I think before marriage we'd have to look at gender?
But leaving that aside ...
Most tribes bind intercourse within marriage, which is constituted by the act of intercourse. It is ancient and universal, often with the death penalty for adultery. There are all sorts of practical and cultural reasons ...
I think social pragmatism played into this before it was defined in a religious context.
I would return to the old custom of marriage in the Church porch, not at the altar. The marriage would be blessed, but the couple would not take binding vows before God. This would be the equivalent of a social partnership. Couples can have their dresses, speeches, cake, etc., all the trappings ... in short the kind of celebration that most people want, even though they don't regularly attend a church or necessarily believe in God.
Divorce would be possible as no sacramental vows are taken.
A Sacramental Marriage would be a solemn and much more serious thing. A binding contract that is, in the eyes of the Church, insoluble. So not to be undertaken lightly. Only available to practicing Catholics. Only available after 'N' years married. A private affair, with no party planners and all the expense that goes with marriage.
I can't think God is much concerned about people's personal sex lives.
I tend to agree. I think people have an unhealthy interest in other people's lives.
I've often thought about chasing the marriage concept out, to discover where the "wife" became chatttel, that it would make a good thread for study...just never got around to it.
Prehistory, perhaps?
As much as it rankles me, many marriages have nothing to do with love or procreation, particularly at the upper end of the power curve.
It's about name, dowry, inheritance. Marriage was a marriage between powers, to preserve those powers and keep them in the right circles, thus the rich and powerful tend to marry their own kind.
Even lower down the food-chain, marriage was about land, flocks, herds ... I think 'falling in love' was very low, if not bottom on the list of priorities.
I think our modern marriage is a minority thing, historically. Personally, I wouldn't buy a toaster with a failure rate like that of our western notion of a love marriage.
Arranged marriages today are anathema to the western mind, but then a huge percentage of modern marriages end in failure, so who's right to critise?
And I saw stats somewhere that over half the divorced come to regret the decision within a few years. The obvious cases aside (cruelty, infidelity etc.), many think they should have worked harder at making the marriage work. We live in a culture that is pre-disposed against 'hardship'. "When the going get's tough, bale out ..." kinda thinking.
I've heard an Oxford-trained lawyer who's a Queen's Council, a Moslem woman who married according to her parent's wishes, argue that the western 'love' marriage is a broken model.
(Marrying minors to elders, of course, is a no-no)
while there is a ceremony recognizing a union within the tribe, that union can without fanfare or recourse be dissolved simply because one or the other party wishes to walk away...
I think property ownership complicates matters. Unlike ancient cultures, we live in an increasingly complex social situation?
)
