Where Does Marriage Come From?

[Sunstone]

I often see in other threads some remark to the effect that religion invented marriage. This is not my understanding of it, however. As far as I know, marriage in it's most basic form was "invented" at least as long ago as the origin of our species and probably even before that. That is, it seems most likely that humans evolved the behavior of pair bonding some very long time ago, long before the rise of any living religion. So, how can marriage be the invention of religion?

 

[MaddLlama]

Now, I'm not a sociologist or anthropologist, but I believe that marriage is a social construct that was invented by humans to help organize society, keep offspring together, and make sure posessions like money, homes, and land stayed within the scope of that offspring. I believe religion came into it later.

 

[Real Sorceror]

Now, I'm not a sociologist or anthropologist, but I believe that marriage is a social construct that was invented by humans to help organize society, keep offspring together, and make sure posessions like money, homes, and land stayed within the scope of that offspring. I believe religion came into it later.

What she said. Although, your kinda killin' all the romanticism here.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Now, I'm not a sociologist or anthropologist, but I believe that marriage is a social construct that was invented by humans to help organize society, keep offspring together, and make sure posessions like money, homes, and land stayed within the scope of that offspring. I believe religion came into it later.

It's a close call to me. I think that the family was the first human government, and the first government was religion. It's a close call.

 

[MaddLlama]

It's a close call to me. I think that the family was the first human government, and the first government was religion. It's a close call.

I would agree with you there. Religion, at least informal religion, and other important social structures probably developed alongside one-another as sort of a synthesis of all the things that make even a small society work.

But really I'm just making assumptions. I don't get to take anthropology until next semester

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I would agree with you there. Religion, at least informal religion, and other important social structures probably developed alongside one-another as sort of a synthesis of all the things that make even a small society work.

But really I'm just making assumptions. I don't get to take anthropology until next semester

I have the opportunity to take a phd course in anthropology this summer.:beach:

I may take it... but I really need some rest.

 

[Sunstone]

Now, I'm not a sociologist or anthropologist, but I believe that marriage is a social construct that was invented by humans to help organize society, keep offspring together, and make sure posessions like money, homes, and land stayed within the scope of that offspring. I believe religion came into it later.

If marriage was invented by humans, rather than evolved in humans or in a precursor species to humans, how do you account for it's ubiquity? It's found everywhere, in all human culture's and societies. Surely it could not have travelled to all corners of the earth from some point where it was invented. It must be instinctual.

 

[MaddLlama]

If marriage was invented by humans, rather than evolved in humans or in a precursor species to humans, how do you account for it's ubiquity? It's found everywhere, in all human culture's and societies. Surely it could not have travelled to all corners of the earth from some point where it was invented. It must be instinctual.

I didn't say it didn't evolve, surely the act of pair-bonding is instinctual for social and reproductive reaons. The act of marriage, or a permanent social bonding is simply the natural extension. And, then the natural extension after that, after more formal societies are formed, a more formal system is invented. Not all countries and areas of the world had the same conditions for these formal bonds. So, yes it's an inherent part of our nature, and yes it is something that evolved with us, but marriage as a formal institution is a product, or invention, of the formal culture.

 

[Sunstone]

I didn't say it didn't evolve, surely the act of pair-bonding is instinctual for social and reproductive reaons. The act of marriage, or a permanent social bonding is simply the natural extension. And, then the natural extension after that, after more formal societies are formed, a more formal system is invented. Not all countries and areas of the world had the same conditions for these formal bonds. So, yes it's an inherent part of our nature, and yes it is something that evolved with us, but marriage as a formal institution is a product, or invention, of the formal culture.

Thank you for the clarification, O Awesome Llama! I agree with you completely. Formal marriage customs vary considerably from one society to the next, but the underlying behavior of pair bonding is universal, and surely is the product of evolution.

 

[charles brough]

When did marriage begin? Ancient societies were led by myths that arose to show people how to live. . . religious myths. . . they shaped the society they bonded. The idea that humans are a monogamous species is incorrect. Instinctively, we are very much like the chimp. He is about 10% dimorhioc just like we are and genetically closest to us of all the other primates. The males are about 10% larger than the females. The larger the difference, the less monogamous a species! Gorilla males are polyigenous and are much larger. The gibbon males are monogamous and about the same size as the females.

There is no indication marriage goes back more than 5,000 years. Before that, there were various forms of family. It was not even known that the male played any role in pregnancy until about 7,000 years ago.

When it began to be realized that the male played a role, religion began to take on more masculine characteristics. The religions that formed the Egyptian and the Mesopotamian societies found that a balance of both male and female gods brought out the best in men and enabled the structuring of powerful government for the first time. Religions follow a pattern of survival of the fittest and shape human social evolution.

The myth that arose and made the change possible was the precurser to the Adam and Eve myth. It emphasized the pair bonding principle. It was the most influencial myth in all human history. A man was to have only one mate.

The institution is not instinctive, however, and it is necesary for society to impose it and maintian it in order for civilization to survive. When people drift away from it, societies and civciliZations crumble.

 

[Sunstone]

The institution is not instinctive, however...

I suppose you have an explaination then for why marriage in its most basic form --- pair bonding --- is found everywhere? For surely, it would not be found everywhere if it originated with just one society and spread from there.

 

[Ozzie]

I suppose you have an explaination then for why marriage in its most basic form --- pair bonding --- is found everywhere? For surely, it would not be found everywhere if it originated with just one society and spread from there.

One problem with the instinctual thesis is that we are not all that good at preserving marriage or unique pair bonding for the lifetime of the pair, unlike penguins for instance.

 

[painted wolf]

marrage is a social construct... several cultures have systems that are quite unlike our 'marrage'.

women who choose new husbands every year or so as she wishes... men with multiple seperate households... men and women living completely apart...
Its a mixed bag and likely was more so in the distant past.

wa:do

 

[TurkeyOnRye]

I would conjecture that marriage came approximately the same time as consciousness and therefore approximately the same time as spirituality and philosophical thought. Indeed, marriage must certainly have been a much more rigid, sterile and unofficial institution and probably a non-religious one. I would speculate that religion, defined in terms of the context we use the word with today, was created some time afterward with the two concepts integrating shortly thereafter.

 

[Arabis]

As far as I know, marriage in it's most basic form was "invented" at least as long ago as the origin of our species and probably even before that. That is, it seems most likely that humans evolved the behavior of pair bonding some very long time ago, long before the rise of any living religion. So, how can marriage be the invention of religion?

Ok, I have a completely different view of marriage than the others that have posted on this thread. I think that Sunstone is closer to my point of view. God didn't create marriage and humans didn't invent it. Marriage has been around a lot longer than we can imagine. It just doesn't make sense that God would create something that he didn't do himself just to see what it would be like. He does want us to be like him, and I think that since humans like to pair up it is just seems natural that it has been around a lot longer than when our species decided we needed some structure.

 

[Mike182]

i said marriage evolved in our own species. as a race we developed trade, and basic contractual agreements. assumedly, marriage was an later development of contracts between people.

i don't know nearly enough about our history to say for sure, this is my best guess

 

[painted wolf]

Lots of animals pair bond for life, is this the equilivant of marrage?

wa:do

 

[michel]

I didn't say it didn't evolve, surely the act of pair-bonding is instinctual for social and reproductive reaons. The act of marriage, or a permanent social bonding is simply the natural extension. And, then the natural extension after that, after more formal societies are formed, a more formal system is invented. Not all countries and areas of the world had the same conditions for these formal bonds. So, yes it's an inherent part of our nature, and yes it is something that evolved with us, but marriage as a formal institution is a product, or invention, of the formal culture.

I agree, and the proof of the pudding is in the eating. Look at nature; there are animals and birds that stay together for life. In all the animal kingdom, males will fight off any challenger (which we have disposed of by having our neat and tidy laws about "not coveting").

 

[Pariah]

marrage is a social construct... several cultures have systems that are quite unlike our 'marrage'.

women who choose new husbands every year or so as she wishes... men with multiple seperate households... men and women living completely apart...
Its a mixed bag and likely was more so in the distant past. [Emphasis added]

I agree completely.

Genetically, humans today do not vary much from our early ancestors, thus we can say that instinct itself has, for the most part, not changed. Today, people instinctively act in respect to their distinct patterns of thought, whether it be monogamy, polygamy, or a variety of other sexual relationships. If a person grows up, watching his or her parents work successfully within a monogamous relationship, he or she may be drawn towards that relationship having seen that it works. Vicarious learning allows us to make the conclusion that such a relationship will work in the future.

Another wild theory of mine involves the monarchy and the divine rulers. If we assume that one man somewhere exhibited enough charisma to rule a group of people, we can assume that he would want to continue that control (or perhaps he truly believed he was meant to) and would use religion to back up his statements. The masses, hoping for the same divinity and peaceful rule, would look to his progeny, for they would have in them the same divinity. In a patriarchal society, the only member of the relationship that matters is the father. And so, in order to keep the genealogy intact, which meant the stability of their civilization, marriage kept order to prevent b-astard, illegitimate, and false children from ascending the throne, lest evil take root in the empire.

 

[Luke_17:2]

From an evolutionist point of few: marriage developed over the eons as human ancestors mated as a natural impulse. And as we progressed, marriage progressed from a mere procreational instinct, to love between two human beings.

A Christian point of view: It says it right in the Bible. God created a help meet for Adam by creating Eve. And it was the first marriage. The Bible referrs to Eve as Adam's wife, and it says he loved her; that would suggest complexity.