quotes from this article on the middle ages
If a couple were too closely related, the marriage could not occur, though the Pope could issue dispensations for second cousins or less, and occasionally for first cousins. Consanguinity is much more complex than this, however. One's spiritual relations, including godparents, also were included, as were all priests (since they were considered the spiritual fathers of all laypeople).
Another bar to marriage was a monastic or religious vow. Sometimes widows or widowers would take vows of celibacy on the death of a spouse, which they later regretted when they wished to be remarried. These could be set aside with papal dispensation. The vows of a priest, monk, or nun could only be set aside with difficulty, however. A previous betrothal could also stop a marriage. Often marriages would be arranged by families while the couple was too young; in that case, a "plight-troth" would be said, which was essentially a promise to marry. A plight-troth could be broken, but only with the agreement of both parties. Children born to a betrothed couple could usually be legitimized merely by marriage and could often inherit, whereas children born out of wedlock were often barred from inheriting even if the couple later married.
The following were causes for dissolution of an already established marriage: one of the parties was not of legal age (12 for girls, 14 for boys), if the woman was incapable of sexual relations, if one was in religious orders or bound by a vow (as above), if one married a servant one had formerly had sex with; if one of the parties was not a Christian, or if there was a mistake (someone marries person A instead of person B, thinking that they ARE marrying person B), or a previous marriage (even if not consummated) with a relative of one's intended spouse. The following prohibited a marriage if known before, but would not be grounds for dissolution of an existing marriage: rape, adultery, a marriage performed during a prohibited fast period (Lent or Advent), incest, or marriage by someone who had killed a clergyman.
Marriages (in England, at least) were often performed at the church door, after which the couple would proceed inside to hear Mass. But the sacrament was not completed until the marriage was consummated (non-consummation was always grounds for a dissolution). Various restrictions were placed on the collection of the "marital debt".
Most of the traditions we now associate with marriage, with the exception of the actual ceremony, do not really date back very far. For example, white was not particularly associated with brides-- surviving portraits of weddings reveal that brides chose a wide variety of colours. As many may know, only the bride usually received a ring (which was symbolic of her vow--nuns who "married the church" also wore a ring on the left ring finger). However, the tradition of a large feast or party survives to this day.
Tuesday, December 20, 2011
Thursday, December 8, 2011
marriage
middle age marriage
http://www.themiddleages.net/life/marriage.html
hindu marriage
http://www.themiddleages.net/life/marriage.html
http://www.themiddleages.net/life/marriage.html
hindu marriage
http://www.themiddleages.net/life/marriage.html
the origin of marriage from soca junkie's blog
http://www.islandmix.com/backchat/f9/origin-marriage-50901/
http://www.theweekmagazine.com.au/
[The origins of marriage
The institution of marriage is now the subject of a bitter national debate. How did marriage begin—and why?
How old is the institution?
The best available evidence suggests that it’s about 4,350 years old. For thousands of years before that, most anthropologists believe, families consisted of loosely organized groups of as many as 30 people, with several male leaders, multiple women shared by them, and children. As hunter-gatherers settled down into agrarian civilizations, society had a need for more stable arrangements. The first recorded evidence of marriage ceremonies uniting one woman and one man dates from about 2350 B.C., in Mesopotamia. Over the next several hundred years, marriage evolved into a widespread institution embraced by the ancient Hebrews, Greeks, and Romans. But back then, marriage had little to do with love or with religion.
What was it about, then?
Marriage’s primary purpose was to bind women to men, and thus guarantee that a man’s children were truly his biological heirs. Through marriage, a woman became a man’s property. In the betrothal ceremony of ancient Greece, a father would hand over his daughter with these words: “I pledge my daughter for the purpose of producing legitimate offspring.” Among the ancient Hebrews, men were free to take several wives; married Greeks and Romans were free to satisfy their sexual urges with concubines, prostitutes, and even teenage male lovers, while their wives were required to stay home and tend to the household. If wives failed to produce offspring, their husbands could give them back and marry someone else.
When did religion become involved?
As the Roman Catholic Church became a powerful institution in Europe, the blessings of a priest became a necessary step for a marriage to be legally recognized. By the eighth century, marriage was widely accepted in the Catholic church as a sacrament, or a ceremony to bestow God’s grace. At the Council of Trent in 1563, the sacramental nature of marriage was written into canon law.
Did this change the nature of marriage?
Church blessings did improve the lot of wives. Men were taught to show greater respect for their wives, and forbidden from divorcing them. Christian doctrine declared that “the twain shall be one flesh,” giving husband and wife exclusive access to each other’s body. This put new pressure on men to remain sexually faithful. But the church still held that men were the head of families, with their wives deferring to their wishes.
When did love enter the picture?
Later than you might think. For much of human history, couples were brought together for practical reasons, not because they fell in love. In time, of course, many marriage partners came to feel deep mutual love and devotion. But the idea of romantic love, as a motivating force for marriage, only goes as far back as the Middle Ages. Naturally, many scholars believe the concept was “invented” by the French. Its model was the knight who felt intense love for someone else’s wife, as in the case of Sir Lancelot and King Arthur’s wife, Queen Guinevere. Twelfth-century advice literature told men to woo the object of their desire by praising her eyes, hair, and lips. In the 13th century, Richard de Fournival, physician to the king of France, wrote “Advice on Love,” in which he suggested that a woman cast her love flirtatious glances—“anything but a frank and open entreaty.”
Did love change marriage?
It sure did. Marilyn Yalom, a Stanford historian and author of A History of the Wife, credits the concept of romantic love with giving women greater leverage in what had been a largely pragmatic transaction. Wives no longer existed solely to serve men. The romantic prince, in fact, sought to serve the woman he loved. Still, the notion that the husband “owned” the wife continued to hold sway for centuries. When colonists first came to America—at a time when polygamy was still accepted in most parts of the world—the husband’s dominance was officially recognized under a legal doctrine called “coverture,” under which the new bride’s identity was absorbed into his. The bride gave up her name to symbolize the surrendering of her identity, and the husband suddenly became more important, as the official public representative of two people, not one. The rules were so strict that any American woman who married a foreigner immediately lost her citizenship.
How did this tradition change?
Women won the right to vote. When that happened, in 1920, the institution of marriage began a dramatic transformation. Suddenly, each union consisted of two full citizens, although tradition dictated that the husband still ruled the home. By the late 1960s, state laws forbidding interracial marriage had been thrown out, and the last states had dropped laws against the use of birth control. By the 1970s, the law finally recognized the concept of marital rape, which up to that point was inconceivable, as the husband “owned” his wife’s sexuality. “The idea that marriage is a private relationship for the fulfillment of two individuals is really very new,” said historian Stephanie Coontz, author of The Way We Never Were: American Families and the Nostalgia Trap. “Within the past 40 years, marriage has changed more than in the last 5,000.”
Men who married men
Gay marriage is rare in history—but not unknown. The Roman emperor Nero, who ruled from A.D. 54 to 68, twice married men in formal wedding ceremonies, and forced the Imperial Court to treat them as his wives. In second- and third-century Rome, homosexual weddings became common enough that it worried the social commentator Juvenal, says Marilyn Yalom in A History of the Wife. “Look—a man of family and fortune—being wed to a man!” Juvenal wrote. “Such things, before we’re very much older, will be done in public.” He mocked such unions, saying that male “brides” would never be able to “hold their husbands by having a baby.” The Romans outlawed formal homosexual unions in the year 342. But Yale history professor John Boswell says he’s found scattered evidence of homosexual unions after that time, including some that were recognized by Catholic and Greek Orthodox churches. In one 13th-century Greek Orthodox ceremony, the “Order for Solemnisation of Same Sex Union,” the celebrant asked God to grant the participants “grace to love one another and to abide unhated and not a cause of scandal all the days of their lives, with the help of the Holy Mother of God and all thy saints.”]
http://www.theweekmagazine.com.au/
[The origins of marriage
The institution of marriage is now the subject of a bitter national debate. How did marriage begin—and why?
How old is the institution?
The best available evidence suggests that it’s about 4,350 years old. For thousands of years before that, most anthropologists believe, families consisted of loosely organized groups of as many as 30 people, with several male leaders, multiple women shared by them, and children. As hunter-gatherers settled down into agrarian civilizations, society had a need for more stable arrangements. The first recorded evidence of marriage ceremonies uniting one woman and one man dates from about 2350 B.C., in Mesopotamia. Over the next several hundred years, marriage evolved into a widespread institution embraced by the ancient Hebrews, Greeks, and Romans. But back then, marriage had little to do with love or with religion.
What was it about, then?
Marriage’s primary purpose was to bind women to men, and thus guarantee that a man’s children were truly his biological heirs. Through marriage, a woman became a man’s property. In the betrothal ceremony of ancient Greece, a father would hand over his daughter with these words: “I pledge my daughter for the purpose of producing legitimate offspring.” Among the ancient Hebrews, men were free to take several wives; married Greeks and Romans were free to satisfy their sexual urges with concubines, prostitutes, and even teenage male lovers, while their wives were required to stay home and tend to the household. If wives failed to produce offspring, their husbands could give them back and marry someone else.
When did religion become involved?
As the Roman Catholic Church became a powerful institution in Europe, the blessings of a priest became a necessary step for a marriage to be legally recognized. By the eighth century, marriage was widely accepted in the Catholic church as a sacrament, or a ceremony to bestow God’s grace. At the Council of Trent in 1563, the sacramental nature of marriage was written into canon law.
Did this change the nature of marriage?
Church blessings did improve the lot of wives. Men were taught to show greater respect for their wives, and forbidden from divorcing them. Christian doctrine declared that “the twain shall be one flesh,” giving husband and wife exclusive access to each other’s body. This put new pressure on men to remain sexually faithful. But the church still held that men were the head of families, with their wives deferring to their wishes.
When did love enter the picture?
Later than you might think. For much of human history, couples were brought together for practical reasons, not because they fell in love. In time, of course, many marriage partners came to feel deep mutual love and devotion. But the idea of romantic love, as a motivating force for marriage, only goes as far back as the Middle Ages. Naturally, many scholars believe the concept was “invented” by the French. Its model was the knight who felt intense love for someone else’s wife, as in the case of Sir Lancelot and King Arthur’s wife, Queen Guinevere. Twelfth-century advice literature told men to woo the object of their desire by praising her eyes, hair, and lips. In the 13th century, Richard de Fournival, physician to the king of France, wrote “Advice on Love,” in which he suggested that a woman cast her love flirtatious glances—“anything but a frank and open entreaty.”
Did love change marriage?
It sure did. Marilyn Yalom, a Stanford historian and author of A History of the Wife, credits the concept of romantic love with giving women greater leverage in what had been a largely pragmatic transaction. Wives no longer existed solely to serve men. The romantic prince, in fact, sought to serve the woman he loved. Still, the notion that the husband “owned” the wife continued to hold sway for centuries. When colonists first came to America—at a time when polygamy was still accepted in most parts of the world—the husband’s dominance was officially recognized under a legal doctrine called “coverture,” under which the new bride’s identity was absorbed into his. The bride gave up her name to symbolize the surrendering of her identity, and the husband suddenly became more important, as the official public representative of two people, not one. The rules were so strict that any American woman who married a foreigner immediately lost her citizenship.
How did this tradition change?
Women won the right to vote. When that happened, in 1920, the institution of marriage began a dramatic transformation. Suddenly, each union consisted of two full citizens, although tradition dictated that the husband still ruled the home. By the late 1960s, state laws forbidding interracial marriage had been thrown out, and the last states had dropped laws against the use of birth control. By the 1970s, the law finally recognized the concept of marital rape, which up to that point was inconceivable, as the husband “owned” his wife’s sexuality. “The idea that marriage is a private relationship for the fulfillment of two individuals is really very new,” said historian Stephanie Coontz, author of The Way We Never Were: American Families and the Nostalgia Trap. “Within the past 40 years, marriage has changed more than in the last 5,000.”
Men who married men
Gay marriage is rare in history—but not unknown. The Roman emperor Nero, who ruled from A.D. 54 to 68, twice married men in formal wedding ceremonies, and forced the Imperial Court to treat them as his wives. In second- and third-century Rome, homosexual weddings became common enough that it worried the social commentator Juvenal, says Marilyn Yalom in A History of the Wife. “Look—a man of family and fortune—being wed to a man!” Juvenal wrote. “Such things, before we’re very much older, will be done in public.” He mocked such unions, saying that male “brides” would never be able to “hold their husbands by having a baby.” The Romans outlawed formal homosexual unions in the year 342. But Yale history professor John Boswell says he’s found scattered evidence of homosexual unions after that time, including some that were recognized by Catholic and Greek Orthodox churches. In one 13th-century Greek Orthodox ceremony, the “Order for Solemnisation of Same Sex Union,” the celebrant asked God to grant the participants “grace to love one another and to abide unhated and not a cause of scandal all the days of their lives, with the help of the Holy Mother of God and all thy saints.”]
Saturday, December 3, 2011
New Research Paper topic: Marriage
gay marriage
E. J. Graff, "The Other Marriage War,"
The American Prospect vol. 13 no. 7, April 8, 2002.
Marriage: One Man, One Woman
Mr. Robert H Knight and Mr. Peter Sprigg
The Family Research Council, December 12 2003 very informational, provides examples of both arguments, i think it's even in APA style? and just addresses the issue with a slight biasy against gay marriage, but i think it will still work.
Stanley
Deathblow to Marriage: Gay marriage has real implications.
National Review,February 05, 2004
http://www.nationalreview.com/kurtz/kurtz200402050842.asp
Andrew Sullivan, The New Republic,August 13, 2001 .
THE WEEKLY STANDARD'S ABSURD CASE AGAINST GAY MARRIAGE.
Rob Anderson, The New Republic, 12.23.05.
Thomas Sowell, Townhall.com,Dec 31, 2004 . "Gay marriage 'rights'"
http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/thomassowell/2004/12/31/14108.html
http://www.balancedpolitics.org/same_sex_marriages.htm
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2008/12/05/our-mutual-joy.html
http://law-library.rutgers.edu/SSM.html
http://gaymarriage.procon.org/
Erik Eckholm. "In Suburb, Battle Goes Public on Bullying of Gay Students". nytimes.com. 12 Sept 2011. 2011 New York Times Company. Web. 14 Sept 2011.http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/13/us/13bully.html?_r=1&ref=bullies --> Gay Bullied In Anoka County blog
History of Marriage
"In the old world, marriage was originally a matter of caste, class, or clan. Courtship was closer in spirit to bartering than romance; young people were to be traded off by elders intent on solidifying family ties and merging family fortunes and acres.
By the late eighteenth century, however, Western Europeans were increasingly emphasizing marriage as a love-match between two self-determining individuals. Young people were free to choose for themselves with whom to spend their lives, and love could transcend class barriers to recognize the intrinsic personal worth of the beloved." - http://www.city-journal.org/html/14_3_gay_marriage.html
E. J. Graff, "The Other Marriage War,"
The American Prospect vol. 13 no. 7, April 8, 2002.
Marriage: One Man, One Woman
Mr. Robert H Knight and Mr. Peter Sprigg
The Family Research Council, December 12 2003 very informational, provides examples of both arguments, i think it's even in APA style? and just addresses the issue with a slight biasy against gay marriage, but i think it will still work.
Deathblow to Marriage: Gay marriage has real implications.
National Review,
http://www.nationalreview.com/kurtz/kurtz200402050842.asp
Andrew Sullivan, The New Republic,
THE WEEKLY STANDARD'S ABSURD CASE AGAINST GAY MARRIAGE.
Rob Anderson, The New Republic, 12.23.05.
Thomas Sowell, Townhall.com,
http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/thomassowell/2004/12/31/14108.html
http://www.balancedpolitics.org/same_sex_marriages.htm
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2008/12/05/our-mutual-joy.html
http://law-library.rutgers.edu/SSM.html
http://gaymarriage.procon.org/
Erik Eckholm. "In Suburb, Battle Goes Public on Bullying of Gay Students". nytimes.com. 12 Sept 2011. 2011 New York Times Company. Web. 14 Sept 2011.http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/13/us/13bully.html?_r=1&ref=bullies --> Gay Bullied In Anoka County blog
History of Marriage
"In the old world, marriage was originally a matter of caste, class, or clan. Courtship was closer in spirit to bartering than romance; young people were to be traded off by elders intent on solidifying family ties and merging family fortunes and acres.
By the late eighteenth century, however, Western Europeans were increasingly emphasizing marriage as a love-match between two self-determining individuals. Young people were free to choose for themselves with whom to spend their lives, and love could transcend class barriers to recognize the intrinsic personal worth of the beloved." - http://www.city-journal.org/html/14_3_gay_marriage.html
Tuesday, November 29, 2011
Armbands protesting Vietnam War
http://www.freedomforum.org/packages/first/curricula/educationforfreedom/supportpages/L08-CaseSummaryTinker.htm
Summary
students at Theodore Roosevelt high school decided to wear black arm bands in protest of AMericas involvement in the Vietnam war, the school learned of these students plans and created a policy which banned students from wearing arm bands to school. The consequence was suspension. Several of these students were too afraid of college rejection because of a suspension on their records so they backed out.
Quotes
More than two decades later, Christopher Eckhardt remembers what happened as if it were yesterday. “I wore the black armband over a camel-colored jacket.” There were threats in the hallway. “The captain of the football team attempted to rip it off. I turned myself in to the principal’s office, where the vice principal asked if I ‘wanted a busted nose.’ He said the seniors wouldn’t like the armband. Tears welled up in my eyes because I was afraid of violence.
“He called my mom to get her to ask me to take the armband off.” Christopher’s parents were peace activists; his mother refused. “Then he called a school counselor in. The counselor asked if I wanted to go to college, and said that colleges didn’t accept protesters. She said I would probably need to look for a new high school if I didn’t take the armband off.
“The year before, they allowed everyone to wear black armbands to mourn the death of school spirit . . . but on Dec. 15 the gym coaches said that anyone wearing armbands the next day had better not come to gym class because they’d be considered communist sympathizers.
“My former subversive activities had included being president of the student council in elementary and junior high school, membership in the Boy Scouts, listing on the honor roll, delivering The Des Moines Register and shoveling snow for neighbors.”
mary beth tinker “I think I’ve blocked a lot of it out. I didn’t realize the significance of the case for years,” she says. “I had just moved to St. Louis when the decision was announced in 1969. I was a high school junior, and I just wanted to fit in, blend in with the crowd. Suddenly, Newsweek and Time were descending on the school, wanting to take pictures of me.
Plus we’d gotten a lot of threats [in 1965]. A man who had a radio talk show threatened my father on the air. Red paint was thrown on our house. A woman called on the phone, asked for me by name, and then said, ‘I’m going to kill you!’
“I realized how hateful, how irrational people could be. Subconsciously there was a part of me that withdrew. I got a little bit protective of myself and our family.”
On Feb. 24, 1969, the Supreme Court ruled that the Des Moines schools violated the First Amendment rights of the students by suspending them for wearing armbands. But the Court did not say that the schools could never control freedom of expression. It said students are entitled to some First Amendment rights but not necessarily all the First Amendment rights that others would have outside the school context.
The key: “Material and substantial disruption of school activities or invasion of the rights of other students” must be proved if student expression is to be controlled. School officials could censor only when they could show that the expression would disrupt the school environment or invade the rights of other students.
1960s and early 1970s, when student activism and free expression were at their peak.
Summary
students at Theodore Roosevelt high school decided to wear black arm bands in protest of AMericas involvement in the Vietnam war, the school learned of these students plans and created a policy which banned students from wearing arm bands to school. The consequence was suspension. Several of these students were too afraid of college rejection because of a suspension on their records so they backed out.
Quotes
More than two decades later, Christopher Eckhardt remembers what happened as if it were yesterday. “I wore the black armband over a camel-colored jacket.” There were threats in the hallway. “The captain of the football team attempted to rip it off. I turned myself in to the principal’s office, where the vice principal asked if I ‘wanted a busted nose.’ He said the seniors wouldn’t like the armband. Tears welled up in my eyes because I was afraid of violence.
“He called my mom to get her to ask me to take the armband off.” Christopher’s parents were peace activists; his mother refused. “Then he called a school counselor in. The counselor asked if I wanted to go to college, and said that colleges didn’t accept protesters. She said I would probably need to look for a new high school if I didn’t take the armband off.
“The year before, they allowed everyone to wear black armbands to mourn the death of school spirit . . . but on Dec. 15 the gym coaches said that anyone wearing armbands the next day had better not come to gym class because they’d be considered communist sympathizers.
“My former subversive activities had included being president of the student council in elementary and junior high school, membership in the Boy Scouts, listing on the honor roll, delivering The Des Moines Register and shoveling snow for neighbors.”
mary beth tinker “I think I’ve blocked a lot of it out. I didn’t realize the significance of the case for years,” she says. “I had just moved to St. Louis when the decision was announced in 1969. I was a high school junior, and I just wanted to fit in, blend in with the crowd. Suddenly, Newsweek and Time were descending on the school, wanting to take pictures of me.
Plus we’d gotten a lot of threats [in 1965]. A man who had a radio talk show threatened my father on the air. Red paint was thrown on our house. A woman called on the phone, asked for me by name, and then said, ‘I’m going to kill you!’
“I realized how hateful, how irrational people could be. Subconsciously there was a part of me that withdrew. I got a little bit protective of myself and our family.”
On Feb. 24, 1969, the Supreme Court ruled that the Des Moines schools violated the First Amendment rights of the students by suspending them for wearing armbands. But the Court did not say that the schools could never control freedom of expression. It said students are entitled to some First Amendment rights but not necessarily all the First Amendment rights that others would have outside the school context.
The key: “Material and substantial disruption of school activities or invasion of the rights of other students” must be proved if student expression is to be controlled. School officials could censor only when they could show that the expression would disrupt the school environment or invade the rights of other students.
1960s and early 1970s, when student activism and free expression were at their peak.
Monday, November 28, 2011
works cited for research paper
"Handgun Control Debate." awesomelibrary.org. Posted 26 June 2008, updated 28 June 2010. 2011 EDI and Dr. R. Jerry Adams. Web. 27 October 2011.http://www.awesomelibrary.org/guncontrol.html.
^Evidence^ It is proven that, with the allowance of the Second Amendment, "more teens and children die from gun wounds (Brady Center).
The NRA is so against regulation of gun ownership because they believe that "each piece of federal regulation will lead to more until finally, gun ownership will be very restricted."
The NRA is so against regulation of gun ownership because they believe that "each piece of federal regulation will lead to more until finally, gun ownership will be very restricted."
Blackberry, Bonnie. "Warrantless Searches." civilliberties.org. Web. 27 October 2011. http://www.civilliberties.org/ss00searches.html
DeLuzuriaga, Tanya. "Man From Ministry Bans Potter". boston.com. Posted 25 October 2011. Copyright 2007 Globe Newspaper Company. Web. 29 Sept 2011. <http://www.boston.com/ae/books/articles/2007/10/25/man_from_ministry_bans_potter/>.
Erik Eckholm. "In Suburb, Battle Goes Public on Bullying of Gay Students". nytimes.com. 12 Sept 2011. 2011 New York Times Company. Web. 14 Sept 2011.http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/13/us/13bully.html?_r=1&ref=bullies
Sunday, November 13, 2011
This is my Thesis
America's forefathers created a Constitution that explained in detail their ideals for a stronger country, however, sometimes misinterpretation strikes and the embodiment of our country is ignored.
not sure yet... my paper is based on things that are deemed unconstitutional?
not sure yet... my paper is based on things that are deemed unconstitutional?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)