marriage evidence

[cacian]

could one still marry if one has not a ring?
in other words is marriage contestable if ring did not exist?

[Shaman_Raman]

could one still marry if one has not a ring?
in other words is marriage contestable if ring did not exist?

I think the real question is if there's women that are willing to get married without first being offered a rock worth thousands? Which I like to think yes, there's plenty of people that are not shallow out there.

It also adds convenience to making it known your married, without having to tell it to every person. And if an affair is ever close to taking place, glancing down at that ring can add enough guilt for the person to not do it.

[cacian]

It also adds convenience to making it known your married, without having to tell it to every person. And if an affair is ever close to taking place, glancing down at that ring can add enough guilt for the person to not do it.
Really? i would have thought it would serve a warning to those who think they can have not to have and not the other way around. But yes you do make a good point. Rings are what they are but they do work differently on different people. :)

[YesNo]

The marriage would be the state-recognized contract between two people, not the rings. This would be useful to settle property rights when the marriage is dissolved or on the death of one of the partners should something be contested.

There are also common law marriages recognized in some states. These could apply if no marriage contract was officially made, but the couple lived together for a period of time. If property disputes arise, these default contracts might be used to determine who gets the property when that is contested.

[cacian]

The marriage would be the state-recognized contract between two people, not the rings. This would be useful to settle property rights when the marriage is dissolved or on the death of one of the partners should something be contested.

There are also common law marriages recognized in some states. These could apply if no marriage contract was officially made, but the couple lived together for a period of time. If property disputes arise, these default contracts might be used to determine who gets the property when that is contested.
so from what you are saying from the outside one could easily assume that a marriage is just a piece of legislation a cover up to acquire land and not really about two people getting together under the name of the sun/god. A mortgage is then to secure land and a marriage is to tie over it with a contract by default if there is not one. and then with time property is seized privatized sold rented people chucked out the credit crunch all of that for money. Where is the sanctimony of god and church here? scandal morelike.
A marriage is now the merchandise of land on behalf of people and god. You get married and I get to divide the land into properties sell them rent them and do whatever. Mortgage advisers eat your heat out.
A rotten piece of legislation fiasco. Very badly done indeed.

[Shaman_Raman]

Honestly, the institution of Marriage could be considered the greatest violation of Church and State that ever existed.

[kiki1982]

There are ways to still keep what you had before marriage as your own and not to share it after marriage. Pre-nups, I think they're called. They now even specify what the partner can claim when a divorce were to take place.

My parents are married and do not wear rings. Saying that, they did need to use rings in church when they got married, because the Catholic church has rings as an inherent part of marriage (symbolises continuity). They took old rings from the family. Personally my husband and I got married with rings (Russian style ones, one ring made of three different gold rings), but we never wear them. According to many people, they were put on the wrong hand (right) anyway, so many people wouldn't notice that was a wedding ring anyway. When I think a man is too interested (I look young for my age, so I sometimes get that), I casually mention my husband in the conversation. Then either their face falls or they chat on happily.

I find all this obsession with engagement rings quite sad, really. I mean, fancy getting something so expensive. What does that say? And would you not be afraid to lose it? Personally I rather spend my money on thing that stay and that I can take with me, even if my life changes: furniture and books. Not on jewellery or things that go.

[YesNo]

so from what you are saying from the outside one could easily assume that a marriage is just a piece of legislation a cover up to acquire land piece not really about two people getting together. What I mean is a mortgage is to secure a piece of land and a marriage is to tie over it with a contract by default if there is not one. and then with time property is seized and privatized and sold or rented for money.
A marriage is like a merchandise of land on behalf of people. In other words you get married and I get to divide the land into properties sell them rent them and do whatever. Mortgage advisers eat your heat out.
A rotten piece of legislation fiasco. Very badly done indeed.

I don't see why the contract is an issue.

When two people start businesses together they often have a partnership contract or, if they don't construct one, work under the default contracts for their country. If an issue arises between them and they go to court either their contract or the default contract would be used to judge the outcome.

Although my wife and I are legally married, we only had a justice of the peace perform the ceremony which I viewed as a contract signing followed by a party. There was no religious ceremony since we were not part of any religious group. I find it interesting that rings are required in the Catholic church as kiki mentioned.

[cafolini]

He can't afford a ring or carriage, so he sings:

Daisy, Daisy, give me your answer do.
I'm half crazy over the likes of you.
We wouldn't have a parson's marriage.
I can't afford a carriage.
But you'll look sweet upon the seat
of a bicycle built for two.

[cacian]

There are ways to still keep what you had before marriage as your own and not to share it after marriage. Pre-nups, I think they're called. They now even specify what the partner can claim when a divorce were to take place.

My parents are married and do not wear rings. Saying that, they did need to use rings in church when they got married, because the Catholic church has rings as an inherent part of marriage (symbolises continuity). They took old rings from the family. Personally my husband and I got married with rings (Russian style ones, one ring made of three different gold rings), but we never wear them. According to many people, they were put on the wrong hand (right) anyway, so many people wouldn't notice that was a wedding ring anyway. When I think a man is too interested (I look young for my age, so I sometimes get that), I casually mention my husband in the conversation. Then either their face falls or they chat on happily.

I find all this obsession with engagement rings quite sad, really. I mean, fancy getting something so expensive. What does that say? And would you not be afraid to lose it? Personally I rather spend my money on thing that stay and that I can take with me, even if my life changes: furniture and books. Not on jewellery or things that go.
Rings is just an establishment to money. The mining industry gold trafficking fake silver/gold eventually fake money. The church occupant have to make money somehow to rule the roost. All rotten piece of shanainegan if you pardon the pun.
Money money money is the order of the day. It all has to come from somewhere.

[cacian]

He can't afford a ring or carriage, so he sings:

Daisy, Daisy, give me your answer do.
I'm half crazy over the likes of you.
We wouldn't have a parson's marriage.
I can't afford a carriage.
But you'll look sweet upon the seat
of a bicycle built for two.
nice ;)

[kiki1982]

I don't see why the contract is an issue.

When two people start businesses together they often have a partnership contract or, if they don't construct one, work under the default contracts for their country. If an issue arises between them and they go to court either their contract or the default contract would be used to judge the outcome.

Although my wife and I are legally married, we only had a justice of the peace perform the ceremony which I viewed as a contract signing followed by a party. There was no religious ceremony since we were not part of any religious group. I find it interesting that rings are required in the Catholic church as kiki mentioned.

Now that is true, whatever a religious group may say in terms of share and share alike, it's usually the state that still governs your marriage if you divorce (you usually can't divorce in a religious marriage, although, could an Anglican please elaborate on this?). Our marriage was a religious and a registry office one. Belgium has retained the Napoleonic system (yes, from before 1815!) where you firstly have to get married in the town hall in a civil ceremony before you can be formally wed in a church. A church wedding, even if it is performed without civil predecessor (I have heard it is possible these days) is not formally recognised by the state. So for the state you would remain two singles living together (although these days, over there, that's quite the same as a married couple). So essentially, you need to sign that contract and then you can do the do. The funny thing is, you can still marry in church for ages afterwards. And once you have declared your intention to marry to the council (civil ceremony) and your name has been up for about 3 months without objection (a kind of banns too, if you like), then you have six months time to plan it in.
When my father had to go for military service and he didn't want to stay over with all those other men (I know, weird), my parents decided to marry on the quick, because married men were excused from sleeping there (they have to shag their wives after all :rolleyes:). It was only a year later that they married in church.
It's strange such a system, because you have to say yes twice. As if someone didn't hear you properly. For that reason, many people regard the civil ceremony as a 20 minute duty. Most countries affected by Napoleon, even France I believe, have in the meantime abolished that double system and automatically recognise church, synagogue and mosque weddings etc., but Belgium is too slow in everything. Our council also charged for Saturdays. Not during the week, so our civil marriage was free. For the simple fact that they wanted to discourage people from all wanting to marry on a Saturday before their church wedding. But the charges themselves were only max €200. Our church wedding cost €200 flat. Without deco (which we shared with another couple, on the church's advice) or music, though, but that's what makes your wedding personal.
I have heard these things can cost a lot in the UK, up to fees for the candles and bread and wine and things. I find that very rich. I mean, the candles have to be there, the priest has to be there. If he does an extra blessing or not, it's not going to break the bank. And such venues are essentially providing a service that is redundant in itself. People have the right to marry to make a life together, there is no reason to rip tham off.

The problem with the rings in the CC is that they've got their own place in the order of service. It's a bit like the two readings, you can't opt out. You can leave the consecration out (the bread and wine thing, where they allegedly turn into the real flesh and blood of Christ), if there is no priest, but you can't leave the readings out. The ring in itself also belongs to bishops and nuns. I'm not sure whether priests have one (that would be gay, wouldn't it?), but to me that means that it's a deeper type of symbolism than a mere sign of commitment for the person him/herself. But no-one says you have to keep it on.
Personally, I only put on my regalia (my pre-engagement ring which looks like one, my silver engagement ring [no my husband did not choose that for me, it was bought after] and my wedding ring) when I go to weddings or other important occasions, otherwise it's unwieldy.


Rings is just an establishment to money. The mining industry gold trafficking fake silver/gold eventually fake money. The church occupant have to make money somehow to rule the roost. All rotten piece of shanainegan if you pardon the pun.
Money money money is the order of the day. It all has to come from somewhere.

No-one says you have to get a new ring, though. If you buy a vintage one, the effects of it have long subsided. If you take that stance, we all need to stop buying mobile phones now, because the stuff that goes on in that industry is not only abusive, it's also toxic. The problem there is that people will always try to do things that are illegal, because legal is too difficult. It's stronger than man. Try and regulate something, and they'll try to find loopholes or disregard it. It's a bit like the 'self-regulating' press in the UK. Everyone knows that self-regulation is a noble thing that could have worked in the Victorian era where everything depended on honour, but it doesn't work now, because man has lost that concern. Indeed, the Antwerp diamond industry (the largest in the world) also regulates itself and issues certificates for diamonds that do not come from countries like Zimbabwe. Do we really really have to believe that??! When there is so much money involved and when in most cases it cannot be firmly established where these rocks have come from. Diamonds at any rate are only the same as other things, but cut in a different way.

[cacian]

Honestly, the institution of Marriage could be considered the greatest violation of Church and State that ever existed.

I agree. I think the church is an institutions to other things one does not see. It is bound to be because why else would it want a population to adorne them. It is not free i guess.
Which brings me to this. Which the earliest church ever to be created? I know that during Jesus/Roman they had temples. Temples worship divinity not gods.
Ie figures of established myths created to replicate the figure of an emperors and rulers or like the pharoahs who were demi-gods. Their temples were built to worship themselves through their own of fictional dieties/figurines replicated on them.

[kiki1982]

Marriage was there long before any established church was there. The Celts already offered gifts and sacrifices to the gods. Bath in the UK still has Roman ritual baths left which were established on a Celtic place of worship (connected with the water there).

The pharaos were gods in their own right and were deemed to have descended from Isis (I think).

The point is that a marriage facilitates a more stable way of living. What was it that Andrew Marr in his last documentary said? The act of agriculture created the idea of 'mine', which created the idea of avariciousness and possession, which in turn created taxes and hierarchy. I can imagine that the family and marriage in itself became a bigger thing once 'mine' had become a concept. A loose tribe with hunter gatherer men and women just has to eat and you can imagine people shagging each other like chimps do nowadays. Whose the baby is, is of no real concern, food will be gathered for the tribe, not for the family. Once 'mine' is a concept, there will be a house, food or no food, people who have a right to the food and the field it is grown in, money or no money to enjoy, a hierarchy to determine who has the right to whose money or not, and so forth. Once 'mine' is important, it is also important to know which children are by which father and which woman is which man's wife.
Not for nothing have single mothers these days a more difficult time in finding a man who wants to raise their children. The more does not mean the merrier. Why should he provide for another man's children?
Once that is important, marriage as a ritual where it is publically declared that X is to be shagged only by Y and that X's children are only Y's children, becomes important, together with all the shenenigans involved (has X's family got enough money for Y's, i.e. is she worthy? and things like that).

In my mind that has little to do with God, church or whatever. The 'my wife' or 'my husband' thing is very much engrained in society. Even in our secular one.

[cacian]

No-one says you have to get a new ring, though. If you buy a vintage one, the effects of it have long subsided. If you take that stance, we all need to stop buying mobile phones now, because the stuff that goes on in that industry is not only abusive, it's also toxic. The problem there is that people will always try to do things that are illegal, because legal is too difficult. It's stronger than man. Try and regulate something, and they'll try to find loopholes or disregard it. It's a bit like the 'self-regulating' press in the UK. Everyone knows that self-regulation is a noble thing that could have worked in the Victorian era where everything depended on honour, but it doesn't work now, because man has lost that concern. Indeed, the Antwerp diamond industry (the largest in the world) also regulates itself and issues certificates for diamonds that do not come from countries like Zimbabwe. Do we really really have to believe that??! When there is so much money involved and when in most cases it cannot be firmly established where these rocks have come from. Diamonds at any rate are only the same as other things, but cut in a different way.
Vey true. It is however easier to fake gold and silver it is not with diamond hence the difference in the product.

[qimissung]

According to Wikipedia, "Engagement rings did not become standard in the West until the end of the 19th century, and diamond rings did not become common until in the 1930s in the United States, as a result of an extensive nationwide marketing campaign by the diamond industry." So basically, the engagement ring, as we know it today, is a marketing device, much like Valentine's Day.

According to the same article, in the Colonial period in America " a thimble was given as a sign of eternal companionship. Women would remove the tops of the thimble in order to create a ring." I did not know that. That is a sweet tradition, I think.

[Shaman_Raman]

According to Wikipedia, "Engagement rings did not become standard in the West until the end of the 19th century, and diamond rings did not become common until in the 1930s in the United States, as a result of an extensive nationwide marketing campaign by the diamond industry." So basically, the engagement ring, as we know it today, is a marketing device, much like Valentine's Day.

According to the same article, in the Colonial period in America " a thimble was given as a sign of eternal companionship. Women would remove the tops of the thimble in order to create a ring." I did not know that. That is a sweet tradition, I think.

Well then it's settled, if your sour about a ring, get a thimble. Or if you hate finger jewelry, a wedding bracelet. Things can symbolize anything. I'd buy my future wife a puppy to show I'm on board for a mutual commitment. Hopefully the marriage outlives the dog.

[cacian]

According to Wikipedia, "Engagement rings did not become standard in the West until the end of the 19th century, and diamond rings did not become common until in the 1930s in the United States, as a result of an extensive nationwide marketing campaign by the diamond industry." So basically, the engagement ring, as we know it today, is a marketing device, much like Valentine's Day.

According to the same article, in the Colonial period in America " a thimble was given as a sign of eternal companionship. Women would remove the tops of the thimble in order to create a ring." I did not know that. That is a sweet tradition, I think.

Thank you for the post qimi. This is a great . Amasing what people do to keep up with cultural pressures. I did ponder about eternity rings I would not want to get into that.
I think as a whole humans put too much details into the conventional outside and not much thoughts go into the inside. Imagine what we would plate out if we'd plate as much as we to the outside. The world would be a bouquet of freshly scented natural flowers everyday.
It makes me think whatever happened to the natural scent of a flower. These days flower bouquets are all about the looks and nothing about the scent.
We must be careful or will lose out on that too. Our sense of smell is crucial if we tender towards each other. ;)

[OrphanPip]

Now that is true, whatever a religious group may say in terms of share and share alike, it's usually the state that still governs your marriage if you divorce (you usually can't divorce in a religious marriage, although, could an Anglican please elaborate on this?). Our marriage was a religious and a registry office one. Belgium has retained the Napoleonic system (yes, from before 1815!) where you firstly have to get married in the town hall in a civil ceremony before you can be formally wed in a church. A church wedding, even if it is performed without civil predecessor (I have heard it is possible these days) is not formally recognised by the state. So for the state you would remain two singles living together (although these days, over there, that's quite the same as a married couple). So essentially, you need to sign that contract and then you can do the do. The funny thing is, you can still marry in church for ages afterwards. And once you have declared your intention to marry to the council (civil ceremony) and your name has been up for about 3 months without objection (a kind of banns too, if you like), then you have six months time to plan it in.

The Quebec civil code has similar requirements for marriage. Your marriage license must be obtained from the provincial government, prior to the ceremony. Afterwards, anyone can perform the ceremony as long as they read the official marriage act out in front of witnesses, who must sign the contract to testify that the marriage occurred. Of course, clergy can perform this duty, or it could be your neighbour. My cousin was recently married on New Years Eve, and wanted the ceremony to be done at midnight, but apparently for the contract to be valid the ceremony had to be performed before 10 pm.