Originally posted by UCanShootMyNova
I thought I had a small penis but Fated made me measure it and it turns out it's just average.
I legit went to cali gave him a ruler and had him measure tbh
Originally posted by |King Joker|
If I'm being honest, a 5 inch penis being average just seems really unbelievable to me lol
I honestly thought six inchers were more common tbh
Originally posted by SelenialI'm not talking about ancient Greeks, Romans and the like moron. uhuh
Pagan marriage in celtic society was a pact between clans, lmfao. You're either completely ignoring everything I'm saying or have legitimately no idea what you're talking about.Given you're you, I'm 50/50 on which it is mmm
Originally posted by Beniboybling
I'm not talking about ancient Greeks, Romans and the like moron. uhuh
That's more accurate, although has nothing to do with the paganistic belief of the countries/states.
I'd refer you to my original point, however, where I freely admitted 'unions between people predate modern religion.' If you were to look at ancient Greece for example, the marriage was based on whether they lived together. Sending a wife back to her family ended the marriage with no financial settlement at all. A woman's father could end a marriage, and literally no ceremony was required take place.
Virtually none of these traditions, societal pressures or legal ramifications survive today. All of them sprang from Christianity. The aisle, the rings etc are all important religious imagery. The stigma around divorce stems from the Catholic church, the method in which couples can divorce stems from a variety of churches.
So really, my original statement of: 'No, unions between people predate modern religion. The marriage ceremony, pact, financial implications and divorce proceedings are all founded in or were created by the religious community.' is completely correct mmm
Originally posted by SelenialUhuh, a union between two people, wedding ceremonies, legal ramifications, wedding rings, lawfully monogamous relationships, a consensual vow or pact, divorce etc. all predate Christianity in some shape or form, the addition of some bells and whistles and development of preexisting concepts doesn't change the fact that the fundamental building blocks of marriage predate modern religion. We are talking about a lot of wrapping paper (and one that's changed dramatically over the years) nothing more.
That's more accurate, although has nothing to do with the paganistic belief of the countries/states.I'd refer you to my original point, however, where I freely admitted 'unions between people predate modern religion.' If you were to look at ancient Greece for example, the marriage was based on whether they lived together. Sending a wife back to her family ended the marriage with no financial settlement at all. A woman's father could end a marriage, and literally no ceremony was required take place.
Virtually none of these traditions, societal pressures or legal ramifications survive today. All of them sprang from Christianity. The aisle, the rings etc are all important religious imagery. The stigma around divorce stems from the Catholic church, the method in which couples can divorce stems from a variety of churches.
So really, my original statement of: 'No, unions between people predate modern religion. The marriage ceremony, pact, financial implications and divorce proceedings are all founded in or were created by the religious community.' is completely correct mmm
In that respect the idea that marriage is entirely a construct of modern religion is false. And if Christians can steal marriage from Greco-Roman culture I see no reason why secular societies cannot adopt it as well and shape it as they wish.
And this is without getting into how religion has been shaped outside the Church like by good ol' Henry.
Originally posted by Beniboybling
Uhuh, a union between two people, wedding ceremonies, legal ramifications, wedding rings, lawfully monogamous relationships, a consensual vow or pact, divorce etc. all predate Christianity in some shape or form, the addition of some bells and whistles and development of preexisting concepts doesn't change the fact that the fundamental building blocks of marriage predate modern religion. We are talking about a lot of wrapping paper (and one that's changed dramatically over the years) nothing more.In that respect the idea that marriage is entirely a construct of modern religion is false. And if Christians can steal marriage from Greco-Roman culture I see no reason why secular societies cannot adopt it as well and shape it as they wish.
And this is without getting into how religion has been shaped outside the Church like by good ol' Henry.
I like how you listed 'a union between two people [...] lawfully monogamous relationships [...] and a consensual vow or pact' as if they were actually different things. Almost looks like you're trying to pad your list there.
If by the fundamental building blocks of marriage you mean 'unions between people' then yes, you're right. If only someone had been saying that from the beginning, right? Even if you call all the add-ons of Christianity 'bells and whistles' or 'wrapping paper', it's still all the bells and whistles that define what a modern marriage ceremony is, for most people.
When literally everything in what is seen as the normal marriage ceremony (a church, throwing rice, father giving the daughter away down the aisle, family seated either side, bridesmaids, arguably the rings etc.) stems from religion in some sense. It's no wonder that religious people feel so possessive of the ceremony, and feel the need to interject and spout relentless rhetoric about who can and cannot marry. I'm not saying they're right, but if the secular community didn't feel the need to appropriate every single religious custom possible, perhaps those we offend by our mere existence would care less how we tarnished their ceremonies.
I just don't understand how you can possibly argue marriage wasn't intertwined, advanced, and essentially absorbed into religion for a vast period of history. You're focussing on the fact some people in certain societies had an idea of a bond between man and woman, and pretending that's enough to warrant today's marriage not being stemmed from Christianity. You're entirely ignoring however the fact that marriage became a personal, feelings oriented venture during the time of the Catholic faith. You're ignoring that the single reason a woman's consent was required for marriage across Europe was the intervention of Pope Nicholas I saying any marriage not consented to by a woman was void.
It's a narrow minded and uneducated view point, nothing more.
Originally posted by Emperordmb
Why are the financial and divorce proceedings things that shouldn't be carried over to secular marriages?
I'm not necessarily suggesting they're not, though I do take issue with the stigma surrounding couples who refuse to merge all their finances into one, and split everything evenly upon divorce.
You'll note I never actually criticised the divorce process though, I understand it's a complex matter. It's merely another example of how intimately our current marriage laws are entwined with religions. I do specifically think divorce law in England is ridiculous, but luckily the courts are lenient enough to not actually adhere to it entirely.