Not biologically monogamous or our testicles would be smaller, but neither extravangantly promiscuous like the chimp.

However, different cultures provide different requirements for marriage.
Pre-neolithic societies would mostly focus upon care of offspring, I should think. While post-neolithic societies begin to think of paternity and inheritance.

It's interesting to think that the patriarchal shift in our society occurred because only the paternity of the child can be questioned. The maternity is never in doubt.

The mystery of childbirth was very likely the original magic. The great question. It's no wonder that the earliest religions would be female-centric. Even with all the knowledge of reproduction that we have today... I still find it magical.

And it's ironic to consider that this very birth of magic was later the cause of the subjugation of women.

Third. The general theme of answers seem to indicate a male-dominant society.

As the difficulties of anthropology have already been pointed out, I don't need to go into great detail explaining just how difficult it is to understand our earliest beginnings. We have a difficult time comprehending our ancient past post-writing, let alone those long-ago days before history even began. The oral traditions that undoubtably once heralded that ancient past is long gone. What remains is horribly twisted by time and so nothing remains.

However, there are clues. And many of these clues lead one to conceive of early society being not patriarchal. But more of an egalitarian society. In these societies, women would not have been considered property. They would have been considered equal partners. In hunter-gatherer societies, this is the norm. However, even in the early neolithic sites such as Catalhoyuk in central Turkey, the egalitarian status remains. The shift to a patriarchal society didn't occur (in certain key cultures) until quite a bit later.

Joseph Campbell, in his Masks of God, followed the trail of myth and has deduced a period of time where the previous ways of life were turned upside down and the myths similarly were disturbed. The twisting of myth is seen most prevalently in the Old Testament of the bible where certain key myths from earlier societies exist but with the events garbled and the key players shifted in significance.

Eve being blamed for the fall for instance. And the serpent being evil. In earlier societies, it has been posited that the central religion was a goddess worship. This earth goddess was connected with a serpent. Her husband. A bringer of wisdom. In the bible, the serpent deludes Eve into eating the apple. Thus eating of the Tree of Knowledge. Key details coincide. But are twisted. A moral conundrum.

(Interestingly, the fruit is often seen in earlier myths as the change from immortal humanity to a mortal one. The key concept is usually a murder amidst the early god-like beings. With the evidence (usually the head) being hidden by burial (original guilt) but being discovered because from the buried body grew a fruit. Generally the principle staple of the region. This myth is seen in widely seperated cultures and is likely descended from some of the original myths carried by early man in his diaspora from Africa. However. Campbell's work, while immensely interesting and well-written, is all guess-work and thus should be taken with a grain of salt. Very interesting read though. I recommend to anyone interested in this sort of thing.)

Fourth. Seeing as how the beginnings of our culture is lost to us save through interpretation of fossil remains and such, a key method of determining some of these questions is by looking at cultures that exist today that still live in a hunter-gatherer state. Societies that are almost unsullied by cultural contamination. That still maintain some sort of cultural integrity.

The San bushmen have been brought up. This culture is thought to represent the most primitive state of our history. The San represent how our ancestors who spread out from Africa likely lived. (Of course, one should always keep in mind that the San have likely developed certain customs after the diaspora and thus aren't a perfect representation.)

The aborigines of Australia and the Philipines are next. I have no direct knowledge of their marriage customs, but this would be a place to look. There are lots of Australians on this site. Perhaps some of them have some knowledge to share. The Australian aborigines have been contaminated quite a bit, I think, so perhaps the aborigines of New Guinea would be a better place to look. Even so, I'd be interested to hear about either/or.

After this, we begin to encounter huge gaps. Very few tribes exist that could be said to be such ancient peoples as this. They've long ago been assimilated or annihilated. However, some do exist.

Pacific Islanders would be a place to look. They have been heavily missionaried (by both Christians and Islam) but the history of what they were still remains. There was a sexual freedom on the islands. More than freedom. Young islanders were often educated in sex by older islanders. Young boys with older women. Young girls with older men. I'm not sure if there was any concept of marriage until the missionaries came and covered up all those nubile titties. (Bastards!)

Next, there are two other cultures that I read of a while back that I feel I should mention.

The first is the Bari of Brazil. The second is the Na of china. I'm tired of typing off the top of my head here, so I'm going to quote a couple of passages I wrote about these long ago in another thread. The passage about the Bari is a synopsis written by me. The passage about the Na is an excerpt taken from an article in Discover magazine (in which I read of both of these cultures.)

"The Bari don't believe that there is a single father for their children. The women can be serviced by several men during her pregnancy. And each of these men must accept responsibility for the child. The child being formed is "washed" by the semen of the various men and nourished by it. It is not necessarily common (especially after missionaries have had their way with the people) but it's not uncommon either. It seems that the Bari have stopped talking about it much because they know it is not our way, but they still practice it. They even have a saying about why it is good. It seems that the woman becomes sexually voracious during pregnancy. And if only one man (her "husband") were to satisfy her, he would wear himself out. Look, they say, she gets fat because she he's doing all the work. He get's skinny because she's just laying there. Now, I hope that they're exagerrating and the women do more than just lay there (Seems like they enjoy it, so why would they just "lay" there?) But, they have a point. They also have sexual freedom. Once a child has completed puberty, they can have sex with anyone they want, as long as they don't break the incest taboo."

The marriages of the Bari only exist as long as the participants wish. Many hunter-gatherer marriages are like this.

"The Na of Yunnan Province in China, for example, have a female-centric society in which husbands are not part of the picture. Women grow up and continue to live with their mothers, sisters, and brothers; they never marry or move away from the family compound. As a result, sisters and brothers rather than married pairs are the economic unit that farms and fishes together. Male lovers in the this system are simply visitors. They have no place or power in the household, and children are brought up by their mothers and by the mothers' brothers. A father is identified only if their is a resemblance between him and the child, and even so, the father has no responsibilities toward the child. Often women have sex with so many partners that the biological father is unknown. "I have not found any term that would cover the notion of father in the Na language," writes Chenese anthropologist Cai Hua in his book A Society Without Fathers or Husbands: The Na of China. In this case, women have complete control over their children, property, and sexuality."


Hmm.
I could probably come up with some other things to say. But I suppose that's enough for now. Let's see how much stamina exists in this thread.

Marriage predates history. Here is some reading of early marriage contracts in Mesopotamia.

http://ehistory.osu.edu/world/articles/ArticleView.cfm?AID=58


are youciting these as marriage contracts that predate history? because i always thought history was any recorded evidence (both primary and secondary sources) of human activity. so if this is a record how can it not be history?

are youciting these as marriage contracts that predate history? because i always thought history was any recorded evidence (both primary and secondary sources) of human activity. so if this is a record how can it not be history?
O.K. now that the term History is becoming clearer I realise why this thread should have been in anthropology, rather than in History. But since we are here, let's consider this both from the angles of anthropology and history (and from other angles such as sociology, pscyhology, wild life and most of all simple human common-sense).

because i always thought history was any recorded evidence (both primary and secondary sources.....
.....and thirdary, and fourthary, and fifthery......and thousandary :)

Clearly there were strong evolutionary pressures to have this adult support consist of the mother and the father.
Do you have evidence of it?

Clearly we assume a lot of things without any basis -- but what our social norms tell us?
[QUOTE=Ophiolite]The evolution of sexual intercourse as a recreational, as well as a procreational, activity helped bind the father to the mother, and thus provide support for the children as they progressed to adulthood.
Sex as a recreational, and bonding activity has always been there amongst living organisms --- even before 'sexual reproducion' took place (refer to the thread: Darwin is wrong about sexuality (http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=50460) ). Only, evidences point it to be only between the same-sex.

If sex between opposite sexes had biologically evolved into recreational sex, then there would have been inbuilt natural mechanisms that would act as 'contraceptives' (common sense! ;)). Evolutions are not dependant on human technologies (although there is a thing like 'artificial evolution' which may have been the case here --- but every artificial evolution has severe drawbacks!).

Clearly, it is possible to draw sexual pleasure out of sex with women --- but it is not the primary source of sexual pleasure --- as can be seen by the documented attitudes of many societies that allow even limited amount of acceptance for same-sex activities as masculine, in the mainstream male community (ancient Greeks, modern day pockets of Afghanistan, several pre-historic tribes). Even if you don't want to accept it as a concrete fact, You can't deny that there is a strong possibility that the modern human male's dependance on females (his secondary sexual drive) is brought about by forcing him away from the primary source of his sexual drive. (see evidence: (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=839918#post839918))
The existence of alpha males and alpha females as power centres in troops of our primate cousins was doubtless duplicated amongst our technologically primitive ancestors.
Funny, hearing such broad generalisations from someone who sits on high pedestal and asks for peer-reviewed evidences for every single letter uttered by the opposition.

Also, if indeed the heterosexuals in the wild (if they exist) are the alpha males and females, then it is a bit odd to think that the majority in humans become the Alpha males/ females by evolving into 'heterosexuals'. If everyone is the same, no one remains Alpha.

The Alpha-male heterosexual theory can be easily refuted by the instances of Red fox (there are accounts of it on the net), where the male that bonds with females to raise kits, does not fight to mate (he often ends up raising someone else's kits) and those who compete to mate with females do not bond with them. Also, the 'heterosexual' male red fox here is generally afraid to fight, he is known to defend his kits by trying to lead away the enemy from the kits by running (remember the famous adage: fox is cunning --- it's actually a heterosexual male's survival technique found all over the wild life and even in humans!)
At what ever point language developed beyond the mere "give me a piece of that raw meat or I'll rip your arm off" stage, that heirarchy would have been formalised within the troop, with a tribal chief, medicine woman, and various hangers on.
What has that to do with what we are discussing here?
I can think of absolutely no reason that the heterosexual bonding pattern, evolved to improve survival prospects for offspring, would not have been similarily formalised into an early form of marriage.
I see no reason to believe that a natural heterosexual bonding instinct exists amongst humans. There would be no need for any kind of pressures in the society to force men to be heterosexual then. There would be no need to give any extra rewards or powers to men who prove their 'heterosexuality'. If it is something as natural as breathing air, you don't attach extra importance to it. You don't even think about it.

Also, there would not have been any need whatsoever to persecute sex between men (what threat could it pose to our 'survival' if it is so rare), certainly not at the level we see it in today's world.
Thus, although some would prefer to shy away from this, we see that once again, a central facet of our culture is no more than a formal expression of our evolved animal character.
And someone recently accused me of 'circular reasoning'!

I don't know what Bhudda1 is posting, as I still have him on Ignore. I should just like to say that I almost certainly disagree with him. Thank you.

I don't know what Bhudda1 is posting, as I still have him on Ignore. I should just like to say that I almost certainly disagree with him. Thank you.
.. :D

There is a fundamental flaw in the question posed by this thread.
One presupposes that marriage institutions did start.
Now. We can look at several cultures around the world and see that, in fact, marriage has become a prevalent method of social interaction, but because of the meddling of missionaries and other cultural smearing, we'll never know for sure just how common the institution was pre-Western hegemony, nor can we know what the institution would have been like if it were different from 'classical' western marriage or some of the other mainstream marriage styles.
There is also a fundamental flaw in presupposing that the marriage institution was always there, since there are heavy pointers from animal life and many human societies that point against it, and the fact that heavy social investment goes into making marriage institution work. Especially, when you yourself admit that there are no way to determine exactly that they existed. If the major social institutions falsely portray marriage to be universal amongst all life-forms, it makes sense to start a thread from a different premise. (Have you noticed how they teach young people about Papa bear and mama bear)

First. There is Buddha's intent. I think that everybody here is well-aware of his anti-female (or pro-man) agenda. I wonder exactly what it is that he wants out of this thread.
The truth fears no one. And whatever my intentions are, if you're sure of what the truth is, I can not fool others. But if you are not sure of the truth yourself (as you hint) it helps not to prejudge anything and be willing to take in new concepts regardless of the intentions of the initiator.
Several things have been brought up, and he seems to be unable to address them in any significant manner. Is here merely wanting to gather information without taking part in a discussion?
I do want to gather information here --- as I do in other threads, and I want to do it objectively, without caring whether they support my contention or not.
*
I can see that he's found the discrepancy between history and science. And the difficulties in anthropological research.
See, something good always come out when you enter into a discussion sincerely. Too often we have vague unfounded notions about things that we take to be 'eternal truths'. Discussions open our doors to new information, if we are open minded enough.
*
But, with this he seems to wish to invalidate marriage as a viable institution
If it is indeed a viable institution and an indisputable natural human instinct, do you think someone can invalidate it so easily? Please have more faith in what you support, if you lack that faith, then be open to new information.
and in the end turn this to a discussion on how men should be with men and only with women to breed?
:D

I think that everybody here is well-aware of his anti-female (or pro-man) agenda.
Now, wait a minute.....let me clarify rightaway --- to be pro-man does not mean to be anti-woman. I'm not against anybody, I'm only against individuals and institutions that are oppressive. I'm not even against man-woman bonds. I'm against 'heterosexuality' because it is an oppressive ideology and because it is forced on people.

Some of my assertions may seem anti-woman but only if you look at it from a heterosexual ideology's point of view. I'm against giving unwarranted powers to women to exploit men. I guess man-woman politics will happen as long as men and women are forced to live together. And certainly making them equal (same) is no solution.

I'm all for the rights of women to live as per their natural needs and ambitions.

Buddha. You are a serious trip. Do you have anything else on your mind?
I agree it is a handful. Don't you think fighting the heterosexual system is a full time job?

One should beware of thinking too simplistically. How can one answer the question of the beginning of marriage? The question is poorly asked. There are a variety of cultures around the globe. Alive and dead. Marriage differs from one to the other. Some are surely connected. Some are not.

Makes sense. But the idea of putting a man and a woman together into a social contract must have initiated somewhere, even if it happened before the Man left Africa. My guess would be that it started when Man left Africa and decided to inhabit distant lands.

Marriage is likely a concept that arose spontaneously several times.
That depends on what you term as spontaneous. I agree that once people knew this could be done, and they were faced with an accute shortage of population, they would be forced/ prompted spontaneously to force their men and women to enter into marriage.

But if you are suggesting that human beings are spontaneously inclined to get married, then you have to look at several things which go against this simplistic assumption.

You don't have far to go. Look in a 'free' society like the west. How many people get married in Europe --- the last I heard was 20%, and it is often men who shun marriage in both traditional and heterosexual societies. Am I wrong? Isn't that the common stereotype of men in both these societies? I have personally seen several young men trying to put off marriage by as many years as possible (I'm not talking about putting off sex!)

I highly doubt that the institution has a single source. For it to do so, the earliest human culture pre-diaspora would have to have the institution. I seriously doubt that such is the case.
So you agree that the earliest human cultures did not have the marriage institution?
*
It shouldn't be a surprise that marriage has come up so often in so many cultures.
And so have pressures to bind men and women into marriage.

[QUOTE=invert_nexus]Our bodies are designed for it in many ways. Look at testicle size. Halfway between gorilla and chimp. Gorilla the single male with a herd of females. Chimp who fucks like a nympho for purely social reasons. Man exists in the middle. Not biologically monogamous or our testicles would be smaller, but neither extravangantly promiscuous like the chimp.
Now that is the weirdest idea I've seen in some time. (No wait there was one saying Israelis are the cause of homosexuality!). Is the corelation between the size of testicles and human promiscuity, let alone marriage, been proven scientifically?

I can give you several logics to prove that male-female bodies (whether in humans or in animals) are not meant for long term bonds.

i. That vaginal intercourse is not designed to give orgasm to women.....

ii. .....and its importance to men is limited to the point of ejaculation.

iii. Men are from mars and women are from venus. The masculinity of men and the femininity of women makes them the least likely people to be able to spend their life together or naturally be inclined to be in a bond. They have just too different views on life, potentialities and ambitions. It has always been a challenging task for societies to keep marriages together. The freer the society becomes, the more challenging becomes this task. There is no natural understanding between men and women.

iv. Men are not really good at parenting.

v. In cases where there is really 'love' between an opposite-sex couple, love mostly lasts for a year. So again, this is not enough to sustain marriage.

vi. Men are known to avoid committment in male-female romance. Again they are supposed to be too promiscuous to stick to marriage. If our biology indeed wanted men and women to be into marriage it would not have made men so promiscuous.

vii. 20% of women are said to have a bed hopping gene. Again this defeats the purpose of marriage.



Pre-neolithic societies would mostly focus upon care of offspring, I should think.
Basis for assuming Pre-neolithic societies had marriage or male-female bonds in any way?

Can you name any mammalian species where the male fathers the young? (except from a rare red fox and the likes!)
While post-neolithic societies begin to think of paternity and inheritance.
Wrong again --- the focus of human societies and of marriage has always been 'children'. What feminists call Patriarchy was a series of social benefits that were accorded to men, in order to force them into marriage. But women were not without their benefits. Although in the end both were losers. The only benefit was that humans could spread all over the globe with the increased population.

It's interesting to think that the patriarchal shift in our society occurred because only the paternity of the child can be questioned. The maternity is never in doubt.
.....Is just one of the side explanations. Doesn't tilt the discussion either way!

The mystery of childbirth was very likely the original magic. The great question. It's no wonder that the earliest religions would be female-centric. Even with all the knowledge of reproduction that we have today... I still find it magical.
Yes, and it is one of the biggest reward that men got for losing their freedom by entering into marriage.

Procreation is a power that only women have. That men were allowed to take part in it was a big deal --- although not big enough to force men into marriage on its own, i.e., without impending punishments on their refusal to marry.

And it's ironic to consider that this very birth of magic was later the cause of the subjugation of women.
I agree. But what most people conveniently ignore is that men paid the price too. Although they recieved easy access to outer power, their inner strength, their natural masculinity and freedom was taken from them. But it was all 'invisible' and hence unacknowledged.

Shit. He must be talking to himself.

Shit. He must be talking to himself.
Sigh! :( .....there are other pebbles on the beach!

are youciting these as marriage contracts that predate history? because i always thought history was any recorded evidence (both primary and secondary sources) of human activity. so if this is a record how can it not be history?

Sorry to confuse you. Marriage predates history is my comment, because it has been around probably longer than recorded history. If you are a Christian, then it was around from the beginning. The evidence below is for as early as 2500 BC

In earlier societies, it has been posited that the central religion was a goddess worship.
You mean like Roman Catholicism?

It is interesting that Mariolatry can flourish amid some very macho cultures. Or maybe not as macho as we think if it is really the mothers of the guys posing as the Alpha Males who actually rule the roost!

bravo buddha

it appears that it is you that conducts himself in a entirely reasonable manner and stays focused. the rest..........? i mean.....

I don't know what Bhudda1 is posting, as I still have him on Ignore. I should just like to say that I almost certainly disagree with him. Thank you.

what the hell is that? spam? it is obvious that this guy is so traumatized by your presence that even the ignore function is proving inadequate for his needs.

he has to comment on something he cannot read. that is harrassment. i must report him immediately to the authorities ;)

I don't know what A Vast Gut is posting, as I still have him on Ignore. I should just like to say that I almost certainly disagree with him. Thank you

lets look at the the term institution. it implies formalities, procedures and tradition.
if we thus accept marriage as being institutionalized, we can deemphasize the bonding and mating aspect of marriage and focus on others. namely , ownership of livestock, land and inheritance of the two.

hunters and gatherers would have initially relied on brute strength (standing within the group) to claim exclusive sexual rights to a female(s). i would imagine however that relationships were usually promiscuous in nature. they eventually would have evolved to a stage where a simple form of marriage (as pointed out by river ape in his "sans" post) is present

in pastoral societies, clans would restrict marriage on the basis of membership. the structure of the institution was typically endogamous in nature. it is probably at this stage of social evolution when the rules of marriage were formalized. an accumalation of wealth for the clan can now take place

as populations and resources increase, older forms of marriage such as polygamy and polyandry would be replaced by monogamous marriages

the "death do us part" has proven to be quite irrelevant nowadays as parties retain benefits despite a dissolution

There is a fundamental flaw in the question posed by this thread.
One presupposes that marriage institutions did start.
Now. We can look at several cultures around the world and see that, in fact, marriage has become a prevalent method of social interaction, but because of the meddling of missionaries and other cultural smearing, we'll never know for sure just how common the institution was pre-Western hegemony, nor can we know what the institution would have been like if it were different from 'classical' western marriage or some of the other mainstream marriage styles.

i hope the mechanics of the "start" is now apparent.

"Happy be you in future and prosper with your children here: be vigilant to rule your household in this home. Closely unite in marriage with this man, your husband. So shall you, full of years, address your company." (Rig Veda, Book 10, Hymn 85.27 circa 2000 bc)

that should serve as a warning against cultural myopia

http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=51990