This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

Comment

← Marriage - two viewpoints

mr_DNA's Avatar Jump to comment 18 by mr_DNA

Comment 14 by Smegmar :

Comment 13 by mr_DNA :

I was being brief.

Fair point.

I was summarising the churches involvement in 'wedlock' in my own country. I think I was giving a fairly impartial account of historical facts. Marriages were not originally carried out by the church and the church did not take an interest in them unless they were aristocracy. To quote :

"With few local exceptions, until 1545, Christian marriages in Europe were by mutual consent, declaration of intention to marry and upon the subsequent physical union of the parties.[24][25] The couple would promise verbally to each other that they would be married to each other; the presence of a priest or witnesses was not required"

That may be true but I believe it doesn't support your claim that "the church did not take an interest in them unless they were aristocracy".

Of course I have an opinion about whether there is a being who creates universes and then cares about the mating habits of a species of ape on an insignificant planet, but I wasn't addressing that point but rather the utility of marriage purely from a legal stand point.

Well, utility... you're probably English.

Smegmar I don't have time to write to write a dissertation. I assume that an intelligent reader would know the history of patronage of the late medieval church and know the interlocking interests of the church and the nobility. To say that the church only cared about the marital affairs of the this class is accurate. Inheritance, power and dynastic alliances were common concerns for the church in a land where a duke might have his brother as his bishop. The church enjoyed significant income from pardons, bequests etc from the nobility, not the peasants! I am speaking in a descriptive manner about the behaviour of the catholic church which was a cause for reaction and revolt in this century because of the perception of corruption and privilege; this is hardly a radical statement.

Marriage does have utility. It should be a fantastic day ( for anybody, not just heterosexual couples ). But you shouldn't lose sight of legal benefits and responsibilities. The problem is that the perception has grown up in popular culture about it simply being an excuse to blow a fortune on frocks and cakes. So I repeat my point. You don't need a priest to marry you but you do need a lawyer to fight your case if you split up. Without the little bit of the paper somebody will likely end up disadvantaged.

Wed, 14 Mar 2012 16:30:29 UTC | #927003