pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Ireland votes YES for equal marriage !!  (Read 10367 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Semmick Photo

« on: May 23, 2015, 15:14 »
+6


« Reply #1 on: May 23, 2015, 16:27 »
+3
 Once in a while, to everyone's surprise, the future actually arrives.   


« Reply #2 on: May 23, 2015, 17:19 »
+2
AWESOME NEWS!!  The world  is sure changing fast.  Last month I went to the wedding of two good friends who have been in a committed relationship for 15 years.  About bloody time!

Semmick Photo

« Reply #3 on: May 24, 2015, 13:11 »
+2
Ireland is buzzing for sure. Landslide result. Highest turnout for a referendum in 20 years. It's been called the social revolution.

« Reply #4 on: May 24, 2015, 13:18 »
+12
Well done Ireland.

Now if you'd only extend the same courtesy of dignity and empathy to pregnant women seeking an abortion I'm sure the rest of Europe will cheer you to the rafters.

« Reply #5 on: May 24, 2015, 15:25 »
+5
There won't be a lot of pregnant women from gay marriages, so I suppose they are still being consistent.

Personally, I don't care whether people call themselves husband and wife, husband and husband or wife and wife or partner and partner. Good luck to them. The one thing I would object to is if tax benefits intended to support the upbringing of children are grabbed by people who have no intention of raising children but who just want to game the system for their own profit. And I really don't know if that is a consequence of "gay marriage", maybe someone else does.

dpimborough

« Reply #6 on: May 25, 2015, 04:24 »
+6
It will be a social revolution when ISIS stop throwing homosexual men off buildings strapped to a chair  :'(

When it's no longer a capital offence in Mauritania, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen and Iran

The silence of the gay community and the media on abuses in Islamic countries is reprehensible!
« Last Edit: May 25, 2015, 04:27 by Teddy the Cat »

« Reply #7 on: May 26, 2015, 00:24 »
+6
There won't be a lot of pregnant women from gay marriages, so I suppose they are still being consistent.

Personally, I don't care whether people call themselves husband and wife, husband and husband or wife and wife or partner and partner. Good luck to them. The one thing I would object to is if tax benefits intended to support the upbringing of children are grabbed by people who have no intention of raising children but who just want to game the system for their own profit. And I really don't know if that is a consequence of "gay marriage", maybe someone else does.

Many straight couples don't have children either nor want them.  On a planet with over 7 billion people, the idea of marriage being only about procreation is outdated.

I don't know what the tax system is in Ireland, but it would be odd to have a system that gives tax benefits for kids to any married couple that don't have them.

« Reply #8 on: May 26, 2015, 02:22 »
+3

I don't know what the tax system is in Ireland, but it would be odd to have a system that gives tax benefits for kids to any married couple that don't have them.


Well, what's the purpose of what used to be called the UK "married man's allowance" then? The Irish seem to have something similar (their tax regime having developed from the UK one) http://www.revenue.ie/en/personal/circumstances/marriage.html#section2.

I think it dates from my parents' era when it was normal to expect a woman to give up work when she got married (or for her not to have worked at all).  I was told, long, long ago, that it was to help couples to deal with their new circumstances and to prepare for a family, Most heterosexual couples in the UK still have kids, about 63% of marriages have dependent children and then there are those whose children have left or who have yet to start a family, so overall it's probably in the 80s or 90s as a percentage. I'd agree that it's an anachronism and ought to be phased out.

Anyway, it seems that this vote does not affect the tax position as the gay community was given the same rights as straight couples when the Dail approved Civil Partnership status for them. Though why other taxpayers should subsidise them is really a mystery to me. It's not insignificant, either - in the UK it can be worth more than 800 a year.


« Reply #9 on: May 26, 2015, 07:51 »
+7
The divorce attorneys love this.  Some years ago one of the mainstream stations (ABC or NBC I think) did a post mortem on gay couple "marriages" to investigate if there was a difference when they split up.  They found that those unions that split or "divorced" were every bit as brutal as heterosexual marriages can be.


Semmick Photo

« Reply #10 on: May 26, 2015, 08:06 »
-1
There's a fantastic positive buzz in this thread.  ???

« Reply #11 on: May 26, 2015, 08:49 »
+4
There's a fantastic positive buzz in this thread.  ???

Ok someone has to spoil the party first , I just hope those who consider to be open minded one one side can accept a different opinion on some of the things written here, that we can have fully argumented conversation  and that topic will not be closed.


 
Well done Ireland.

Now if you'd only extend the same courtesy of dignity and empathy to pregnant women seeking an abortion I'm sure the rest of Europe will cheer you to the rafters.

Im wondering about dignity and empathy on right of a fetus or a new life if you may call it.  Who can be the one to judge when the life really starts and when the conciseness of a human being  is fully formed. Wrong judgment would led to nothing else than a murder of a human being which is not able to defend its interests.

On the other hand there is always an option to give the newborn life to someone who will appreciate it and even an option of changing mind after experiencing the new born, but there is absolutely no irreversible option to abortion.

And yet many women clam they should have never done it and that the fact they did changed their life in the way they suffered mental pains the rest of their life.

What about possible misusing the given option, one example...persuasion of minors by their parents that can be easily hidden in various mental evaluations by the people responsible of approving the procedure or not which can lead to very bad things.



« Reply #12 on: May 26, 2015, 09:00 »
0

« Reply #13 on: May 26, 2015, 09:38 »
+1
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-32873562


Now there's an interesting twist! I would have thought that the usage was contrary to the usual terms, since there is no doubt that the issue is controversial and should have required specific consent.
I'm glad I don't shoot people (in any way).

Semmick Photo

« Reply #14 on: May 26, 2015, 14:30 »
0
Marriage has nothing to do with being parents. Just saying.

« Reply #15 on: May 26, 2015, 14:40 »
+7
Marriage has nothing to do with being parents. Just saying.

From the C of E marriage service:
"The gift of marriage brings husband and wife together
in the delight and tenderness of sexual union
and joyful commitment to the end of their lives.
It is given as the foundation of family life
in which children are [born and] nurtured
and in which each member of the family,in good times and in bad,
may find strength, companionship and comfort,
and grow to maturity in love."

OK, I don't care what the Church says about anything, but if marriage isn't about children what is it about? Getting God's blessing on your personal shacking-up arrangments?

I really don't understand what the passion for being allowed to be classed as married is if the legal status is identical with civil unions, which are already available.

Noedelhap

  • www.colincramm.com

« Reply #16 on: May 26, 2015, 15:07 »
+2
but if marriage isn't about children what is it about? Getting God's blessing on your personal shacking-up arrangments?

I really don't understand what the passion for being allowed to be classed as married is if the legal status is identical with civil unions, which are already available.

Maybe because a civil union feels somewhat like a second-rate kind of union to some.

Marriage is widely considered to the ultimate form of union between two people, strengthened by a marital contract. Which in essence has nothing to do with being parents / becoming a family. Perhaps the church looks at this in a different way, but the church looks differently at lots of things ;)

Whether or not marriage still holds that same level sacredness or importancy is debatable (looking at the high number of divorces nowadays), but everyone should have a right to be married to his or her lover, whether or not you're going to have children or not.

« Reply #17 on: May 26, 2015, 15:18 »
+2
But marriage is a religious invention, anyway.

« Reply #18 on: May 26, 2015, 15:57 »
+1
There won't be a lot of pregnant women from gay marriages, so I suppose they are still being consistent.

Personally, I don't care whether people call themselves husband and wife, husband and husband or wife and wife or partner and partner. Good luck to them. The one thing I would object to is if tax benefits intended to support the upbringing of children are grabbed by people who have no intention of raising children but who just want to game the system for their own profit. And I really don't know if that is a consequence of "gay marriage", maybe someone else does.

Many straight couples don't have children either nor want them.  On a planet with over 7 billion people, the idea of marriage being only about procreation is outdated.

I don't know what the tax system is in Ireland, but it would be odd to have a system that gives tax benefits for kids to any married couple that don't have them.


There are no tax credits for children in Ireland

« Reply #19 on: May 26, 2015, 16:49 »
+2
I know people have strong feelings on this issue, and I am strongly pro. To put it statistically in perspective, in Canada, where it is legal, there are 10 million male/female married couples, 1.6 million common law male/female couples and 20,000 same sex married couples. The number of same sex marriages is such a small percentage of the population that any economic or other impact is very low. Live and let live. We have bigger issues to worry about in my opinion.

« Reply #20 on: May 26, 2015, 17:10 »
+1
but if marriage isn't about children what is it about? Getting God's blessing on your personal shacking-up arrangments?

I really don't understand what the passion for being allowed to be classed as married is if the legal status is identical with civil unions, which are already available.

Maybe because a civil union feels somewhat like a second-rate kind of union to some.

Marriage is widely considered to the ultimate form of union between two people, strengthened by a marital contract. Which in essence has nothing to do with being parents / becoming a family. Perhaps the church looks at this in a different way, but the church looks differently at lots of things ;)

Whether or not marriage still holds that same level sacredness or importancy is debatable (looking at the high number of divorces nowadays), but everyone should have a right to be married to his or her lover, whether or not you're going to have children or not.

First I would just like to state that more than generally I don't have a single common ideal with ANY single church or religion, quite opposite mostly,  but accidentally coincidence arranged a part of a thought is shared by those institutions and myself in this case but from totally opposite reasons.

I don't know (and I might be wrong even I think I'm not)  but whats the ground on which you base the fact that marriage is considered a ultimate form of a union of two people ?

I mean someone can legitimately claim that the same matter is considered to be an union of a man and a women more widely and that there is a global agenda to warp this institution without any connection to any religious point of views. 

Yet again, hey ....why not between 3 people, why not between 1000 or why not between a man or woman and a tree...why to undercut anyone's free will ?

Standing somewhere in the middle in this matter I sure don't want to play the advocate of a radical opposite party against whos general opinions I spoke oftenly and openly and i sure support every mans dream to equality or anything else until its not doing any objective harm to another man.

But then again I don't get it, it all started about equal rights and all well known things connected with that but than in the middle of global success it had to penetrate into
the field of marriage invented by the leaders of same people opposing even to the institution of civil unions which btw bring same benefits as the marriage itself.

Somehow something tells me there are more parameters behind this story and that the whole deal is being strongly pumped and used used from some third group for a completely different purposes.

And to point out where Im standing...well  I have been in the relationship with my gf for a decade, the institution of marriage really don't mean much to me, if i ever get married it will be for the sole purpose of handling messed up bureaucracy and as I'm concerned it can officially be called strawberry cause I couldn't care less.
« Last Edit: May 26, 2015, 17:13 by Lizard »

StockPhotosArt.com

« Reply #21 on: May 27, 2015, 01:55 »
+3
OK, I don't care what the Church says about anything, but if marriage isn't about children what is it about? Getting God's blessing on your personal shacking-up arrangments?

This is exactly what it is. In my Anthropology course it was taught that marriage was the form that society has found to regulate and normalize sexual intercourse. This way it would allow women to start their sexual life (which is highly controlled and regulated in many societies) and provide men with steady sex, reducing conflicts regarding the chase of sexual partners. This is very, very roughly put.

Plus, in many societies (including ours until more recent times) the birth of a child was not considered to be linked to the practice of sex, but an action of the deity. Something like a blessing by god or fertility deity to the couple by their union. You have paintings where god is sending a (floating) baby into the belly of a woman.

In Hawaii women bathe in the ocean to receive the baby into their bodies from the deity after the "signal" that It has chosen her to carry a baby. Again, very, very roughly put.

If you go back thousands or tenths of thousands of years ago when the first marriage was performed I'm pretty sure that the knowledge of the relation between sexual intercourse and pregnancy was even less evident to the people than in the recent past in Europe.

I really don't understand what the passion for being allowed to be classed as married is if the legal status is identical with civil unions, which are already available.

Marriage instantly gives all the benefits a married couple has rights to. Civil Unions, at least where I live, require living together for two years before it's recognized being gay or straight couples. This means that if a member of a couple gets sick the other has the immediate right to visit him at the hospital.

There was a case here where a couple had lived for many years together and after the civil union was approved, including for gay couples, they were in the process of being recognized as a couple. But in the mean time one of them got very seriously ill.

The result was that he was in the brink of death for a long time totally abandoned in the hospital. The family renegaded him for being gay and didn't care if he died, and the long life companion was not allowed to get into the visits in the ICU because he was not related to him in any way. Occasionally the staff of the hospital closed their eyes, risking their jobs, and let him visit. If at the time they were allowed to get married he would get immediate rights of visit.

Plus, if the ill partner died he would lose almost everything because the family that renegaded him would be the ones entitled to receive the inheritance. The house and other goods were probably in the name of the ill man, and his partner could not claim anything.

Marriage also allows you to choose to share everything you already had prior to marriage. Civil Unions only allow to share what you acquire after it has been recognized. If you consider many people live as couples for a long time before making the union official, both contributing to the household it's very unfair. And there are many more examples.

Religion has nothing to do with this except if people were claiming the right to marry in church, which they are not. Marriage is nothing more than a type contract like the ones we agree with the stock agencies.

I'm glad Ireland voted yes. In my country some fanatics were screaming that this would be the end of the world and to be true, marriages are happening and no one cares the least or notices any change in any aspect of their lives. Well, except for those holding grudges blinded by the hate that seems to be the central core of religions.
« Last Edit: May 27, 2015, 02:18 by StockPhotosArt »

« Reply #22 on: May 27, 2015, 03:25 »
0
Thanks for that reply, sfa.  The hospital situation is very regrettable, I have no idea if there is a similar time delay in recognising civil partnerships elsewhere - it seems rather odd.
As for getting "god's" blessing, the latest news from the Vatican seems to be that it won't be coming from the god the Pope talks about.

StockPhotosArt.com

« Reply #23 on: May 27, 2015, 04:42 »
0
Thanks for that reply, sfa.  The hospital situation is very regrettable, I have no idea if there is a similar time delay in recognising civil partnerships elsewhere - it seems rather odd.
As for getting "god's" blessing, the latest news from the Vatican seems to be that it won't be coming from the god the Pope talks about.

@ BaldricksTrousers

In Portugal, a Civil Union (Unio de Facto) is recognized after two people filling their tax forms conjointly as a couple for two straight years. After that, I don't know exactly what happens. I have the idea that after these two years the union is automatically recognized, but I don't know if they are entitled to have a document proving the union or even need to ask for that document to be recognized as such. And the union is automatically considered dissolved once they fill the tax forms separately. Thinking about it, the Civil Union may only accept the Separation of Goods. Each property/object belongs to each person, even after the union is recognized to avoid the divorce procedure.

The delay is meant to, among other things, to avoid frauds as they will benefit from the few advantages in terms of taxes, regarding single people.

And since they are equal to an actual marriage in most things it's a way to assert the stability of the relationship since in the worst case scenario one member of the couple may have to make life or death decisions like to shutdown life-support on the partner.

Since marriage is considered a bigger step due to all the fuss around it, I guess that the stability of the relationship is something considered as acquired by the time the contract is signed. In fact, if we look well into it, it looks like the Civil Union ascertains more the stability of a relationship than marriage...   ;D

I think that I'm relatively correct about what happens in the case of Civil Unions in Portugal.

When gay marriage was approved in Portugal, the most important arguments used by those in favor, and hardly had any opposition even among people totally against gay marriage, were the ones referring to health and life and death issues like the one I mentioned in my previous post, and inheritance. Basically no one could argue against the logic and justice of at least those two extremely important issues.

In some conversations with people who were against it, after I explained these issues people changed their opinions. They still do not like the idea of gay marriage much, but can't argue about the fairness and feel bothered on the injustice and cruelty of the discrimination.

By the end, the discussion was basically restricted to semantics, where the only thing people against gay marriage disagreed was about calling that union as "Marriage". If the ones in favor of gay marriage wanted to call it Nutella or Porsche insted, no one would care or seriously oppose about it.

« Reply #24 on: May 27, 2015, 11:04 »
+3
But marriage is a religious invention, anyway.
Have you looked at the history of marriage?  I'm not sure what was invented first, marriage or religion?  I have read that it pre-dates all the mainstream religions.

« Reply #25 on: May 27, 2015, 11:46 »
0
But marriage is a religious invention, anyway.
Have you looked at the history of marriage?  I'm not sure what was invented first, marriage or religion?  I have read that it pre-dates all the mainstream religions.

You certainly cannot find relevant and accurate info on that whatever you decide to read but if one things is sure than is that both terms represent strong tools in hands on ones controlling the masses. 

« Reply #26 on: May 27, 2015, 15:20 »
-1
Glad to hear it!




« Reply #27 on: May 27, 2015, 15:57 »
+1
But marriage is a religious invention, anyway.
Have you looked at the history of marriage?  I'm not sure what was invented first, marriage or religion?  I have read that it pre-dates all the mainstream religions.

I'll bow to your broader knowledge, then (but agree with the Lizard, too).

StockPhotosArt.com

« Reply #28 on: May 28, 2015, 01:27 »
0
But marriage is a religious invention, anyway.
Have you looked at the history of marriage?  I'm not sure what was invented first, marriage or religion?  I have read that it pre-dates all the mainstream religions.

You certainly cannot find relevant and accurate info on that whatever you decide to read but if one things is sure than is that both terms represent strong tools in hands on ones controlling the masses.

Well, I think Sharpshot is right about marriage predating mainstream religions. And that does not need great studies. If you look at the oldest of mainstream religions (Hinduism?, Judaism?) it's pretty young when compared with the history of mankind.

fotorob

  • I am a professional stock photographer

« Reply #29 on: May 28, 2015, 02:40 »
+2
On a related note:
Not everybody seems to be happy about it.
So the Italian political party NCD used one of my stock images (most likely not within the license agreement terms):
http://bit.ly/1J3O6gR

« Reply #30 on: May 28, 2015, 10:25 »
-1
There's a fantastic positive buzz in this thread.  ???

Ok someone has to spoil the party first ,

thank you for "spoiling" that childish party, after so much "empathy" on the part of all these  "politically-correct" out there, it is good to see that at least some grown-ups are still around as well -- do we all have to part with the rests of reason and promote LGBT and turn right and wrong on their heads these days worldwide, just to please the crowds?!

And what the f*** (or, more appropriately here, f***-in-the.a**) does it have to do with Microstock? Is it just me? Am I missing something here? :) Seriously, folks.

Decriminalising should have been enough -- and it would even have been a good thing, had it not been for the misconception caused by it that now that it is not "a crime" anymore everyone needed to support it...

I have shared a flat with two gays for many years (because I am, or used to be, a naive and open person when I was young and stupid). These clowns are the most intolerant bunch of people you can find on the planet, not interested in anything but their little "special interest" there. -- Just like communists and the usual do-gooder politicians are, in fact, the most greedy on the planet.

Often, things are a bit different from what they seem to be at first sight...
« Last Edit: May 28, 2015, 10:34 by lex-icon »

« Reply #31 on: May 28, 2015, 11:08 »
-2
Marriage has nothing to do with being parents. Just saying.

From the C of E marriage service:
"The gift of marriage brings husband and wife together
in the delight and tenderness of sexual union
and joyful commitment to the end of their lives.
It is given as the foundation of family life
in which children are [born and] nurtured
and in which each member of the family,in good times and in bad,
may find strength, companionship and comfort,
and grow to maturity in love."

OK, I don't care what the Church says about anything, but if marriage isn't about children what is it about? Getting God's blessing on your personal shacking-up arrangments?

I really don't understand what the passion for being allowed to be classed as married is if the legal status is identical with civil unions, which are already available.

it must, then, be about progressivism never stopping and about shaking all foundations of everything for trouble-making's sake -- and exactly so it seems in our day and age with all the "Love" Parades and rubbish wherever you go.

Semmick Photo

« Reply #32 on: May 28, 2015, 15:24 »
-3
Lexicon, the thread is posted in Off Topic. Can you grasp the concept of an off topic post? I doubt it after reading your ignorant and superficial comment.

« Reply #33 on: May 28, 2015, 15:54 »
0
But marriage is a religious invention, anyway.
Have you looked at the history of marriage?  I'm not sure what was invented first, marriage or religion?  I have read that it pre-dates all the mainstream religions.

You certainly cannot find relevant and accurate info on that whatever you decide to read but if one things is sure than is that both terms represent strong tools in hands on ones controlling the masses.

Well, I think Sharpshot is right about marriage predating mainstream religions. And that does not need great studies. If you look at the oldest of mainstream religions (Hinduism?, Judaism?) it's pretty young when compared with the history of mankind.

Its absolutely your right to think whatever you want but the fact is that to answer the question actually needs much more than great studies because great studies have never explained nothing with clear facts and pretty clear evidences that are saying different were always just swiped under the rug like a missing link in Darwinism.

Hinduism is actually not at all among oldest know religions, is just largest of the oldest ones that "officially survived" but lets say taht even if it was oldest that what we will do about cults in the matter because we cant even find the core of religions so how can we possibly dig deeper into cults which are way older and more difficult to trace because they could include way less people and they could easily be the ones that implemented wedding as such.

And claiming that marriage is older than religions is actually pure speculation wit not a single evidence to support it that cannot be questioned.

If so...who was the one that could approve or disapprove wedding and who was originally leading the ceremony if wedding was older then religion and cult ? 

It had logically be a man of "more value" and adding more value to a man over other man is again form of leadership which with main difference with the animals who pick the strongest leader man tend to pick the wised one and what the most clever trick ever invented ? Claiming that other higher being wants his leadership and that already defines religious opinion.

But the most importantly is the fact that nobody cannot answer that question especially with more and more proves that even mainstream science cannot deny about mankind being way more old that we think. 

« Reply #34 on: May 28, 2015, 16:01 »
0
There's a fantastic positive buzz in this thread.  ???

Ok someone has to spoil the party first ,

thank you for "spoiling" that childish party, after so much "empathy" on the part of all these  "politically-correct" out there, it is good to see that at least some grown-ups are still around as well -- do we all have to part with the rests of reason and promote LGBT and turn right and wrong on their heads these days worldwide, just to please the crowds?!

And what the f*** (or, more appropriately here, f***-in-the.a**) does it have to do with Microstock? Is it just me? Am I missing something here? :) Seriously, folks.

Decriminalising should have been enough -- and it would even have been a good thing, had it not been for the misconception caused by it that now that it is not "a crime" anymore everyone needed to support it...

I have shared a flat with two gays for many years (because I am, or used to be, a naive and open person when I was young and stupid). These clowns are the most intolerant bunch of people you can find on the planet, not interested in anything but their little "special interest" there. -- Just like communists and the usual do-gooder politicians are, in fact, the most greedy on the planet.

Often, things are a bit different from what they seem to be at first sight...

Cool, but no need to thank me on this.

Sorry as I said im not the one who would support the other side radical thought especially with facts that you judge a whole population based on 2 individuals you actually met.

As I said I tend to stand in the middle and be objective on this

StockPhotosArt.com

« Reply #35 on: May 28, 2015, 16:32 »
+2
@ Lizard

The question was put specifically about "mainstream" religions, and I commented only about them. And it's not necessary any studies to know that marriage predates those mainstream religions since they have at most 5000 years of history and the modern man has tenths of thousands.

If we talk about smaller religions, like the ones from native people around the world, who knows what came first? And it's not even very relevant.

Marriage came up from the need of people (2, 5, 10...) to commit to each other, and religion and ceremonies were just the way society arranged to celebrate it and make it official.

Thinking about it, I do not think marriage came from religion. It came from that need from people to bond and making it official to the the rest of the society. Religion was just used as a seal of approval like in so many other things. For example, agricultures start sowing and the priest is called for blessings, mating season is near and people bless the animals, a ship is launched to the sea and the priest blesses it and so on. None of those activities originated from religion but religion is present in it.

So religion gets involved in everything and some times appropriates some of them. Marriage is one of them.

« Reply #36 on: May 28, 2015, 17:55 »
0
@ Lizard

The question was put specifically about "mainstream" religions, and I commented only about them. And it's not necessary any studies to know that marriage predates those mainstream religions since they have at most 5000 years of history and the modern man has tenths of thousands.

If we talk about smaller religions, like the ones from native people around the world, who knows what came first? And it's not even very relevant.

Marriage came up from the need of people (2, 5, 10...) to commit to each other, and religion and ceremonies were just the way society arranged to celebrate it and make it official.

Thinking about it, I do not think marriage came from religion. It came from that need from people to bond and making it official to the the rest of the society. Religion was just used as a seal of approval like in so many other things. For example, agricultures start sowing and the priest is called for blessings, mating season is near and people bless the animals, a ship is launched to the sea and the priest blesses it and so on. None of those activities originated from religion but religion is present in it.

So religion gets involved in everything and some times appropriates some of them. Marriage is one of them.

Actually a lot of  studies about that say differently. When 2 people were in love or boned to spend the life together they didn't have any reason to announce it or talk to anyone about that , first people lived in very small groups and were nomadic so they really haven't had any need about that.

The first benefits of marriage were actually about the power and creating bonds with other strong group of people to make the clan even stronger or uniting clans and the acts of strong and ceremonial announcements were used to spread the word as far as it goes that the members of 2 groups are now joined in blood and united.

The higher the people were in hierarchy more importance was given to the bond while while "small people" were just living together without any need of announcements.

As we know that the man is very social being we can assume that grouping people started in very early stage but on the other hand there were always many puzzles in peoples heads and the toughest ones were always explained by higher will or believing of something bigger which automatically mean a form of religion especially when a similar believe was shared within a group

In my opinion man was more likely to start to think and believe in higher force than to think to officially form a bond with someone and give that bond a name but yet again Im speculating just like anyone else who ever tried to answer that question :)   

« Last Edit: May 28, 2015, 17:59 by Lizard »

dpimborough

« Reply #37 on: May 29, 2015, 04:30 »
+1
Sorry but you humans always forget one over arching principle.

Selfish genes.

Marriage is nothing to do with social demands or religion.

Bonding or pair mating has everything to do with the under development of human babies when born.

It takes so long for a human to reach maturity and independence that the only way for the species to survive would be to have stable social structures to ensure the survival of the infants.

Human females in most primitive societies care for and nurture children and prepare food whilst human males provide animal protein through hunting and defensive capabilities to protect the group.

Even today human females instinctively look for mates who are not only able to provide but produce strong healthy offspring.

Marriage is merely a social construct some say but it is based on a deeper drive that pre-existed religion and more recent society (recent as in the last 10,000 years).

Bonding in other animals tends to be looser (especially cats) as infants take less time to reach maturity ~ for example a cat takes from 5 to 12 months to reach sexual maturity and the female can provide all the kittens requirements independently of male cats so no bonding is required (thankfully :D )

« Last Edit: May 29, 2015, 04:37 by Teddy the Cat »


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
30 Replies
8815 Views
Last post August 11, 2008, 07:23
by Nemo1024
1 Replies
3272 Views
Last post February 02, 2010, 02:10
by leaf
33 Replies
6093 Views
Last post July 02, 2013, 07:14
by Gannet77
8 Replies
4118 Views
Last post May 28, 2015, 08:41
by robhainer
6 Replies
2068 Views
Last post November 12, 2018, 09:36
by Uncle Pete

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle