Women are women since it is they who picked the apple off the tree in paradise. Men are the souls that women gave the apple to. You end up marrying the woman that gave you the apple so that you two can rectify between yourselves the harsh deed. You ask what of the unmarried? What of gays? What of those that die before marrying? What of marriage to God? I simply do not know. What do you think? :D/
Ahem. As an introduction: http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g46/Osku2/PhoenixWright-.jpg
I did believe that referring to the Bible in philosophical discourse ended along with the middle age. Alas.
If marriage exists only so the married can “rectify” for the original sin, why does marriage exist even in those cultures who have never heard of a single God, let alone Eden and the original sin? Why would such atonement even be necessary, if we accept that “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.” (John 3:16) Why is the story of Adam and Eve to be chosen over the story that humans are a scientific experiment of extraterrestrial life forms? How are all the women in the world women “since it is they who picked the apple off the tree in paradise”, when taking into account that after killing Abel, Cain left to “the land of Nod, east of Eden” (part of Genesis 4:16) and found himself a wife there, taking to account that Eve only gave birth to two sons? Why would a God considered to be good hold it necessary for countless people to atone for something that other people supposedly did way back when?
Your topic launch lacks detail, my friend.
It seems to me marriage evolved because of the biologically necessary close relationships between father, mother and child (which stems from the fact we walk upright). There are probably other reasons why this tradition came about, but it is a fact that human babies need close relations with their parents in order to survive, and marriage is a way of helping to ensure those close relations. Not to mention the fact that the parents themselves often want a special bond between each other, or in more arcane time periods a way for the man to establish certain women as his “property”. It arose due to cultural and biological necessities, not as a way to rectify the Fall from Eden.
And if you crave a more Christian or theological answer, my Catholic education easily provides one. Catholics believe there’s a vocation for everyone; God has a “calling” for every person. And marriage is just a part of a person’s vocation; it is important, but not everything. And accordingly, some people are called to be unmarried, some are called into lines of work that get them killed before they marry, some are called to celibate religious life; people are called to do many things by God. Marriage is not necessitated by God in order to make up for original sin, it is simply a way for people who choose to do so to live out there lives happily as Christians. Oh by the way, once a person is baptized they are absolved of Original Sin, meaning they don’t need to do anything else to rectify the sin or atone for it. I have no idea where you got the notion that marriage is some sort of cry for forgiveness because of Adam and Eve.
Note: I don’t believe the Catholic school version of why people get married. I include it simply to show that Christian, or at least Catholic doctrine on marriage doesn’t have anything to do with Adam and Eve.
Oskari V. is right; appealing to The Bible in philosophical discourse went out of style several centuries ago. 
theonefroberg
Bingo!
See, philosophy’s easy.
I think I have never had a woman give me an apple.
If this is a metaphor, what does it mean to you?
(In Latin, “fructus” is either fruit or pleasure;
I don’t know if it’s the same in the original Hebrew.)
I take it you are not a Talmudic scholar, but neither am I
– and I have put my own opinions of the fall-of-man online.
mrn
postscriptum: As for the opposition expressed by others against Biblical reference on the Philosophy board, I think merely that the post may better have been put on the Religion board.
Actually establishing property rights is quite correct when it comes to how marriage started out. Some to this day do it for those reasons. It is the original way to write your will.
That sounds a bit like the cart before the horse, Kriswest… Usually one write wills for your wife, not get a wife for your will. Do you have a source for this interpretation?
A newbie here. I second Kriswest. Actually, Engles of the Marx brothers proposed that the need for the legitimacy of the children-who will inherit the property of the male-resulted in marriage. Without a sysem like marriage, there was no way for the male to ensure that the children born to his woman are truly born to him.
Only a chastity belt could ensure that!
But Engels’s view also sounds upside-down. The children are of greater value because they are had with a wife, not the other way around. Children before an invention of marriage would probably have equal status, as their mothers would be equals. And if they weren’t equals, based on birth, it seems to be it must have been due to a more-honored mother (perhaps the temporally first wife.) It seems to me marriage came first.
mrn
Kris,
You no doubt meant “mostly correct,” or something similar, when you acknowledged that the reason marriage started out was to establish property rights was “quite correct”. I’ve been told that marriage also existed in societies which had no concept of personal property. In such societies, the marriage arrangement was one of the few binding promises, bonds, contracts, accords, whatever you want to call them, that could actually be violated. You didn’t fuck your friends, and you didn’t fuck your friends’ wives - easy rules. Made for a simple life.
Whether the agreements regarding relationships occurred before the social contracts regarding personal property is unclear, as they may have come into existence before the written word. But what I think is important is that the concept of marriage came about under at least two distinct theories. This suggests to me that despite all attempts to proclaim marriage any single, simple thing–such as a social or legal institution, or a product of religious belief–that it will remain something undefined; but something which can be loosely referred to as an agreement that binds two individuals, the requirements of which may or may not have been set by those individuals, wherein each individual is expected to perform, yet allowed to privately breach when permitted by the other individual.
marriage is the truth of the plus, kill the minus in you first, you reactions of agressions, see the agressions fight them back with fear and dont pretend they are not here, dont pretend you are fine when you look to someone you would love, dont go to marriage as a subconscious cure, but healthy in being capable to see yourself so you will see the other an answer plus to all the whys of darkness you thought, a woman is a gift from God yes but not of a superficial view, the pleasure you can touch as soon as you lie your eyes on her chests, she is who could love you forever as long as you show her how much love is valuable to your joys, she is inn, she will give to all what you like to make if only you could do it of the joy to give it for her joys to watch your truth in giving to love, than all the souls around you will breed of the same joy, nothing is worse it to learn if you are not in love, unless you have a deep problem forget about love and deal with it as a man, woman are future in eternal heavan of plus
it is the truth of being as you appear to your highest demanding thoughts, but this as this work is a must yes, would only lead you to be in power truth, what command gives as a sense to live? nothing, command is to show yourself that you exist, it is a survival step but not to be happy, the goal is to be in order to think now that you know everything of what you enjoy and your bad acts coming from realities agressions to what you want, with this perspective of the truth you will think your forever happy to do, nobody is happy when he is in charge, it is all fake this picture of kings, money i am sure had also been created to force you to will be a king, but in truth who likes to work? only the sick blinds who are so far of being that they sould fancy on being as if it is paradise, LONELINESS means in depth is God sense of happiness, it is the mother truth of all, the void with God, seeing yourself and what you make of another mind and soul who would applause what you value and what you whatever feel doing or giving, someone who is more than this, who is also so interesting of being that you would live your skin to applause his, this is the truth of the journey full of joys, i never felt that but i am made to guess right from a feeling perspective
“The wedding factory will be located far from every urban nucleus. It is not good that tragedies take place in the public eye, because they
will demoralise the people”
from the Proposal for the creation of a wedding factory
from the sensible anarcho feminists of Mujeres Libres in 1936!
We need more common sense like this in these “tragic times” I reckon
krossie
Why when societies first came into being would there be any other reason for marriage. Lets look at B.C. Times Pre Roman, Greek, druid ,pagan etc. Why would a man and a woman establish hearth and home as a couple? What were the benifits to both plus to their families?Why would they choose to be with each other or in most cases why would a man want one woman as the head female in his home? Yes the woman was given to the man by her family in alot of cases after he bought her with what we call dowry or bride price. But why would he do that? Property, ownership and exclusive rights. Romance? hardly. Love? can’t see that.
Survival? yes. Wealth? yes. Bragging rights? yes. Property is the biggest reason, ownership of more things or better things then Jack in the next hut or cave.
If Jack were a bachaelor, Jack would not be able to hold onto things easily nor get more things by himself easily. Two people work better then one. And two people that can produce more cheap labor, aka kids. They were wealthy and had easier lives. /Property rights. Gods and love were not the reasons for marriage. Survival and property were.
please kris speak of the truth as much as you can as the truth is love sense to be, dont speak of your anger or your despair in having the lowest view of what God had made, it is better to say nothing than to demoralize the truth, you dishonnor God intelligence coherence of making one truth in all times, men kris and women are robots and slaves of their feelings they must to be that way but they are unable to say why, but it doesnt mean that they dont want love it doesnt mean that they are choosing to not be in God, from my perspective even a man who is going to see a whore for half an hour is saying the sense to love of his awareness to, but there is a sense before to be aware of more, is to be, which means face what you feel you are not, look it is very obvious, they dont want property they want to say their sense to be, they jump to the end because they cannot see the journey, what is obvious is that if you feel being in the last stop of the road you have to take, you would feel the maximum happy even if you dont know why are you here, they feel even in the age of graves when they see a woman their eyes rest for peace, that is how surely right from the start man would hug her in his arms to sleep
Here here agreed and so say all of me at any rate!
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Origin … _the_State
marxists.org/archive/marx/wo … /index.htm
hey its actually one of the dynamic duo’s more readable creations.
(I say Engels old bean could you please leave the room - I wish to “roger” your maid there’s a good chap)
Marx termed the ending of matrilineal descent (eg inheritance through the female line – the most obvious and sensible way to do things) as:
[i]
“the world historical defeat of the female sexâ€
[/i]
Krossie
The one driving force in humans is property rights?..now you make me laugh…I’m shallow, but even I look for more than one thing in a woman, and it’s seldom property. And I think you forget that many people, most people in the societies you’re considering didn’t have much in the way of property. It was often two dirt poor commoners marrying. But, who really cares? You are free to disregard as many and any people you choose, but I think actual human history and I will just see our way out of this conversation.
Actually, yes. Property rights - according to Nietzsche, whom I have no reason to doubt - is by far one of the most important factors in any society. Everything, from the development of classes to the establishment of markets, revolves in some way around the idea of property.
Philosophy isn’t about being oh-so-deep. It’s about looking for the truth.
Read Nietzsche again, because you misunderstood him.
EDIT:
I never said it was not important - I said it wasn’t the one driving force.
I think not.
It is, I believe, in Beyond Good and Evil where Nietzsche goes into detail about the importance of property rights. As I don’t have my copy on hand, I cannot confirm that, but I’m absolutely positive it’s there.