Roy Moore, Alabama Chief Idiot back in the news yet again.

Faith writes:I have the structure of marriage in mind, who can marry whom, and whether marriage is even practiced

Faith writes:The point was that marriage stayed the same overall for those two thousand years, one man, one woman, and only recently changed under the influence of Cultural Marxism.

1. Arranged alliancesMarriage is a truly ancient institution that predates recorded history. But early marriage was seen as a strategic alliance between families, with the youngsters often having no say in the matter. In some cultures, parents even married one child to the spirit of a deceased child in order to strengthen familial bonds, Coontz said.2. Family tiesKeeping alliances within the family was also quite common. In the Bible, the forefathers Isaac and Jacob married cousins and Abraham married his half-sister. Cousin marriages remain common throughout the world, particularly in the Middle East. In fact, Rutgers anthropologist Robin Fox has estimated that the majority of all marriages throughout history were between first and second cousins.3. Polygamy preferredMonogamy may seem central to marriage now, but in fact, polygamy was common throughout history. From Jacob, to Kings David and Solomon, Biblical men often had anywhere from two to thousands of wives. (Of course, though polygamy may have been an ideal that high-status men aspired to, for purely mathematical reasons most men likely had at most one wife). In a few cultures, one woman married multiple men, and there have even been some rare instances of group marriages. [Life's Extremes: Monogamy vs. Polygamy]4. Babies optionalIn many early cultures, men could dissolve a marriage or take another wife if a woman was infertile. However, the early Christian church was a trailblazer in arguing that marriage was not contingent on producing offspring."The early Christian church held the position that if you can procreate you must not refuse to procreate. But they always took the position that they would annul a marriage if a man could not have sex with his wife, but not if they could not conceive," Coontz told LiveScience.5. Monogamy establishedMonogamy became the guiding principle for Western marriages sometime between the sixth and the ninth centuries, Coontz said."There was a protracted battle between the Catholic Church and the old nobility and kings who wanted to say 'I can take a second wife,'" Coontz said.The Church eventually prevailed, with monogamy becoming central to the notion of marriage by the ninth century.6. Monogamy liteStill, monogamous marriage was very different from the modern conception of mutual fidelity. Though marriage was legally or sacramentally recognized between just one man and one woman, until the 19th century, men had wide latitude to engage in extramarital affairs, Coontz said. Any children resulting from those trysts, however, would be illegitimate, with no claim to the man's inheritance."Men's promiscuity was quite protected by the dual laws of legal monogamy but tolerance basically enabling of informal promiscuity," Coontz said.Women caught stepping out, by contrast, faced serious risk and censure.7. State or church?Marriages in the West were originally contracts between the families of two partners, with the Catholic Church and the state staying out of it. In 1215, the Catholic Church decreed that partners had to publicly post banns, or notices of an impending marriage in a local parish, to cut down on the frequency of invalid marriages (the Church eliminated that requirement in the 1980s). Still, until the 1500s, the Church accepted a couple's word that they had exchanged marriage vows, with no witnesses or corroborating evidence needed.8. Civil marriageIn the last several hundred years, the state has played a greater role in marriage. For instance, Massachusetts began requiring marriage licenses in 1639, and by the 19th-century marriage licenses were common in the United States.9. Love matchesBy about 250 years ago, the notion of love matches gained traction, Coontz said, meaning marriage was based on love and possibly sexual desire. But mutual attraction in marriage wasn't important until about a century ago. In fact, in Victorian England, many held that women didn't have strong sexual urges at all, Coontz said.10. Market economicsAround the world, family-arranged alliances have gradually given way to love matches, and a transition from an agricultural to a market economy plays a big role in that transition, Coontz said.Parents historically controlled access to inheritance of agricultural land. But with the spread of a market economy, "it's less important for people to have permission of their parents to wait to give them an inheritance or to work on their parents' land," Coontz said. "So it's more possible for young people to say, 'heck, I'm going to marry who I want.'"Modern markets also allow women to play a greater economic role, which lead to their greater independence. And the expansion of democracy, with its emphasis on liberty and individual choice, may also have stacked the deck for love matches.

Faith writes:You continue to confuse incidentals with the essence. The point was that marriage itself has not changed over the last 2000 years, but only very recently, it's been one man with one woman for 2000 years, and it's been enforced by most societies as the rule. The objection to interracial marriage was very shortlived and very very local and its defense on the basis of the Bible bogus in the extreme, besides which that too has nothing to do with what I'm saying about the essence of marriage itself. Multiple spouses during that period is an aberration, the examples you have in mind precede Christ, meaning precede the last 2000 years.What's changed in the west in the last few decades is that divorce has become easy, many people live together without bothering to get married and now we have the absurd idea that homosexuals should be allowed to marry. Those are real changes and they are new.

Faith writes:Jesus condemned divorce as hated by God, allowing only the circumstance of sexual infidelity as a justification for it. And divorce was allowed in the marriage of a believer to an unbeliever if the unbeliever didn't want to stay married but that wasn't often the case. Then the believer was counseled to let the unbeliever go but then remarriage is not approved in any of those cases. None of this made divorce common and easy, as it is now. Since apostolic times divorce didn't become casual and common in the west until the last few decades.

Faith writes:standard man-woman monogamy

I just answered jar. He is bringing up irrelevant incidentals and he's including things from BEFORE 2000 years ago, missing the whole point.

nwr writes:Sherlock Holmes and Dr Watson sharing an apartment.

Blimey!