No, "marriage alliances" apply equally through the classes, you just have to scale it down relatively. Ie, craftsmen marrying their workshops together, farmers their land, and so on. Marriage was not just a union of two people but of two families. It meant more than just handing over a daughter and then washing your hands of her, it meant obligations and liabilities to the other family.
Sure, a marriage between serfs might not have meant much, given how little they were allowed to own, but there are a lot of non-royalty that is neither serfs or other kinds of slaves. Putting aside high nobility (you did mean nobility instead of royalty, I assume? Because marriage-alliances definitely applies not just to royalty but to all nobility of note), we have both burghers and low-class gentry such as freemen. In the parts of Europe that never went feudal, such as Sweden or Basque Country, every single peasant was a free man who was allowed to own his own land and property. Marriage for these people might jot literally have meant an alliance in the sense of an alliance between countries, kings, or noble houses, but it still matter a whole deal more than handing over (or refeiving) a woman. It was a mean to secure the future of you, your children, and your grandchildren (or insecure it if you chose badly).
In the UK, this remained the case up until 1870, but even in the 1970s women where not allowed to borrow money without the permission of their husband or male guarantor.
Neither Basque Country or Sweden, the two places plainly referenced in my statement above (which presumably cut away from the quote to make your snappy one liner response snappier), are in the UK. Now, I can't speak with confidence about Basque medieval customs, but the Basque are known for their more-equal-than-most-of-Europe gender attitudes, but I can say that Swedish women were not considered "property" in the same way that could be said about women down south. You're painting all of Europe with the same brush here, while apparently not bothering to take your eyes off the UK to look where you're brushing.
The basic concept of marriage might actually be older than the concept of religion, or even the concept of monogamy.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but in the "western world", for any marriage to be legal, it has to be officiated by a government official. A church wedding would be a bonus for religious people, so they are married in the eyes of their respective God as well as the law. Since e.g. inheritance is a matter of law in most countries, just the blessing of a random priest would in most cases not be enough. Unless you live in a theocracy where religion *is* the law, or where priests can act as a government official for special cases.
My question: why should they *not* be able to get married?
In the UK, this remained the case up until 1870, but even in the 1970s women where not allowed to borrow money without the permission of their husband or male guarantor.
First off, you are focusing too much on a specific cultural context and trying to steer this towards debating gender rather than personal beliefs. Second, the concept of being free was not equally applied to the male gender. There were numerous cultures where one was only considered free if they were born a citizen. In other cultures, one had to own land in order to be 'free'. There were also cultures that allowed women a greater degree of freedom than others.
This is the point I was trying to make.
Considering all the different perspectives and definitions of marriage that exist, it is impossible to definitively say "No, atheists should not be allowed to marry." There are simply far too many ways that one can define marriage. You can argue that a government or religion might have the ability to not recognize that marriage, but then it becomes a question of "Should atheist marriages be recognized?"
And that is an entirely different topic that is not even worth debating.
Marriage is the union of two people. Faith, belief, gender, culture have little influence really apart from the words said and the clothing worn at the ceremony.
Marriage is a civil contract, religion should be kept out of it entirely.
Though it's pretty easy to "fluff" a ceremony with some religious component if the parties so wish. As long as that doesn't have any legal advantages for them I'm fine with it. Not my wedding.
Well, obviously yes - at least in any place that is not a theocracy or religous dictatorship.
Theocracies would be Vatican State, Iran, Israel. Religous dictatorship would be Saudi-Arabia and alike. In Europe, Poland and Ireland would be examples of purportedly modern democracies with a heavy religious bearing on some aspecs of temporal administation.
In some such places renouncing religion carries a death penalty, so an open athiest will not exactly get an opp to get married.
Marriage is governed by secular law and temporal administartion, which also can be enacted through a religious seremony where secularism is not absolute. However, that religious significance is personal, and temporal admnistartion practical and universal (ideally).
Let it be said: I would expect most religous persons not begrudge marriage of non-believers. "In all things, charity." :-)
As long as Person A is not trying to marry a minor (legally defined as a person under the age of 18) then I don't care who they are trying to marry, even if they are trying to marry more than one person at a time--there is no logical reason to prevent someone from marrying someone else regardless of their respective genders, ethnicities, or if they want a poly relationship. If more people would quit minding other people's business then many problems currently facing the world would cease to exist. I have enough on my plate managing my own life so I certainly don't have time to devote to trying to manage someone else's life.
That being said, I do admit that people aren't allowed to do things such as marrying their cat or their waifu but not because I am a reactionary busy-body. No, you can't marry your pet or some inanimate object because those beings or things are not able to enter into legally-binding agreements--neither your cat nor your waifu understand the details of the division of marital assets or custody of children.
@Durandalis Then I should clarify a little. Human beings, in almost all cases, have the ability to understand the sometimes complicated details which are side-effects of marriage or its dissolution. Neither a cat nor a waifu will ever be able to understand those details, which is one reason why a person cannot marry their cat or waifu.
If someone wants to live with a cat and/or a waifu and conduct their life *as if* they were married to either one (or both, for that matter)...well, that isn't any of my business, either.
@Durandalis Then I should clarify a little. Human beings, in almost all cases, have the ability to understand the sometimes complicated details which are side-effects of marriage or its dissolution. Neither a cat nor a waifu will ever be able to understand those details, which is one reason why a person cannot marry their cat or waifu.
If someone wants to live with a cat and/or a waifu and conduct their life *as if* they were married to either one (or both, for that matter)...well, that isn't any of my business, either.
To dive further down the rabbit hole, some further clarification: a cat or a waifu might be able to understand them, but could not--within the confines of our current abilities--communicate that understanding effectively to humans.
@Durandalis Then I should clarify a little. Human beings, in almost all cases, have the ability to understand the sometimes complicated details which are side-effects of marriage or its dissolution. Neither a cat nor a waifu will ever be able to understand those details, which is one reason why a person cannot marry their cat or waifu.
If someone wants to live with a cat and/or a waifu and conduct their life *as if* they were married to either one (or both, for that matter)...well, that isn't any of my business, either.
To dive further down the rabbit hole, some further clarification: a cat or a waifu might be able to understand them, but could not--within the confines of our current abilities--communicate that understanding effectively to humans.
I'm beginning to think it has more to do with them being smart enough to realize it's not worth the argument we'd inevitably pull them into.
While marriage "Can" be based on religions grounds, there is nothing that I am aware of that means it MUST be on religious grounds. It is a partnership, a union of two people, period. Why can/should an atheist be allowed or denied that any more than any other person?
Besides, it is at least as much a business partnership as anything else and is therefore covered by laws and legal benefits having nothing what so ever to do with religion.
Now if the question had been "Should an atheist be allowed to marry IN A RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION/CEREMONY"? I'd still say Absolutely. What business is it of anyone but the people getting married?
To dive further down the rabbit hole, some further clarification: a cat or a waifu might be able to understand them, but could not--within the confines of our current abilities--communicate that understanding effectively to humans.
Cats probably have better things to do than instruct humans on the finer points of family law. Truthfully, I don't know what waifu do--sit quietly and giggle at the jokes you tell them? *shrug*
@Durandalis sometimes humor is lost on me. Part of those times are because I am not looking at the situation the way other people do. The rest of the time I actually did get the joke but I am being a horse's bum.
Personally I think @Shandyr posted an arbitrary question without any context just to see how long a discussion could ramble on for without any further input from the OP - and that we are just lab rats in an experiment about human nature.
Personally I think @Shandyr posted an arbitrary question without any context just to see how long a discussion could ramble on for without any further input from the OP - and that we are just lab rats in an experiment about human nature.
TIL: @Shandyr is a cat. Only cats are devious enough to pull this off.
There is going to be a follow-up poll to this one. However, "chain-polling" is not allowed on this forum, that's why I am waiting a bit.
Also yes I would like to see what people vote for and how they argue without me influencing it too much.
You are however no part of any kind of experiments.
I don't believe you.. where are the probes?
On the subject of marriage... I've been married since 1997. Never once I thought about getting a divorce and can't really imagine my life without my wife anymore. We went through bankruptcy and recovered together. We have been through tough decisions and decided together how to act and endured the consequences together. We have always shared all decisions.
Four years ago I nearly lost her to a stroke. She is fully recovered now.
Two years ago I went through surgery that finally healed me from a metabolic dysfunction that was killing me faster and faster. I'm fully recovered after two years and in a fairly good shape
After all this time together we decided that our lifes were stable enough to have kids and now we have a 10 months old boy that decided his father is a good chewing toy
Nothing compares to those moments we have full conversations without uttering a single word.
I'm an atheist and she is agnostic.
So no, I don't believe religion and religious views hold any monoply on marriage. Civil marriage, at least in my Country, makes a lot of things easier and simpler for the couple, so marrying legally was a no brainer.
Comments
Sure, a marriage between serfs might not have meant much, given how little they were allowed to own, but there are a lot of non-royalty that is neither serfs or other kinds of slaves. Putting aside high nobility (you did mean nobility instead of royalty, I assume? Because marriage-alliances definitely applies not just to royalty but to all nobility of note), we have both burghers and low-class gentry such as freemen. In the parts of Europe that never went feudal, such as Sweden or Basque Country, every single peasant was a free man who was allowed to own his own land and property. Marriage for these people might jot literally have meant an alliance in the sense of an alliance between countries, kings, or noble houses, but it still matter a whole deal more than handing over (or refeiving) a woman. It was a mean to secure the future of you, your children, and your grandchildren (or insecure it if you chose badly).
-if they where male.
If they where female, they where property.
In the UK, this remained the case up until 1870, but even in the 1970s women where not allowed to borrow money without the permission of their husband or male guarantor.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but in the "western world", for any marriage to be legal, it has to be officiated by a government official. A church wedding would be a bonus for religious people, so they are married in the eyes of their respective God as well as the law. Since e.g. inheritance is a matter of law in most countries, just the blessing of a random priest would in most cases not be enough. Unless you live in a theocracy where religion *is* the law, or where priests can act as a government official for special cases.
My question: why should they *not* be able to get married?
This is the point I was trying to make.
Considering all the different perspectives and definitions of marriage that exist, it is impossible to definitively say "No, atheists should not be allowed to marry." There are simply far too many ways that one can define marriage. You can argue that a government or religion might have the ability to not recognize that marriage, but then it becomes a question of "Should atheist marriages be recognized?"
And that is an entirely different topic that is not even worth debating.
Theocracies would be Vatican State, Iran, Israel. Religous dictatorship would be Saudi-Arabia and alike. In Europe, Poland and Ireland would be examples of purportedly modern democracies with a heavy religious bearing on some aspecs of temporal administation.
In some such places renouncing religion carries a death penalty, so an open athiest will not exactly get an opp to get married.
Marriage is governed by secular law and temporal administartion, which also can be enacted through a religious seremony where secularism is not absolute. However, that religious significance is personal, and temporal admnistartion practical and universal (ideally).
Let it be said: I would expect most religous persons not begrudge marriage of non-believers. "In all things, charity." :-)
That being said, I do admit that people aren't allowed to do things such as marrying their cat or their waifu but not because I am a reactionary busy-body. No, you can't marry your pet or some inanimate object because those beings or things are not able to enter into legally-binding agreements--neither your cat nor your waifu understand the details of the division of marital assets or custody of children.
If someone wants to live with a cat and/or a waifu and conduct their life *as if* they were married to either one (or both, for that matter)...well, that isn't any of my business, either.
It makes perfect sense when taken seriously.
Besides, it is at least as much a business partnership as anything else and is therefore covered by laws and legal benefits having nothing what so ever to do with religion.
Now if the question had been "Should an atheist be allowed to marry IN A RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION/CEREMONY"? I'd still say Absolutely. What business is it of anyone but the people getting married?
@Durandalis sometimes humor is lost on me. Part of those times are because I am not looking at the situation the way other people do. The rest of the time I actually did get the joke but I am being a horse's bum.
On the subject of marriage... I've been married since 1997. Never once I thought about getting a divorce and can't really imagine my life without my wife anymore. We went through bankruptcy and recovered together. We have been through tough decisions and decided together how to act and endured the consequences together. We have always shared all decisions.
Four years ago I nearly lost her to a stroke. She is fully recovered now.
Two years ago I went through surgery that finally healed me from a metabolic dysfunction that was killing me faster and faster. I'm fully recovered after two years and in a fairly good shape
After all this time together we decided that our lifes were stable enough to have kids and now we have a 10 months old boy that decided his father is a good chewing toy
Nothing compares to those moments we have full conversations without uttering a single word.
I'm an atheist and she is agnostic.
So no, I don't believe religion and religious views hold any monoply on marriage. Civil marriage, at least in my Country, makes a lot of things easier and simpler for the couple, so marrying legally was a no brainer.
New poll! New poll! New poll!
I think what you are really saying here is
It's time for more... experiments.