The Sanctity of Marriage

[Aella]

Just wondered what every one else thought on this one. According to a recent BBC survey there are now more children (in UK - no idea about elsewhere) born out of wedlock than within it.

And most people consider a "cheapskate" wedding to be a more "shameful" scenario than having a child with only one parent.

Now I know that Holy Matrimony is a very Xtian ideal - but as an Odinist I see family (by which I mean two parents in a loving and caring relationship with a wanted, cherished and planned child - surely one of the greatest gifts that the Gods can give us) in much the same way as the Xtians do.

Am I completely out of kilter here or is it the world that has gone even madder than I thought?

[Teufelhunden]

Sadly it is a mirror of todays society. Hip hop mentality dweebs and the watering down of almost every countries cultures through mass imigration, the decline of education and the dumbing down of the general populus seem to also leak into morality at large.

[Aella]

Sadly it is a mirror of todays society. Hip hop mentality dweebs and the watering down of almost every countries cultures through mass imigration, the decline of education and the dumbing down of the general populus seem to also leak into morality at large.

Aint that the truth!

[Schwarzesonne]

I know that Holy Matrimony is a very Xtian ideal - but as an Odinist I see family (by which I mean two parents in a loving and caring relationship with a wanted, cherished and planned child - surely one of the greatest gifts that the Gods can give us) in much the same way as the Xtians do.

Am I completely out of kilter here or is it the world that has gone even madder than I thought?

I don’t disagree with you one iota.

But here’s something worth thinking about: consider our priorities, our ethics, and our theology. Now consider that of the Christians. Although I can’t prove it, I’d be willing to bet that the ideas we have inherited re holy matrimony were originally Heathen and that those other guys stole the concept from us (not unlike the so-called “Protestant work ethic”)!

[Aella]

Although I can’t prove it, I’d be willing to bet that the ideas we have inherited re holy matrimony were originally Heathen and that those other guys stole the concept from us (not unlike the so-called “Protestant work ethic”)!

That is a great point (and one that the Celtic Druids {from whom Xtians stole so much} would probably recognise) that I should have considered before assimilating marriage with Xtianity.

Thank you Schwarzesonne for that insight :)

[Spiderhouse]

As backwards as some Christians can be, you have to admit that they are right about this one, and that particular influence isn't necessarily bad.

[Don vonMilikowski]

My kids are both bastards and I am very proud of them. We did not wed until my daughter was almost a year old.

[Aella]

My kids are both bastards and I am very proud of them. We did not wed until my daughter was almost a year old.

Hi Don

Nothing wrong with that and good for you for raising two kids - my point - if you look again, was really about two loving (or lack of them) parents in a commited relationship.

The actual bit of paper that states "Married" is not the real problem that I have with this situation - my problem/gripe is with the increasing numbers of single parents who choose to be that way (obviously I do not include widows/divorces in this) because it makes "welfare" financial sense.

[Don vonMilikowski]

No worries, I know a lot of people in the same boat.

I also know single parent families that are working just fine, no help from the government.

[Alaric]

Marriage was sacred in many pagan cultures around the world and even in ones that still exist.

The unity of a man and woman truely is divine.


Today's perversion is disgusting.

[Don vonMilikowski]

Marriage was sacred in many pagan cultures around the world and even in ones that still exist.

The unity of a man and woman truely is divine.


Today's perversion is disgusting.

This is a matter of opinion, in all cultures it is an individual thing. We are responsible for our own actions. Not all our ancestors were pure as the light.

Ain't no shame in my game. I'm divorced and my search for the quench of my carnal fire is my own business.

"Marriage dosen't work in the world today, it's an institution that is in decay, and if I have love I wish to portray, I will surely find another way" - Sublime, Ball and Chain. Can't improve on that.....

[aud_friggsdottir]

Well we weren't married until we had three kids...now we have 6 and we have been together for 16 years. We swore oaths right from the start...I think the oath and commitment mean more than the piece of paper, but it is a totally personal thing. I do handfasting and usually it is just the ceremony that the couple cares about, not the paper I sign to ensure the state has their "permit".

FFF
Kathy

[Teufelhunden]

Yeah Kathy but I have run into a couple of people that really NEEDED a permit to breed or marry lol...

[Sigurd]

Well we weren't married until we had three kids...

My parents were together for close to 5 years when I was born. They only married when I was 1 1/2 years old. (Makes me a bastard! Yay! :D)

Can't say it makes a difference whether you sign a piece of paper before you have your kids or after. :swinghamm

-------------
Sadly the marriage between my parensts only lasted for 10 months; as it was not before long that the arguments started.
I've come clear with the fact that my parents divorced when I was young. Nevertheless, I would have liked to know what it feels like having both your parents around when growing up. :(

[Don vonMilikowski]

Sadly the marriage between my parensts only lasted for 10 months; as it was not before long that the arguments started.
I've come clear with the fact that my parents divorced when I was young. Nevertheless, I would have liked to know what it feels like having both your parents around when growing up. :(

I know what you mean, I was hoping my kids could enjoy both their parents at the same time (my father bailed when I was 7, thought my brother and I were punching bags). It tears me up when they want me to move up there to the Land of Inopportunity (I am not Mormon and am heavily tattooed, the facial piercings I can hide easily) and I cannot. Also tears me up when they say they wish mommy and I were still together, it was not my choice to lose the battle. But we gotta be strong (in public) and keep on going in a positive direction. Hardest part for me is I still love my ex wife, I think it is more the idea of her, the woman she became with me..... 'nuff of that.

I am not anti marriage so to say, just someone telling me I have to be married to do what I want to do. If I create more children, then I create more children, I can afford them and have a big heart for kids. I personally do not think I want more kids, I love my Tanner and Elise too much to invite more into our life - but if I am intended to have more kids, then so be it.

My son changed my nihilism to a love for life, funny how a tiny person can do that, make you all grown up. If y'all would have known me before I had my son, I was a different person - especially after the Army let me go. My daughter taught me it was okay to go on a construction site with pink glitter nailpolish and still feel manly. :help:

Now to listen to some 2 Live Crew.......

[Sigurd]

My daughter taught me it was okay to go on a construction site with pink glitter nailpolish and still feel manly. :help:


Aye, that's something only kids - whether your children or your siblings - can do for you. :D

[Liffrea]

The only thing I would say is that I think it is important a child has a mother and father. I only had a father, my mother died when I was five, I don’t think I have suffered as such, then again I know no different, but it is the natural order that a man and women form a stable family unit. It is the bedrock of any society. I don’t believe you need to be married to do this.

[Katia]

I'm not sure the original poster meant a "paper" marriage ... I don't see the big deal about filing the paperwork and all, honestly it isn't the government's business who is in my pants. LOL. My hubby and I got the paperwork done because it made alot of technicalities easier in our particular circumstance, but if that wasn't the case, I doubt we ever would have filed anything. As long as you are faithful and committed to each other, that is a marriage, a family. What is a piece of paper; nothing! If that's your crutch for a long happy life together.. well, it would explain the high divorce rate wouldn't it ;)

Sorry.. Did I mention that I am also kind of a rebel / anarchist by nature as well? hehe! :yes:

[Spiderhouse]

I'm not sure the original poster meant a "paper" marriage ... I don't see the big deal about filing the paperwork and all, honestly it isn't the government's business who is in my pants. LOL. My hubby and I got the paperwork done because it made alot of technicalities easier in our particular circumstance, but if that wasn't the case, I doubt we ever would have filed anything. As long as you are faithful and committed to each other, that is a marriage, a family. What is a piece of paper; nothing!

Conversely, one could say that if it is just a piece of paper, then what's the big deal about doing it? If you are faithful and committed, then you are faithful and committed, but you are not married. Marriage is an important and necessary thing when raising children, because from the child's perspective, it is a reassurance as to the stability of the family unit. "Father" has a different ring to it than "my mom's boyfriend".

Then again, that's just my opinion. Wouldn't be the first or last time I was wrong.

[attak53]

Conversely, one could say that if it is just a piece of paper, then what's the big deal about doing it? If you are faithful and committed, then you are faithful and committed, but you are not married. Marriage is an important and necessary thing when raising children, because from the child's perspective, it is a reassurance as to the stability of the family unit. "Father" has a different ring to it than "my mom's boyfriend".

Then again, that's just my opinion. Wouldn't be the first or last time I was wrong.

The paper means nothing. Father means Father if that is truly the schilds dad the paper doesn't make that so and if any paper does it is the Birth Certificate not the marriage license.

[Katia]

Marriage is an important and necessary thing when raising children, because from the child's perspective, it is a reassurance as to the stability of the family unit. "Father" has a different ring to it than "my mom's boyfriend".

Then again, that's just my opinion. Wouldn't be the first or last time I was wrong.


We are having a philosophical conversation.. We are all right in our own eyes! ;) I didn't want my point to come across that we should be with different people, I definitely think loyalty is #1 and definitely a must have in the family structure. And if my hubby and I didn't get married, I would probably still call him my husband, because thats what he would be. My point is that I personally don't need my bond to be recognized by a court in order for it to be valid. I don't give a flip what the court thinks! :)

[Spiderhouse]

The paper means nothing. Father means Father if that is truly the schilds dad the paper doesn't make that so and if any paper does it is the Birth Certificate not the marriage license.

The paper means nothing in a technical sense, yes...same as a driver's license or a check. But, like those other things, it a symbol--mainly of one's desire to at least attempt to have a serious and lifelong commitment to a relationship and family. Again, in my opinion, it mostly needed when raising children, as what two adults do with or without marriage is their business. Kids are different.

Also, when folks protest the marriage thing so much, it makes me wonder what they're really afraid of, if it is just a technicality like they claim.

[attak53]

I just don't understand why you believe that you need to be married to raise children (I'm not saying you're wrong), I'm in a committed relationship but we're not married (we will be in a few months) but we've been together forever we have a house together , 2 cars, pets, joint bank accounts, etc just like any married couple would have if we had a child together why would he not know us as mommy and daddy? I think the symbol of our committment to one another isn't in a marriage license I believe it is in that we choose to live a life together as equals and share the joys that go with it.

[Alaric]

This is a matter of opinion, in all cultures it is an individual thing. We are responsible for our own actions. Not all our ancestors were pure as the light.

Ain't no shame in my game. I'm divorced and my search for the quench of my carnal fire is my own business.

"Marriage dosen't work in the world today, it's an institution that is in decay, and if I have love I wish to portray, I will surely find another way" - Sublime, Ball and Chain. Can't improve on that.....

Marriage is indeed a institution in decay and we should fix it to protect the sacredness of love.


I think the decay in relationships,love and marriage stems from the belief that marriage as a institution is worthless therefore void.

This causes the perversion we see today where sex and lust is only important.

We need to fix the institution and quit being lazy about it. Things will not fix themselves.

[texas heathen]

I think one thing we all forget is that we are not living the same way as our ancestors. Xtianity or not Divorce was recognized by our folk. They also practiced fostering.
I personally think the probs today have less to do with the husband wife thing then the community not taking care of its duties. Single mothers or fathers are not a new concept but in the past kith and kin stepped in to fill the void.
FFF/HTR
Clif AOR

[Don vonMilikowski]

I think one thing we all forget is that we are not living the same way as our ancestors. Xtianity or not Divorce was recognized by our folk. They also practiced fostering.
I personally think the probs today have less to do with the husband wife thing then the community not taking care of its duties. Single mothers or fathers are not a new concept but in the past kith and kin stepped in to fill the void.
FFF/HTR
Clif AOR


In the old days if you came home and saw your stuff on the porch, you were divorced

[Sigurd]

They also practiced fostering.


A honorable practice still, in my opinion. It is rarely practiced nowadays, but I see no reason why once we are started off, why we should not reintroduce it.

For myself, few things would be more honorful than to be allowed to bring up a kinsman's child; or vice-versa. :cool:

Well, ok, other people have different opinion, but I cannot see anything against fostering. Obviously the person would have to be well-chosen, duh!

[Alaric]

I think one thing we all forget is that we are not living the same way as our ancestors. Xtianity or not Divorce was recognized by our folk. They also practiced fostering.
I personally think the probs today have less to do with the husband wife thing then the community not taking care of its duties. Single mothers or fathers are not a new concept but in the past kith and kin stepped in to fill the void.
FFF/HTR
Clif AOR

In the old days cheaters were executed.

[Alaric]

A honorable practice still, in my opinion. It is rarely practiced nowadays, but I see no reason why once we are started off, why we should not reintroduce it.

For myself, few things would be more honorful than to be allowed to bring up a kinsman's child; or vice-versa. :cool:

Well, ok, other people have different opinion, but I cannot see anything against fostering. Obviously the person would have to be well-chosen, duh!

The problem is family these days are not well connected thus people let total strangers adopt their children, and sometimes in very ill circumstance foreigners adopt white children.

[beowulf]

I believe marriage can very much be a holy and sanctified thing for Asatruar as well, when one marries you are swearing vows and binding oneself to your mate according to the vows you've made, if desired with the gods as witnesses which makes it holy in my book.
I think it is better for children to be born within wedlock because of the increased stability and increased social 'respectability' it provides for them (hopefully). My wife and I did not consider having children until after we were married. I cannot however condemn two people dedicated to one another that have had children and raise them well in a loving household that happen not to have officially tied the knot, the old case of 'common-law' marriage.
In the end what is best for the children must be the deciding factor.
And then of course there's the tax exemptions with being married on paper...... :D

[Hogni]

If two people are truely bound to each other by a sacred vow than a state paper saying they are married is not needed. I have 5 children one was born out of wedlock the 4 younger ones were born in wedlock. My girlfriend and I feel that a judge or a pastor of the state can say that we are leagal to have children. A true relationship as like children is a sacred gift given by the Gods. Im not anti-marriage just dont think you need a piece of paper to have a loving caring and stable family life.

[Sigurd]

Im not anti-marriage just dont think you need a piece of paper to have a loving caring and stable family life.

Indeed. My mother and my stepfather married within 3 months of when they knew each other. Sounds pretty naive, aye; but they were made for each other. They're holding out for close to 13 years now. Which is not bad. :cool:

[freyasfalcon]

The important thing is that the children are raised in a stable home by a loving and MATURE couple. Too many today are having children at entirely too young an age, often while still in High School, thereby ensuring they will likely not graduate, thereby decreasing thier chances of earning a decent wage and starting the downward spiral into poverty and the welfare trap.
I agree with an earlier posting that a lot of this is due to the "hip-hop" culture that predominates today, and the total lack of any sort of morality or honor that this "culture" expouses. The NNV it ain't! ::bang::

[Don vonMilikowski]

The important thing is that the children are raised in a stable home by a loving and MATURE couple. Too many today are having children at entirely too young an age, often while still in High School, thereby ensuring they will likely not graduate, thereby decreasing thier chances of earning a decent wage and starting the downward spiral into poverty and the welfare trap.
I agree with an earlier posting that a lot of this is due to the "hip-hop" culture that predominates today, and the total lack of any sort of morality or honor that this "culture" expouses. The NNV it ain't! ::bang::

First part I agree with... To a degree, but some people still do very well.....

Second is another on the bandwagon of the tripe about music. Do you think Jazz, Big Band, Rock and Roll, or Heavy Metal causes people to do things...... Or is it how they are raised, what strengths are taught by parents..... I think it is more of a weakenss on the parent's behalf than some silly music or fashion.

The human body is capable of creating a child at the age of puberty, whether or not the human animal is ready - the body is. I think what you are trying to point out is responsibility for one's actions. How many divorced parents where one parent just stops caring because their spouse has the kids but were wonderful parents before? How many married parents do not care about their kids? How many times is a parent guilty of abusing the child..... These are all cases of marriage. It is no one's fault on how a kid turns out or their actions but the parents.

In my world, my kids come first, over any woman, over anything. I live 400 miles from them.

Now Slayer is telling me to Reign in Hell...... :eek:

[aud_friggsdottir]

Second is another on the bandwagon of the tripe about music. Do you think Jazz, Big Band, Rock and Roll, or Heavy Metal causes people to do things...... Or is it how they are raised, what strengths are taught by parents..... I think it is more of a weakenss on the parent's behalf than some silly music or fashion.

The human body is capable of creating a child at the age of puberty, whether or not the human animal is ready - the body is. I think what you are trying to point out is responsibility for one's actions. How many divorced parents where one parent just stops caring because their spouse has the kids but were wonderful parents before? How many married parents do not care about their kids? How many times is a parent guilty of abusing the child..... These are all cases of marriage. It is no one's fault on how a kid turns out or their actions but the parents.

In my world, my kids come first, over any woman, over anything. I live 400 miles from them.

Now Slayer is telling me to Reign in Hell...... :eek:

I agree...music doesn't make people do something...but it could influence them, but ultimately it is personal responsiblity on both the parents and teens. I had my first at 18, too young? No...not for me or my husband (whom I now have 6, with #7 coming)...we struggled, but we perservered.

Anyway... we should be concerned with our Folk (Odinist Folk) and not with those caught up in the monoculture, consumerism of society... We need to focus on the next generation WE are raising. Make sure they understand the idea of personal responsibility. Example, I had Freydis at home, my 14 and 13 yo watched her birth, up close and personal :D. They saw what it was all about. I also told the 14 yo that if she was to get pregnant early...she was having the baby the very same way... Personal responsibility and connection to reality. I know I saw my nephew born in the exact same way when I was around 13...LOL...it made an impact.

[Don vonMilikowski]

I also told the 14 yo that if she was to get pregnant early...she was having the baby the very same way... Personal responsibility and connection to reality. I know I saw my nephew born in the exact same way when I was around 13...LOL...it made an impact.


HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Can I send Elise to y'all for a little while?

[aud_friggsdottir]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Can I send Elise to y'all for a little while?

Aww she is too young :)....But I am having the next one at home again :D...so now it gets to be pounded in the kids heads...I think I am going to let my 12 yo watch also!

[Don vonMilikowski]

Aww she is too young :)....But I am having the next one at home again :D...so now it gets to be pounded in the kids heads...I think I am going to let my 12 yo watch also!


PLEASE see the humor......

So you are advocating birth control by breeding?! Good concept.... Hmmm, gonna try that one out :D

[freyasfalcon]

Don, I'm not saying "the music made me do it". If that were the case, I would have been running around biting the heads off of bats back in my younger days! ;) It's simply the lack of personal responsibility that prevails in todays societey that is exemplified in the "hip-hop culture".
Music can have some influence on your outlook when you are young, but if you have been raised with a valid concept of right and wrong then you will know better than to try and emulate unacceptable behavior.
My wife and I have done the best we can to raise three boys and instill ethics, virtue, and honor in them. One can only hope that it is enough to counteract undesireable cultural influences. So far, so good! :)

[Loki's Advocate]

If two people are truely bound to each other by a sacred vow than a state paper saying they are married is not needed.

That's right.

What is lacking these days isn't so much people getting married, as the deep and profound (and mutual) connection between two people which might lead them to spend their lives together.

Kids should be had and raised in this spirit, and quite often, they are not- which is a great shame.

All marriage is, really, is the icing on the cake- the step two people take when they are ready to embark upon their adult lives as a team.

[Schwarzesonne]

All marriage is, really, is the icing on the cake- the step two people take when they are ready to embark upon their adult lives as a team.

Well, it’s that and one more very important thing: it’s the recognition by the community—both men and gods—that the two people involved are now one and ought to be regarded as such. It is the ultimate contract of bond-oath. As such it is a very powerful and holy thing.

[Loki's Advocate]

Yeah, I neglected to mention that aspect of marriage, Steve.

(I'm married to the only woman I've ever loved, so for me it goes without saying. The amazing thing, to people who know us, is that it took so long for us to get married!)

I agree with you, don't get me wrong, but I still think that the underlying motivations for marriage are more important than the event itself. If a marriage is entered into without the right motivations and underlying dedication and devotion, it will more than likely fail; but a simple 'relationship' which is underpinned by the right things will be a positive thing and will more than likely endure.

But here's me presuming to instruct someone who more than likely knows better than me... so I'll stop it now.

[aud_friggsdottir]

PLEASE see the humor......

Oh goodness...I totally do!



So you are advocating birth control by breeding?! Good concept.... Hmmm, gonna try that one out :D

Hahaha...Nothing like reality to dispell those rosey myths ;)

FFF
Kathy

[Don vonMilikowski]

Kathy....

"DOES THIS LOOK FUN TO YOU?! DOES IT!?"

This is what I am picturing.... and laughing too hard, coughing, crying.... :nono:

Damn, I wish I could stop laughing right now.

[pinlighter]

(I'm married to the only woman I've ever loved, so for me it goes without saying. The amazing thing, to people who know us, is that it took so long for us to get married!)


Belated (by how many days, months or years?) congratulations, my friend :)

[aud_friggsdottir]

Kathy....

"DOES THIS LOOK FUN TO YOU?! DOES IT!?"

This is what I am picturing.... and laughing too hard, coughing, crying.... :nono:

Damn, I wish I could stop laughing right now.

Ya my midwives thought I was a bit "louder" than usual ;). They had a nice chuckle :D!

[aud_friggsdottir]

Belated (by how many days, months or years?) congratulations, my friend :)

Agreed! Congrats, and yes is this recent?

[MidgardSilver]

When I married my wife, I married my best friend. :)

[enslaved1896]

When I married my wife, I married my best friend. :)

Awww, that is sweet :o

I love hearing stuff like that still.

[Liffrea]

Thread Closed, until further notice.

[Don vonMilikowski]

kind of funny when someone says one thing but does another when it comes to marriage...........

Kind of disturbing what one hears once in a while

[skalagrim]

I think that when we speak of marriage, we speak of two different things. First, we speak of organic marriage - the committed union of a man and woman whose union is declared to the community and the gods, and bound with a solemn oath. Second, there is civil marriage - a peculiar sort of contract subject to a variety of rules and regulations and case law sufficiently complex that it is an area of specialization for attorneys.

The problem we run into with marriage often stems from a failure to differentiate between the two. The second form - the civil form - is a matter of government decree and as such can allow (or disallow) whatever is or isn't politically correct at the time. Thus the legality of homosexual marriage in the most recent era, but a ban on the practice in prior eras. This is nothing more than entering a binding contract with the State that agrees to subject any dissolution of the civil marriage to the State's scrutiny and criteria in exchange for certain legalities being made more simple. Since any government sets its own rules, any number of combinations are theoretically permissible in civil marriage and - in theory at least - a State can even *require* certain sorts of marriage as a prerequisite for certain state privileges. Civil marriage has NO moral or theological import.

Organic marriage, however, stands beyond the realm of the state's authority. While, most often, people are organically and civilly married at the same time; there is nothing to prevent these two acts from being separated in time, or for one act to be performed but the other skipped. In other words, the sanction of the State for civil marriage is unrelated to actual organic marriage. A couple can call in clergy and be married in the eyes of the community and deities of their choice - and the only difference being that the state is not informed so that, for purposes of government administration, they are treated as individuals rather than a couple.

As proof of this, please note that (other than very strange marital arrangements) it is generally understood that infidelity is a great moral wrong. In most courts, however, the infidelity of a partner carries no weight in determining asset division or child custody. To a civil court, the *moral* aspects of marriage are not important or even germaine. (There are laws on the books that make infidelity germaine, but in actual case history it is considered to be moot.)

Where am I going with this? Two places.

First, the "paper" is civil marriage. A person can be organically married in every moral sense without ever having been civilly married. I assert on this basis that a person born to people who were organically married is NOT a "bastard." That term should be reserved for folks whose parents had no appreciable relationship - i.e. one night stands, etc.

Second, that the direction of civil marriage in this country is utterly corrupted and that we, as Odinists, should consider separating ourselves from that system such that we have our own criteria for recognition of organic marriage and that our organically married couples not even ask for the endorsement of a corrupted state. In the eyes of the state - a couple might be "shacked up" - but if they are married through their troth - THAT is reality, not bureaucracy.

[NoonSun]

I really want to throw in a couple of points here. As I mentioned in my introduction, I am not thoroughly versed in Norse ways. Nevertheless, I have studied pre-Christian cultures in other parts of the world, mostly Greeks and indiginous peoples. Anyway, the reason I mention this is that I believe the problem with marriage these days and under the "Christian Model" is that two people--a man and a woman--really can NOT enter into holy matrimony. No. However, Clans and Families can. I really think that our problems have stemmed from the idea that marriage is about two people...when, prior to Christianity it is about the melding of entire extended families. Thus in most primative cultures various codified guidelines rule what happen to surviving wives or husbands, in that they then were at least cared for, if not flat out re-married to a brother or sister of the deceased, or something of that sort.


The Northern European men, lets face it, these adventuring types where not marrying with soft hearts, though at times, he would, doubtlessly, fight to retain a tear when leaving his lovers hearth to brave a new journey. But these matrimonies meant more than "I love you" it was melding of destinies, shared by clans and families and was not breakable, nor created by only two people.


NoonSun

Hail the Gods!

[enslaved1896]

I really want to throw in a couple of points here. As I mentioned in my introduction, I am not thoroughly versed in Norse ways. Nevertheless, I have studied pre-Christian cultures in other parts of the world, mostly Greeks and indiginous peoples. Anyway, the reason I mention this is that I believe the problem with marriage these days and under the "Christian Model" is that two people--a man and a woman--really can NOT enter into holy matrimony. No. However, Clans and Families can. I really think that our problems have stemmed from the idea that marriage is about two people...when, prior to Christianity it is about the melding of entire extended families. Thus in most primative cultures various codified guidelines rule what happen to surviving wives or husbands, in that they then were at least cared for, if not flat out re-married to a brother or sister of the deceased, or something of that sort.


The Northern European men, lets face it, these adventuring types where not marrying with soft hearts, though at times, he would, doubtlessly, fight to retain a tear when leaving his lovers hearth to brave a new journey. But these matrimonies meant more than "I love you" it was melding of destinies, shared by clans and families and was not breakable, nor created by only two people.


NoonSun

Hail the Gods!

Interesting perspective on things.

However, I am more of a "true love forever" kind of person, myself. :o

[Schwarzesonne]

I really want to throw in a couple of points here. As I mentioned in my introduction, I am not thoroughly versed in Norse ways. Nevertheless, I have studied pre-Christian cultures in other parts of the world, mostly Greeks and indiginous peoples. Anyway, the reason I mention this is that I believe the problem with marriage these days and under the "Christian Model" is that two people--a man and a woman--really can NOT enter into holy matrimony. No. However, Clans and Families can. I really think that our problems have stemmed from the idea that marriage is about two people...when, prior to Christianity it is about the melding of entire extended families. Thus in most primative cultures various codified guidelines rule what happen to surviving wives or husbands, in that they then were at least cared for, if not flat out re-married to a brother or sister of the deceased, or something of that sort.


The Northern European men, lets face it, these adventuring types where not marrying with soft hearts, though at times, he would, doubtlessly, fight to retain a tear when leaving his lovers hearth to brave a new journey. But these matrimonies meant more than "I love you" it was melding of destinies, shared by clans and families and was not breakable, nor created by only two people.

What you suggest rings true—especially back in the days of arranged marriages. However, arranged marriages no longer exist. Therefore the role of marriage in society needs to be reinterpreted.

I married because of true love (note the lack of quotes)—and I do not regret it!

[Nordic_Jawa]

I assert on this basis that a person born to people who were organically married is NOT a "bastard." That term should be reserved for folks whose parents had no appreciable relationship - i.e. one night stands, etc.


My folks were happily married when they had me but I'm still a bastard according to some.

Aside from that, I agree with you completely. :D

[skalagrim]

Noonsun does bring up an important point. According to Kevin MacDonald's research, marriage based upon mutual affection and free choice was the exception in Europe rather than the rule until the coming of Christianity. The coming of Christianity saw the adoption of the model we currently see - pairings based upon mutual affection.

Whether we, as individuals, prefer the current model doesn't mean that it shouldn't be held up to scrutiny and re-examined within the context of its advantages/disadvantages compared to the older folkways. After all, sometimes what seems easiest or most pleasing to us individually is not the best path for the Folk as a whole.

The Tanakh likewise contains rules similar to what Noonsun describes - where a husband's brother would be obligated to assume the role of husband in the event of death. Why would such a rule exist? Because children need parents of both sexes for a variety of reasons and in an era before big brother would kick in some money to feed your kids, the loss of a husband could have been bad news for the kids.

While I do not see Asatru as a path to atomistic individualism, I DO see it as a path of self-reliance - meaning that we should endeavor to create circumstances such that a mother who loses a husband (or vice versa) doesn't find herself dependent upon a soulless government. It's not about what WE want - but what is best, in the long run, for the wellbeing of children. What happens if both parents die in a plane crash? Should the kids become wards of the state - or should a mechanism be in place to keep them in the care of our own folk?

I'm not advocating one way or the other here; but what I am saying is that since many parts of the Christian paradigm have been harmful to our people - sometimes in subtle ways - it might be worth questioning and comparing from the perspective of what is good for the folk as a whole and what is good for children as opposed to what gives us, as individuals, greatest satisfaction in the short run.

Yes, I love my wife, and we picked each other because of mutual affection and I'm not about to give her up; but that doesn't mean we can't take a look at what the best way is to move into the future.

[Loki's Advocate]

The Northern European men, lets face it, these adventuring types where not marrying with soft hearts, though at times, he would, doubtlessly, fight to retain a tear when leaving his lovers hearth to brave a new journey.

Perhaps in the world of Conan the Cimmerian. But other than that, I don't see how you can make such a generalisation.


But these matrimonies meant more than "I love you" it was melding of destinies, shared by clans and families and was not breakable, nor created by only two people.

The two things are not mutually exclusive, you know. In fact, I'd argue that they're complementary.

[Freki]

Noonsun does bring up an important point. According to Kevin MacDonald's research, marriage based upon mutual affection and free choice was the exception in Europe rather than the rule until the coming of Christianity. The coming of Christianity saw the adoption of the model we currently see - pairings based upon mutual affection.



Up to the end of the Victorian era, maybe a little into the Edwardian era, the aristocract and upper middle class married on the basis of family and money, not love (usually). As most of our stories revolve around the heroes, and typically by extension, the wealthy, perhaps it was a similar situation then. The wealthy and powerful intend to keep such fortunes within the family, and the best way to maintain your power is to expand your wealth and power. The easiest way to do that is through marriage.

Sooooo....as I see it, the wealthy and powerful, regardless of religion or era, intend to keep it in the family. As for the rest of us, we have the luxury of marrying who we want.

[skalagrim]

Good point as well, Freki.

You got me to thinking ....

Look at the divorce rate. Maybe the sorts of pairings we have today don't work as well as they once did for a large number of reasons. Certainly, morality and honor in general have gone downhill. Folks no longer see themselves within the context of a community larger than themselves. MemememeME! Everyone is anonymous, and anything is justifiable. Etc. Etc.

These things are all very different within a close-knit community that has a compelling interest in the success of the marriage and wellbeing of the kids.

The Christian model for marriage, and (I hate to hear myself use such a word!) its "patriarchal" view created a circumstance for hundreds of years in which women were not merely second class citizens - but literally had to put up with *anything* and were guaranteed to lose the children if a divorce were ever granted, etc. This situation - of basically subjugation of women - only ended a few decades ago, whereupon divorce rates went through the roof.

It is possible that the artificial circumstance of female subjugation brought by Judeo-Christian views of women served to preserve pairings that otherwise would not have been tenable. Basically, in many cases, a woman had no means of survival outside the marriage so leaving it was nearly suicidal.

In other words, the Christian marriage model was workable (though unpleasant) when accompanied by oppressive patriarchal restriction on women's free will; but once the patriarchal views were discarded - the Christian marriage model ceased to work particularly well.

Of course, the idea of mutual affection is not the only thing that makes the Christian marriage model Christian. There are also the defined sex roles, dirtiness of sex, etc. I think a valid Odinist model - i.e. a model that will actually work without need for oppression - has to be based on values and principles inherent in the folk-soul.

It could be that mutual affection is fine as long as the roles, expectations and equality of the partners are defined within Odinist expectations. OR - it could be that pairings based on mutual affection can only work well 30-50% of the time no matter what the expectations; so a new model would be required.

I ain't got no answers, but you sure are making me pose a lot of questions! (*grin*)

[Uber1NH]

Noonsun does bring up an important point. According to Kevin MacDonald's research, marriage based upon mutual affection and free choice was the exception in Europe rather than the rule until the coming of Christianity. The coming of Christianity saw the adoption of the model we currently see - pairings based upon mutual affection.


I can't find the original article MacDonald wrote for Occidental Quarterly comparing other groups, Jews in particular, to Northern Europeans, but one of the qualities he mentioned that set Northern Europeans apart was the nuclear family, high-investment parenting, monogamy, with bonding occurring due to mutual affection rather than monetary or political advantage. Here is the only article on the topic remaining:

http://www.theoccidentalquarterly.com/vol2no2/km-unique.html

Regardless, his writing on this aspect of Northern European evolutionary psychology was that tendency toward mutual affection pair bonding was evident long, long before the advent of the Christian church, which comes from a Judeo polygamous culture. In other words, it was an organic manifestation, not caused by the influence of an alien culture.

Just FYI.

Uber1NH

[skalagrim]

Very good Uber1 - you are correct and I stand corrected:

(From MacDonald) "It is common to distinguish ecologically imposed monogamy from socially imposed monogamy. In general, ecologically imposed monogamy is found in societies that have been forced to adapt to very harsh ecological conditions such as deserts and arctic conditions.1 Under such harsh conditions, it is impossible for males to control additional females because the investment of each male must be directed to the children of one woman. The basic idea is that under harsh conditions a woman would be unable to rear children by herself but would require provisioning from a male. If these conditions persisted for an evolutionarily significant time, one might expect to find that the population would develop a strong tendency toward monogamy. In fact, one might imagine that the tendency toward monogamy could become so strong that it would result in psychological and cultural tendencies toward monogamy even in the face of altered ecological conditions. Later I will propose that this is exactly what happened in the evolution of Europeans."

Further on, though, MacDonald does acknowledge something that an earlier poster also pointed out: that monogamy in pre-christian Europe was for "the masses" but elite males (i.e. males with sufficient resources) in Europe engaged in polygyny; and it was the catholic church that more-or-less successfully imposed monogamy on elite males.

[ampaegus]

Speaking of marriage, I do have a question that is only a tiny bit off topic, but not by much. What would an odinist wedding ceremony entail?