I agree.
Also, another big problem from marriage, especially in a religious (divine and stuff), is this ‘strong’ fiction based bond which many times, after the divorce, one of the couple, if not both, are getting depressed and they cannot move forward, which this can be a burden for their children’s psychology.
I forgot to mention that for prehistoric and oral-only cultures, we cannot definitively determine whether formal marriage existed in the way we understand it today, if not at all.
While there are archaeological findings, such as burials of individuals who appear to be buried together, the interpretation of these findings is speculative. We cannot be sure if these individuals were buried together due to a marital bond, familial relationship (like parents or siblings), or for other social or ritualistic reasons. The concept of marriage as a formal contract or religious ritual, as we understand it today, may not have been present in these early societies.
Therefore, my Assertion that “Marriage originated as a social contract rather than a purely religious ritual” is well grounded with evidence, both historical and archaeological.
Don’t forget the legal aspect of getting married. I think most folks don’t think about how getting married changes not only how the law views you and your spouse, but also the way you and your spouse are expected to behave while married.
I have to assume that the legal aspect of marriage evolved in different places at different times in different ways - and while human society is gradually causing things to become the same, there is still quite a difference between cultures.
We have already covered that above; inheritance, legal rights for parents and children, making medical decisions, etc.
I totally agree with you! Marriage definitely has a big legal impact that a lot of people overlook. But you’re right , beyond the legal side, how people are ‘expected’ to behave can vary a lot depending on culture, religion, and personal beliefs.
The thing is, even when people know these expectations, feelings aren’t always easy to control. Shit happens , someone might fall out of love, get bored, or even develop feelings for someone else. For many, marriage feels more like a routine or social habit than a ritual tradition that strengthens a relationship which enhances loyalty(lol).
Exactly! That was my point. The core idea of marriage started as a contract for legal purposes, but how the ceremony and traditions evolved has varied based on culture, beliefs, and lifestyle. It’s similar to language — the fundamental purpose has always been communication, but it developed differently across societies while serving the same basic need: expression of thought.
How about Infant Baptism as Christian Brainwash, is that a thing in your countries? What are your stances on this subject. Do you agree that is a form of brainwash and violates human rights and many aspects of individual freedom ?
I disagree. I think the core idea is a social construct. The male gets access to regular sex, and the female gets a protector during times when she and her offspring are vulnerable. There is a wide range of variations on this depending on the species. For humans, the legal aspects came later.
What I wonder about is how religion inserted itself into this. I suspect a bit of trying to explain why males and females bond one-on-one and a bit about trying to control disruptive behavior.
You 're right. I should’ve said as a form of contract. Although social interactions usually adhere to survival, moral and ethical regulations, describing those as laws(legal) it might be interpreted as they had a law system as we know it in modern days(children and parental rights etc.).
That may had been a case, among others. Both believing in supernatural beings and concepts had lead people to include religious rituals in many societal interactions.
Religious influence, as I said in my previous posts:
Marriage has of course evolved, and is evolving, if it works out that’s great, but if it doesn’t it is a financial contract you entered into with a very different person. How many people get proper financial advice before getting married, I am guessing not many.
It’s right that it is evolving from the patriarchal bs religions have peddled for millennia, but perhaps people need more support and advice on what to expect and why, just a thought.
Historically, in a time where acts of god and god’s will were the primary - or even only - way of explaining Nature, life, and death, baptising infants was a way to ensure that the baby would be accepted by that Jebus God character in case it should die before coming to age (which was quite normal only one or two centuries ago). Normally, a priest would baptise the infants in church, but if the newborn baby in question was in danger of dying before that, regular people could perform an “emergency baptism”, in order to save it from ending up in hell. So given those premises, regular people in rural areas had to do the sensible thing and obey, or risk ending up as outcasts, or even killed.
But modern versions of infant baptisms are different. At least here, in a mostly (>50%) secular society that has emerged from a Nordic lutheran society. Nowadays, t’s more of a tradition that makes people leave the church with a fuzzy warm feeling. Or because they don’t want to disappoint or anger their parents or grandparents. Even some non-believers baptise their children for this reason. In any case, parents that are religious enough will take baptism seriously and indoctrinate their children with religion, while secular ones will not.
Today, around half of newborns here are being baptised. And the percentage is decreasing. As you can infer from the above, some of the baptisms are strictly for tradition, without the parents actually caring about raising/indoctrinating their children according to the lutheran faith.
In short: Among devoted christians, baptism actually means something. Among the secularised, and those who do it for tradition and/or according to the wishes/insistence of parents, grandparents, etc., it’s more or less meaningless.
I think you should go back and read what I’ve actually written before coming with sweeping accusations. I’m not arguing in favour of baptising infants; I was answering a question from OP about infant baptism where I live.
FYI: The person calling themselves lonely horseman has been permanently removed for sock puppetry.