Marriage Institution: When and how did it start!

Discussion in 'History' started by Buddha1, Dec 21, 2005.

  1. Gustav Banned Banned

    bravo buddha

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

    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

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Ophiolite Valued Senior Member

    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
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Gustav Banned Banned

    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

    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
    Last edited: Dec 24, 2005
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Anomalous Banned Banned


Share This Page