IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New Pre-1700? OK, how about this:
[link|http://ks.essortment.com/historyofmarri_rimr.htm|The history of marriage]:

In the time of the Roman Empire (17 B.C.- A.D. 476) the lower classes who became Christians later had common law or free marriages. The father would deliver the bride and the agreement of the two was called a consensus to wed. Then eventually as Christianity spread the church interpreted a "free" marriage as a conscience marriage. This agreement meant that each partner was to keep the marriage vows and the marriage intact.

There were Romans who were very wealthy who would sign documents consisting of listing property rights and letting all know that they wanted this union to be legalized and not to be thought of as a common law marriage. Thus this began the official recording of marriages as we do today. Roman men could dissolve the marriage any time as it was a male privilege, not one accorded to females.

In A.D. 527-565 during the rein of Justinian lawyers drew up laws called the Justinian Code and this was a regulation of their daily life including marriage. Up until the time of the Justinian Code just saying you were married was enough.

Until the ninth century marriages were not church involved. Up until the twelfth century there were blessings and prayers during the ceremony and the couple would offer their own prayers. Then priests asked that an agreement be made in their presence. Then religion was added to the ceremony.


Emphasis added.

I think we're not going to change each other's minds, so I'll let you have the last word.

Cheers,
Scott.
New complete crock of spit and here's why
the early romans had more gods than I have had watery stools
[link|http://www.geocities.com/miekemoran/customes.html|http://www.geocities...ran/customes.html]
a deeper roman tome
[link|http://www.ku.edu/history/index/europe/ancient_rome/E/Roman/Texts/secondary/SMIGRA*/Matrimonium.html|http://www.ku.edu/hi.../Matrimonium.html]
The Romans believed that certain days were unfortunate for the performance of the marriage rites, either on account of the religious character of those days themselves, or on account of the days by which they were followed, as the woman had to perform certain religious rites on the day after her wedding, which could not take place on a dies ater. Days not suitable for entering upon matrimony were the Calends, Nones, and Ides of every month, all dies atri, the whole months of May (Ovid Fast. v.490; Plut. Quaest. Rom. p284) and February, and a great number of festivals (Macrob. Sat. i.15; Ovid Fast. ii.557). Widows, on the other hand, might marry on days which were inauspicious for maidens (Macrob. Sat. l.c.; Plut. Quaest. Rom. p289)

greeks
[link|http://www.cobblestonepub.com/pages/Marriage.html|http://www.cobblesto...ges/Marriage.html]
Once all the marriage arrangements had been settled, preparation could begin. Days in advance, sacrifices and prayers were offered in the temples of the gods, especially that of Hera, the queen of the gods.

my links beat your links
HA!
thanx,
bill

same old crap, con artists ripping off fools. Ah, hell, Catholic Church it start off that way. They All do. Jesus probably had three walnut shells one pea, then he's dead and can't be questioned,
Gabriel Dupre

questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]
New The Birth of the Authority Figure
(that one's mine)

This may be the real common denominator, celebrated by all the orgs. Protestations of "subordinating the priest's wills to 'God'" notwithstanding. (Demagoduery?)

In our neck of the woods, St. Paul would seem to be the most overtly traceable root of the Puritan mindset and all that has wreaked.. pick a diseased Authority Figure like a misogynist and and -

Nice sleuthing of a few pithy parts of prolly at least 6666? hits on "history of marriage" ;-) I doubt that the professional self-anointed WiseMan is ever apt to turn himself in, for the duration. But we can at least, attempt to ID the more sociopathic of the genre.

'Marriage' shall as likely continue to be intermixed within all the faux God Said stuff extant, except, wink-w-nudge-n: we Know it's mostly about stuff!



Ashton
     So infertile people shouldn't be able to marry? - (Another Scott) - (10)
         Thank you! - (Nightowl)
         Catholics come close - (JayMehaffey) - (2)
             Interesting. - (Another Scott) - (1)
                 Thank you for your view - (orion)
         Why should they marry? - (boxley) - (5)
             Ha! - (Another Scott) - (4)
                 your other comments are from recent sources - (boxley) - (3)
                     Pre-1700? OK, how about this: - (Another Scott) - (2)
                         complete crock of spit and here's why - (boxley)
                         The Birth of the Authority Figure - (Ashton)

Ships were made for sinking, whiskey made for drinking. If we were made of cellophane we'd all get stinking drunk quite faster! Ah, ha, ha!
38 ms