so was margaret mitchell with scarlett o hara's survival mode. she was smarter than her airheaded husband in business and just took over. she also did wat she wanted-the original "no fks given"chic
+jenp27 I might be wrong but I heard about a woman I think (?) that did this in the USA? I don't know if it's true and if this is even possible or if it is, maybe because it was a special case, but I heard it.
Just living together will be enough for me. I don't just move in with anybody, it has to be the real deal for me to do that and after at least 2 years of dating. Where I live more and more people feel this way. What do you think?
Veridia I guess most of my family think that way too. I'm male, and I know women in general love faithfulness. Yes, I want to be "everything" for a person. But I'm not gonna lie, I'm still single, but not desperate. Thanks for sharing a nice conversation with me...
The most important part of the video is the last sentence. As society's needs changes, so does marriage itself will also change. As humans change and demand their needs, marriage will also cater to human needs. This requirement is beyond religion, practicality, money or the individual pursuit of happiness. Whatever the needs of society will present, the demands of marriage will follow suit.
But too much change is bad for society. This is what the progressives and liberals want which they want to destroy the family unit, tradition and culture. Society does need some changes but a huge change is a bad thing. Same with marriages as well. That is why the progressive/leftist worldview is so dangerous
@@jonjonboi3701 No it's not. Everything that happens is with the universe's consent, it serves some purpose. Whatever change happens, big or small, is for the highest good for all.
Or its like: "I love you so much that im willing to suffer goverment paperwork and binding just to be attached to you in some way" Which is also weird, but better than being stalkerish
@@jonjonboi3701 that depends on how you value and define love. But in most cases in most cultures marriage was mired in practicality and socio economic status. It still is today even in some countries and communities. But love can change or fade away even.
***** It possible that was true, but I'm pretty sure the Bible doesn't say that. The Bible does say how rich, wise and powerful he was though. So I'm pretty sure he was gettin a lot based on that. But if you can show me the verse, I'll take it back.
+John Benton actually, it doesn't. Society may shape what is allowed to be called marriage but it doesn't shape the human body nor the actual, unchanging, universal definition of marriage. Marriage is a human institution that in every society has been seen at its best as between one man and one woman. This video makes a few abnormal cases in history into a big deal that "proves" the idea that the definition of marriage has changed over time. Also, traditional marriage adherents have a lot more reasons on their side then just "that's how its always done." Maybe take the time to find what tradition marriage adherents say and believe....? heres a link: chastityproject.com/qa/category/homosexuality/ Even if all of society is saying it's marriage doesn't mean its marriage. The American legal code once said that blacks were property and they were wrong.The definition of marriage will never change because the human body (the means to procreate) will never change.
This must be your own considered, sincerely-held belief. I care that you have an opinion, but I do not care what that opinion is. You will continue to decry gay marriage, and I will continue to say 'So what?' This does not mean we have to argue, just agree to differ on certain subjects.
Thank you, TedED, for sharing this! It's so important that people realize how the institution of marriage is deeply rooted in culture-specific context and not exclusively the domain of one religion/philosophical perspective to define.
You are telling me that it's normal in some cultures for one to marry a ghost but not a living person because he's of same gender😂 society's messed up!
CountBifford They claim that they want marriage just like the Bible. Except one man one woman marriages were rare in the entire book.The institution of marriage to them is proclaimed to be monogamous opposite sex relationships, but it's well known that most conservatives can't live up to that. What they really want is to be special, be able to look down on other people and deny them the same rights conservatives take for granted. Kudos to any people who are able to form a loving relationship, both giving and taking equally.
***** That's not quite what a ghost marriage is... You used the word "wife" to describe the deceased; why would you need a second wedding after you're already married? No, what you mean is that when one or both parties are dead, they get married for a variety of reasons. It's not always honest, either; sometimes, people sell dead bodies to serve as brides in ghost marriages. For example, a lot of families in China will buy recently deceased girls' bodies to serve as wives for their dead sons. It's a body black market business. :s
You know, sometimes I seriously wonder why the HELL do people think/assume that some people are "gay" because they are super close to a friend who is of the same gender?? It's like somehow now people just can't think that people can be in a really close relationship even without being in a romantic or sexual relationship with the someone of the sex! I am not from an English speaking country, and was in a English debate camp, and I once complimented my teammate for being cute, which I meant things like her polite and naive nature combined with wit.(and back then I didn't really knew of the LGBT things too) The teammate was from the same country as me, so she knew what I was talking about, and thanked me and called me "pretty," but then some other kids who lived in America just started to blurt out that we were lesbian because I called her "cute," and she called me "pretty." And we were both like "WTH are you talking about?"
In any language certain words and expressions combine to "suggest" subtexts, not just in the west, any country, any language. What I don't get is why would that be a bad thing? If it's not like that, point it out, but it's not as that's an insult in this day and age, in the west, mostly in the west, anyway...
Da ve Here's the thing, that kid was actually from our country, which was definitely not America and out the three of us that kid was the only one who had been to America and apparently had been "enlightened" and had seen gay people, and called us "gay" because we were talking like them. I know calling someone gay is not supposed to be an insult but I hate being called something I am not and so did my teammate. And depending on the nuance of a person, it can be an insult thought. My real problem is not really about being called "gay," as much I don't like to be assumed to be something I am not. But as I have already mentioned, my problem is that people think that if people of the same gender are like really close, they start to think they may be "gay." I think that people nowadays don't have real friendship or companionship with people of the same gender, and can only see such relationship as a romantic/sexual relationship.
Millicent Grace Totally understandable, I thought as much before the reply, one should be regarded as one wish to be regarded, and not by other people's arbitrary, superficial judgement, that has nothing to do with your real self. As you can see, in order to simplify our lives, we are constantly simplifying others based on the most obvious traits and make a flash judgement - which is often wrong, and where stereotypes are born. The way I protect myself is to learn those nuances and subtexts in order to use those predefined stereotypes to my advantage, to project what I want to project. But in an ideal world, we shouldn't have to play by other people's rules. Depressing innit? But find solace in your eloquent philosophy and articulation ;) those alone, mark you head and shoulders above the ignorant who only judge others based on stereotypes.
the same thing happens to straight people as well. just because I and a dude are close to each other, people think we like each other. it's the same. nothing's new.
Also, fun fact! Brides starting wearing white specifically in weddings after Queen Victoria pupularized it by wearing white on her wedding, which i found very interesting
Justin and Cassie Cox what?! are you serious? you are aware that humans been on earth for millions of years before books or stone writings ever existed right? please tell me you were joking.
redrounin just because us moderns can't imagine close relations without sex because of how we have distorted sexuality it doesn't mean they couldn't do it. Are you really saying that there can be no deep emotional same sex friendships that is chaste?
blablabubles I read that most historians reject brother making as sort of same sex marriage. I think you are right, there are so called "bromances" right now, why not before?
blablabubles I'm not saying that at all. Of course there can be intimacy without physical sex. But do you really think none of those guys got it on? I'm sure most cathloc priests are not pedophiles, but look what happened there. If you think each and every one of those relationships were 100% non physical, you're kidding yourself.
thestrangejames as the lovely lady in the video says "the names and laws of such arrangements may have differed" one can consider an orthodox brother making as such an arrangement. Of course it's not the same as a conventional christian marriage, it's not like the orthodox chruch now allows them to have an sexual relationship, if that's even what they would like to have. But tell me, for example, how should one of these people who married 'a ghost' have still sex? Our christian idea of marriage is not the only, true one. Most rules ever designed by religions have practical reasons, considering that time and the problems society was facing then. Well, those times and problems have passed, but the rules did not. That's a problem nowadays.
Aludan1989 Jesus, dude, I was just pointing out that many religions prohibit sex before marriage and thereby make marriage at least in part about sex. I wasn't making an argument.
thestrangejames in olden times only way to make shore that the child was yours they caped the woman virgin! then religion came in the business and the child could be an ear only if he was born while his parents were married! simply just watch game of thrones!
ugh my aunt has married 8 times. 3 of them were with the same man and she has 4 children. 2 of them were accident. Now, she is going to marry another next month and they have known each other for like 2 weeks? it definitely is a joke for some people.
Statistically, modern marriage, which is usually based on love, is less successful than marriages based on economics. I don't think people love each other any less or any more than ever before. I think that the fact that marriages are no more than a whim, an expectation, or a confession of love and devotion, make them easier to give up on than before. The minute that things go south, it is easy to cut ties. It's all a matter of perspective. Marry or don't...the joys and the issues are the same.
what is your definition of "successful"? Are you basing it on divorce rates? Could it be that perhaps those in economic marriages may not get as many divorces but might be miserable during their time together? Honestly I think your statement is kind of silly, because how do you know if hundreds of millions of couples are happy or not in their marriages today?
Think of this when you’re insecure or feel bad about yourself- *your present face is the face that you fell in love with, in your past life* it’s a Japanese legend...I think it’s beautiful
Is anyone else bothered by the fact that only stereo-typically Muslim people are portrayed as polygamous? Polygamy has appeared in cultures all around the world, including China and European cultures (i.e. early Mormonism, the many mistresses of kings).
+DuizhangLu I don't think they make it look that way, Muslim ppl here are only taken as an example, but there's also ancient Christian looking ppl and an example of many wives in the white dress with the man in the suit, plus it says only 1/4 of cultures prohibits polygam marriage, so don't worry I don't think ppl will think that all Muslim ppl have more than one wife :)
+DuizhangLu I'm truly sick of people like you on the internet. Instead of helping everyone in putting forward an actually useful fact unknown to many viewers out there, you like to point out that you are in some way "bothered" over a useless technicality. You could've just said something like " hey guys, did you also know that there are other polygamous groups etc etc" but no. you had to take offence. Typical internet commenter.
+DuizhangLu Did you not notice their visual of a bunch of white women in white dresses next to one white dude in a tux? And vice versa? Granted those are closer to modern-day wedding attire, but I'm sure they weren't pretending that only middle eastern cultures practiced polygamy.
The Video is very misleading. Adelfopoiesis or 'brother-making' was not a marriage and wasn't even done for homosexuals. Married and heterosexual people could do it without any problem. The reason why existed is because the concept of brotherhood was more broader than today and a lot of alliances and friendships involved in some cultures a ceremony of Brother-making, in some cases having something to do with sharing each others blood. Adelfopoiesis was the way of christianizing this practices which dissappeared over time as the Adelfopoiesis did. Althrough there are some Churches in the East who still perfom this kind of ceremonies. The ritual specifically assures that the ones doing it are doing so because of their love-as-friendship and not because of some kind of sexual love. That doesn't assure that all people who did it did't have sexual relations between them, we won't never know that. What we now is that the purpouse of the ceremony was not to do a 'homosexual marriage'. All of this comes from Boswell's misiterpretations of the ceremony by judging ancient doings by modern standards and concepts. Back then there didn't even exist 'homosexuals' as we understand today. Being 'homosexual' wasn't an identity. No one really cared if you had attraction to people of the same sex unless you had sexual relations with them. P.D: The Spanish Gay-Marriage cited in the video was not a marriage but an Adelfopoiesis.
+AnundGraenhjalm what do you expect-this video is pushing idea that you can change whatever you want in marriage and it won't make any difference. It is supposed to give such context for the issue so that "same sex marriage" will look as reasonable. So, in other words-they are manipulating or outright lying to achieve their goal. Thats why they did not explained ritual that you mention, and put homosexual spin on it.
Jim Adcock you seem to have problem with rational argumentation. If legal insitution X is designed "to allow fornication of same sexes" then the fact, that two people of the same sex used it to start a corporation, and they never had sex with themselves does not mean, that insittuion X is designed for creating coprorations and living in celibate. Got it? This is not an argument. You are confusing things. Different example: if I use buy-sell contract to donate something for free it does not mean buy-sell contract is made for donations. It means I used wrong institution. Wrong NAME. Now just think about that in historical context: you want to tell me, that in medieval fucking Europe fucking CHURCH allowed homosexuals to esentially get married. Are you high? Do you know what Bible says about homsexuality? This is propably the dumbest thing I heard in this month. But, given the use of word "patriarchy" propably you are capble of that and even more amazing feats.
'' Marriage has always been shaped by society . and as a society structure, values and goals change over time . its ideas about marriage will continue to change along with them ''.... that is so true
Native Americans don't seem to place as much emphasis on marriage as mainstream society. Indigenous tribes' marital paradigm was, for the most part, radically different from Europe's at the time Columbus and the first settlers arrived.
I like to tell people that when it comes to marriage, form meets function. If your marriage is primarily romantic and emotional in purpose, any arrangement will do. Marry whoever or whatever you love. If you have something higher in mind (hopefully in addition to romance), then certain prerequisites must be met. I'm pretty happy to live in a nation that is free enough, and prosperous enough to have this debate; even if I don't agree with every opinion placed on the table.
I'm not a history EXPERT, but even I know that things like the Adelphopoiesis aren't "same sex marriage." It's something more akin to a holy oath of brotherhood and friendship. Adelphopoiesis is by use, intention, and meaning not meant to be a "same sex marriage/union" we know of now.
***** Adelphopoiesis isn't about "marriage" as in "putting a ring on it" or about procreation. It's "family ties" as in swearing to be faithful and supportive like a "family."
***** I guess I have to bring out the fact that this "love" and "family making ties" weren't meant to be of or from romantic love, which is basically what "same sex marriages" we have nowadays are about; people of the same sex, being romantically/sexually attracted to each other and "marrying." Some gay people in the past may have use Adelphopoiesis as a substitute form of marriage, I don't deny that, as people of the same gender couldn't get married officially as "marrying/dating etc" with the same gender was considered even more absurd by the majority and a sacrilege. But how various kind of people have come to use a certain tool, event, word etc, as they want behind the scenes is not the same as that thing being originally what people have made it. It's like Valentines Day being the day of chocolates and flowers we know of now.
Why is married life unhappy? It's common in for one person to feel like they're missing out on because they're “tied down” to someone or feel like they were rushed and pressured into before they were ready. ... If this sounds like you, tell your partner how you're feeling and do what you need to in order to feel happy.
@@percaholic6939 do you know if you are going to have to much children . Most of your kids will not be happy and you will have have to work hard to earn money so please at least have 3 children
What bothers me the most is how, even in the most progressive societies/countries nowadays, getting married grants you so much more privilege than if you're in a union that's not legally defined or if it's even more mildly defined like a domestic partnership. For example, when I read about emigrating to another country (one of my main occupations lately, as I'm trying to at least encourage myself to even think of it since it seems too unrealistic for me right now, but I can't stand living/existing in my home country anymore, and it seems the only possible solution is working on it like crazy for some time before I even apply for a residence), I see everywhere the mention how marriage makes everything 100x easier. I have a partner, but we're not married legally, even though we live together. I know one example of his friend needing to marry his partner to get something from the government, and it's a well-known fact how so many people from my country even managed to emigrate to better countries only via marriage to a citizen of the country they moved into. It feels so backward and discriminating. People really are denied so many things just because they are single, still in this day and age.
It took us thousands of years of trial and error to reach to this conclusion. and that worked so far. You may not see the adverse effects of non biding contracts like marriage, but it doesn't mean it doesn't exist and does not have a devastating effect on the society. Family unlike any other unions extremely affects the society. a functional family results in a functional and flourishing society, and a non functional family will adversely affect it. So like an old saying, if it doesn't hurt, why not use it? if the two of you are faithful to each other and plan on living til death do you apart, then marrying shouldn't be an issue at all.
It's not backward, marriage provides a sense of stability, or at least a commitment to be stable, government institutions don't want to waste their time and money addressing the mood swings of a non-cemented relationship that could end at any time. Granting benefits just so the couple decides to break up and they're done, is a costly uncertainty. Of course, many marriages end up in divorce, but they're far more solid than a simple domestic partnership.
The first guy to get married in the modern world must've thought: I love you so much that I'm gonna get the government invovled so that you can never leave me
The thing is that marriage doesn't serve a practical purpose in today's society. People can live together without being officially married, so the marriage itself means nothing. The only reason people still cling to the idea is because of a romanticized idea of weddings, which have for some ridiculous reason become integrated into our tax return forms.
Shawn Ravenfire I know this is an old comment but I'd like to give my thoughts. I think marriage has adapted from being a practical way of increasing wealth and quality of life (like it was for thousands of years), to a foundation of societal stability (Nuclear Family). Where people are encouraged to have families and encourage their children to do so in order to maintain society. I think in the future we'll see a reversal of values, where marriage is beneficial for both partners due to affects climate change and overpopulation will have on the world. If you can afford fresh water or food, you'd be better off with a partner where you can afford fresh water and food together.
Shawn Ravenfire hey thats really interesting. But I think marriage is still a thing necessary in certain family traditions, cultures, and religions. So it's still does serve a practice, depending on who's being spoken about.
Marriage shows that that couple are taking the next step... And cultures have many rituals that happen in a marriage that have a very special purpose... Just because a couple are not married but live together doesn't mean that marriage has no purpose...
Marriage should be about love and companionship not your sexual orientation! Same sex marriages should not be an issue! They have just as much right to marry for love as anyone else!
Not entirely accurate. Though happiness and love were not key consideration in making marriages, they did occur, and they were considered "good". There are artifacts (of love poems shared between spouses) from almost all ancient cultures (depends on if they had writing/if the writing survived). Similarly, even ancient myths idealize love in marriage, showing people were aware of the concept and wanted it.
+kfox2222 Yes. People did manage to fall in love with their spouses from time to time. Most ancient myths idealize love outside of marriage more than inside the institution.
to me marriage is an recognition of the bond shared between the interaction of two people (or more) bestowed with legal and social entitlements. "A partnership". Marriage as an mean to accomplish lineage and status "family duties" is an mean to an end
I would add something to love and marriage relation. Muslims and many other religions and cultures acknowledged love as a part of marriage more than a thousand of years ago. Just it wasn't necessary for marriage and it was supposed to develop in marriage or during courting. It is not like all men hated their wives back a thousand years ago.
Help me answer 3 questions: 1.Explain how a tribal alliance through marriage might work to prevent conflict between two groups. 2. Why would the authorities in an agricultural society have official laws governing marriage? 3.What are some of the social problems that allowing multiple simultaneous marriages could create?
I can just imagine someone walking around their empty house and talking like their significant other is there, like "What should we have for dinner today honey? Oh no don't worry i'll make it you don't have to lift a finger." lol
There was a traditional marriage. Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden were married. There was no same-sex "marriage," no marriage to ghosts, just the union between one man and one woman for life. The state has no right to change what marriage is
Sofie Pieschel According to your religion Adam and Eve were tempted to sin and caused the damnation of humanity, they're not exactly role models, or people we should base stuff of. I mean even Adam was remarried his first wife was Lilith
AFAIK - marriage as an institution was created to solve 2 major problems or sources of conflict. 1 - inheritance, as this was often fought over, such as inheriting the throne or dukedom. 2 - social unity, as to secure alliance or to avoid conflict between two clans. obviously the days of these society needs have changed and the meaning of marriage changes with it. but nonetheless the institution of marriage had always served some practical purpose. and love was usually not among it. not because our ancestors are incapable of emotions, but simply put, there are more urgent matters that require solving. and this should be something to keep in mind.
***** It's not just about government benefits. It's about all the rights that married people have including having a say in the treatment options of a spouse when that spouse is incapacitated somehow.
I'd call that a government denied benefit since I think in most western cultures the norm is that the closest relative\s determines what happens to someone who cannot decide for themselves. In places where the government doesn't allow gay marriage this is a right denied to people who are in long term relationships and would otherwise be married.
In France we have a very funny show called "Kaamelott". One of the many characters once said: "As me you are married, so You know that monstrosity can take very diverse forms." That sounds Perfect.
This video has many good points. Marriage means different things to different people and cultures. There seems to be a few common themes, mostly bonding, land, inheriting, procreation, commitment, and probably some others. I always thought marriage was a mix of true love and the prospect of a family if possible. If two people love each other in a special way, why not seal the deal? True love is there for a reason after all. Procreation and bringing new humans into this world is very important; I'd argue that if two people want to start a family and contribute to the next generation of future humans, they should truly love each other and want to commit to the massive project that is raising a child... it is very hard but still possible for a single parent to raise a child by themselves so two people would be ideal. The two people should support each other and be loyal no matter what comes at them. Unfortunately, this does not happen all the time... there is a reason why cheating with someone else is bad in most western world societies, but ideally the partners in marriage should truly love being married and love each other. Marriage is usually a beautiful thing, though sometimes two people aren't meant for eachother. It seems like throughout cultures, marriage is for procreation and or to make the love between two people official. Of course not everyone who gets married wants to or is able to start a family, but maybe that's a good thing at this point considering how big the population of the world is right now. Either way I'd argue that the true point of marriage is for true love and happiness.
No one argues that the practice of marriage has changed over time. The question is really what structure has worked best to foster true stability in a culture and society and why marriage exists at all. More and more, it has become separated from having and raising children, but that is really the primary reason for upholding a traditional marriage. Every society has had flawed and broken marriages, but the breakage of what marriage should be has always led to the destabilization and ultimately the destruction of even the strongest civilizations. What the speaker fails to acknowledge is that polygamous and homosexual marriages, for instance, or unfaithful or abusive heterosexual marriages are not just "there" but have actually caused jealousy, unhappiness, instability, and harm for children who long for a mother and a father who love and care deeply for one other. It's not a question of whether it can work; of course children and families can survive within a broken system, whether that be within a government, community, or family. It is, rather, a question of what is BEST for all involved. That is the question that is most often lost these days.
In countries that don't have divorce, marriage is more thoroughly thought of as a serious decision, their basis for getting married is not just because they love the person. They also think long term like, how many kids they are going to have, where to live, heck the couple must have the 100% percent blessing of their parents just to get married. That's why i think divorce is something that destroys the family. It makes marriage seem like it is not a big decision and that it is enough reason that you love someone and not see the entire picture. (Of course i totally agree that if you have an abusive partner then you should definitely divorce them or annul them)
+Radical Raven what problems does it creates though? And of course people didn't fight against it, the mentality back then was to hate them, in some countries they would get killed or tortured, not only that but they are a minority and people are mostly centred on themselves and only family, so they don't really care, only if the thing involved the majority of the population like for example with women like you said
If we have to be honest, what you called Israel in 1:46 is actually Palestine, and even if the organization of TED recognizes Israel over Palestine, its historically innaccurate
What we fail to see is marriage is an alliance , of two people and their families . Today where females are seen as equals , the bonds of needing a man is not needed , so the alliance is the only part needed .
When I was a kid a teacher of mine says you dont choose who you marry your family do that was in early 2000 , and sometimes you hear old people saying they were 14 or even younger when they get 1st pregnant from their husband and have many children and I became a bit curious and made a little research that choosing someone you love to marry seems only became popular in the mid to late 19th century. and its weird that almost all parts of the world have the same tradition before.
4:29 平绮版版白绮配墨 does not mean anything, as far as I can tell, it's just plain gibberish... Either I'm wrong, or they are just not being serious of the contents they created.
My perspective about marriage is unless n until both are happy n in love with each other they last... And if both are not... Separation is best option then sufferings.. Being happy matters..
hello, I am native Chinese speaker, also speak Japanese. I am totally sure that 平綺版版白綺記墨(on 4:29) is not mean marriage in Chinese and Japanese. Could you please tell me what's that? Thanks
They probably googled "calligraphy" and just slapped something down. ;P I only speak english and spanish, but I'm curious about the accuracy of any calligraphy I see, here in the states. Have you spent much time in any western countries? If so, what did you think of the chinese and japanese script you saw there; was it at least generally accurate, or way off the mark? I have a cousin who got a tattoo that he thought meant "dragon," only to hear from a friend years later that it roughly translated to "dog food." lol!
Google translate tells me it means "Ping Yee Yee Kee edition version of white ink." This: 婚姻 should be marriage. So... really have no idea how that happened.
I live in the Himalayas but no where have I seen a woman marrying multiple brothers to keep the land within one family.... Maybe this practice was there before my time..
It's primarily the practice of the Niymba people that live within the Niymba valley between Nepal and Tibet. Though, even if you are a part of this community, you probably haven't seem much evidence of polyandry, no. The system largely broke up over the past century, especially within the last 50 years due to economic hardship.
I've also heard of marriage I believe normally only in Asian culture where some men marry in to the brides family and take her name becoming the family's male heir and taking on the duties of the family as if he were born in the family. I've also heard that it's still done today but for some different reasons and that it's normally only the first daughter who does this. There are also couples who start there own family by changing there last names to a completely new one, such as if Gina White married Eric Grayson but both became Mr and Mrs. Reddington. This is normally the couple either wanting to get away from their family's due to problem's or they both think it's fun and a fresh start.
So Jane Austen's novels with their stories of marrying for love and happiness were cutting edge.
Exactly
so was margaret mitchell with scarlett o hara's survival mode. she was smarter than her airheaded husband in business and just took over. she also did wat she wanted-the original "no fks given"chic
Romeo and Juliet was the real cutting edge.
It was called Romanticism for a reason.
They went against their families' wishes, and look what happened to them!
... has anyone ever married themselves?
+jenp27 I might be wrong but I heard about a woman I think (?) that did this in the USA? I don't know if it's true and if this is even possible or if it is, maybe because it was a special case, but I heard it.
i know that an american woman married the eiffel tower.... I'm not even kidding.
An american woman married the Berlin wall, but is a widow now, because, you know, it fell :D
+jenp27 yes, I saw it in Guinness world records. It wa a woman.
+jenp27 I'm married to myself. Technically I've been married twice.
Ghost Marriage... Hopefully no Ghost divorce.
NIC FEL actually you will be cursed to death if you broke your agreement in the ghost wedding.
Was the solution for "forever alone" syndrome :v
There is, it is called exorcism
Yep. Till' death do us par.... oh wait
😂😂😂
I can't be the only one who loves the idea of having just one partner for the rest of his life...
+J Aurelio Puente No you are not. I however do not believe that I have to marry that person to stay with him for the rest of my life
+Veridia
I'm just curious: then what do you believe?
Just living together will be enough for me. I don't just move in with anybody, it has to be the real deal for me to do that and after at least 2 years of dating. Where I live more and more people feel this way. What do you think?
Veridia
I guess most of my family think that way too. I'm male, and I know women in general love faithfulness. Yes, I want to be "everything" for a person. But I'm not gonna lie, I'm still single, but not desperate.
Thanks for sharing a nice conversation with me...
We will find our special person one day!
"All marriages have one thing in common "
Me: food
Lol 😂😂
🤣
Legendary
Well, as far as I am concerned, food answers everything. Bad mood-eat; good mood-eat; angry-eat, sad-eat...
You get the idea
@@suhaneegupta814 same with drugs
The most important part of the video is the last sentence.
As society's needs changes, so does marriage itself will also change.
As humans change and demand their needs, marriage will also cater to human needs.
This requirement is beyond religion, practicality, money or the individual pursuit of happiness.
Whatever the needs of society will present, the demands of marriage will follow suit.
This is what is said in the Manu Smiriti of Hinduism.
BUT THE BIBLE SAID-
But too much change is bad for society. This is what the progressives and liberals want which they want to destroy the family unit, tradition and culture. Society does need some changes but a huge change is a bad thing. Same with marriages as well. That is why the progressive/leftist worldview is so dangerous
@@jonjonboi3701 No it's not. Everything that happens is with the universe's consent, it serves some purpose. Whatever change happens, big or small, is for the highest good for all.
@@jonjonboi3701 I mean no.
*Back then "I'll marry my boo" had totally different meaning*
😂
😂😂😂
nice
Thank you for making my night 😂😂😂😂😂I needed it♥️
Marraige be like:
I love you so much lets get the goverment involve
And the Church
Or its like:
"I love you so much that im willing to suffer goverment paperwork and binding just to be attached to you in some way"
Which is also weird, but better than being stalkerish
hahahahahhaha
Lol
Hahaha
History was gayer than you thought
XD
Hannah M
everything is gayer than you thought
Skylynxify Reborn they liked fucking goats/sheep
Okay, that sounds like Hetalia to me.
The Prince of Time OMG yess crying
Marriage = Who get's your stuff when you die.
More like who gets your stuff when they kill you
@@nathanwright5543 do you need to talk
@@TheDragiix3
You can talk with us
Why wait.. let her file a divorce
7 years late, but that's not always true. For an example, in muslim marriage, the husband or wife gets nothing after their spouse dies.
A lot of Indigenous cultures' marriages were based around love and, and were part of the entire community. The Abenaki are a great example of this.
Please can you give any source materials I want to know more about it
Majority of marriages including the western world historically were also based around love
@@jonjonboi3701 not in India they're not. They're arranged, sometimes even coerced. You said the western world though. I digress.
@@jonjonboi3701 that depends on how you value and define love. But in most cases in most cultures marriage was mired in practicality and socio economic status. It still is today even in some countries and communities. But love can change or fade away even.
@@jonjonboi3701 source?
So, ...what exactly are conservatives trying to conserve about marriage?
Do you mean conservatives?
oH, yes! Thanks. Edited.
The fact that it's pointless if the two people aren't good enough to be parents.
property and status
Hmm... Then why are they complaining?
King Solomon from the Bible had 700 wives and 300 concubines , so people who say marriage is between 2 people aren't always right
Back in those days, a family meant strength and stability. And if your family was the size of a potential army, that also says something.
The fact that it comes from the Bible doesn't mean it's ok or wrong.
***** It possible that was true, but I'm pretty sure the Bible doesn't say that. The Bible does say how rich, wise and powerful he was though. So I'm pretty sure he was gettin a lot based on that. But if you can show me the verse, I'll take it back.
***** Those weren't marriages
Norie92 Not the one as you know it seems.You did watched the video to the end right ?
This shoots down the 'traditional marriage' adherents.
+John Benton Isn't it amazing that things happened before 1800 that matter to the world today?! :)
Quite astonishing!
+John Benton actually, it doesn't. Society may shape what is allowed to be called marriage but it doesn't shape the human body nor the actual, unchanging, universal definition of marriage.
Marriage is a human institution that in every society has been seen at its best as between one man and one woman. This video makes a few abnormal cases in history into a big deal that "proves" the idea that the definition of marriage has changed over time. Also, traditional marriage adherents have a lot more reasons on their side then just "that's how its always done." Maybe take the time to find what tradition marriage adherents say and believe....? heres a link: chastityproject.com/qa/category/homosexuality/
Even if all of society is saying it's marriage doesn't mean its marriage. The American legal code once said that blacks were property and they were wrong.The definition of marriage will never change because the human body (the means to procreate) will never change.
This must be your own considered, sincerely-held belief. I care that you have an opinion, but I do not care what that opinion is. You will continue to decry gay marriage, and I will continue to say 'So what?' This does not mean we have to argue, just agree to differ on certain subjects.
+caroline ortiz I think you don't know the difference between sex and marriage. Go look it up, it will amaze you.
Maybe I can marry a ghost. But she has to be really cute.
+Al Muhajir My imaginary ex-girlfriend wasn't touchable either so I don't see a problem.
+Phoenixspin XD
Lol
lol
+Phoenixspin Your imaginary girlfriend left you? :D
"Marriage has always been shaped by society" Always the greatest control on things has been in hands of society
We form up the society, society is not alien authority which governs everything, we ourselves form the society, we are not separate from it.
@@kumarshivam1234 only if all people knew this
@@pragy17 true, we can't change the society unless we change ourselves because we form the society.
Thank you, TedED, for sharing this! It's so important that people realize how the institution of marriage is deeply rooted in culture-specific context and not exclusively the domain of one religion/philosophical perspective to define.
You are telling me that it's normal in some cultures for one to marry a ghost but not a living person because he's of same gender😂 society's messed up!
@@PlzPr3sspl4y What? No dude. U can't live like that. Society does do smthings sometimes that are right. Take the pride movement as an example
And you just realized that?
😂
😂
Y O U are messed up
I don't care what anybody says, marriage is between men and ghost!!
Omg i totally find this sexist. Why cant women marry ghosts too? Ugh society
@@greenergrass4060 Because the ghost doesn't have any money.
@@sor3999 So now all girls are gold diggers. WOW
@Ashutosh Raj not hurt, just thought your stupidity funny 😂😂😂😂.
"Tis my wife."
"I can't see her."
"Because anything essential is invisible to the eye."
When conservatives talk about "preserving the institution of marriage", what are they really talking about?
***** lol you're insane
Arysta "grew inside you mom's tummy"!!!!!
Isn't he cute? Children can be so adorable!
CountBifford They claim that they want marriage just like the Bible. Except one man one woman marriages were rare in the entire book.The institution of marriage to them is proclaimed to be monogamous opposite sex relationships, but it's well known that most conservatives can't live up to that. What they really want is to be special, be able to look down on other people and deny them the same rights conservatives take for granted.
Kudos to any people who are able to form a loving relationship, both giving and taking equally.
***** I bet all of what you just typed sounded a lot better in your head didn't it? Learn English before you go into politics.
+CountBifford preserving marriage that values children rather than adult whims and desires
You didn't mention wacky modern examples of marriage, such as men marrying dogs, electronics, or other non-human objects.
+Liuhuayue Never even knew ghost marriages existed. The more you know.
+Liuhuayue eh those are more fetishes than practices id say..
*****
I meant marrying animals and objects like the guy I replied to was just talking about. You fuck.
Ima need a glass of water for all of the saltiness left in my mouth after reading this thread
***** That's not quite what a ghost marriage is... You used the word "wife" to describe the deceased; why would you need a second wedding after you're already married? No, what you mean is that when one or both parties are dead, they get married for a variety of reasons. It's not always honest, either; sometimes, people sell dead bodies to serve as brides in ghost marriages. For example, a lot of families in China will buy recently deceased girls' bodies to serve as wives for their dead sons. It's a body black market business. :s
You know, sometimes I seriously wonder why the HELL do people think/assume that some people are "gay" because they are super close to a friend who is of the same gender?? It's like somehow now people just can't think that people can be in a really close relationship even without being in a romantic or sexual relationship with the someone of the sex!
I am not from an English speaking country, and was in a English debate camp, and I once complimented my teammate for being cute, which I meant things like her polite and naive nature combined with wit.(and back then I didn't really knew of the LGBT things too) The teammate was from the same country as me, so she knew what I was talking about, and thanked me and called me "pretty," but then some other kids who lived in America just started to blurt out that we were lesbian because I called her "cute," and she called me "pretty." And we were both like "WTH are you talking about?"
In any language certain words and expressions combine to "suggest" subtexts, not just in the west, any country, any language.
What I don't get is why would that be a bad thing? If it's not like that, point it out, but it's not as that's an insult in this day and age, in the west, mostly in the west, anyway...
Da ve Here's the thing, that kid was actually from our country, which was definitely not America and out the three of us that kid was the only one who had been to America and apparently had been "enlightened" and had seen gay people, and called us "gay" because we were talking like them. I know calling someone gay is not supposed to be an insult but I hate being called something I am not and so did my teammate. And depending on the nuance of a person, it can be an insult thought.
My real problem is not really about being called "gay," as much I don't like to be assumed to be something I am not. But as I have already mentioned, my problem is that people think that if people of the same gender are like really close, they start to think they may be "gay." I think that people nowadays don't have real friendship or companionship with people of the same gender, and can only see such relationship as a romantic/sexual relationship.
Millicent Grace
Totally understandable, I thought as much before the reply, one should be regarded as one wish to be regarded, and not by other people's arbitrary, superficial judgement, that has nothing to do with your real self.
As you can see, in order to simplify our lives, we are constantly simplifying others based on the most obvious traits and make a flash judgement - which is often wrong, and where stereotypes are born.
The way I protect myself is to learn those nuances and subtexts in order to use those predefined stereotypes to my advantage, to project what I want to project.
But in an ideal world, we shouldn't have to play by other people's rules.
Depressing innit?
But find solace in your eloquent philosophy and articulation ;) those alone, mark you head and shoulders above the ignorant who only judge others based on stereotypes.
Because sometimes, people is STUPID.
the same thing happens to straight people as well. just because I and a dude are close to each other, people think we like each other. it's the same. nothing's new.
Also, fun fact! Brides starting wearing white specifically in weddings after Queen Victoria pupularized it by wearing white on her wedding, which i found very interesting
Yeah. Commoners having the fanstasies to copy the higher class, it's pretty common😉
I know some evangelicals that are definitely not going to like this.
Tell them that centuries ago, Martin Luther proved to the catholic church that marriage should never be a business of the Church.
They don't like anything that doesn't have to do with their religion. Everything is satanic. I grew up with nutheads like those.
Marriage was invented in the Bible. They couldn't even talk about that, so disappointing.
Justin and Cassie Cox what?! are you serious? you are aware that humans been on earth for millions of years before books or stone writings ever existed right? please tell me you were joking.
I'm sorry to inform you that marriage was not invented in the Bible.
"Brother Making" never involved sex or romance. The name says it all, it was about brotherly partnership.
+blablabubles haha sure
redrounin just because us moderns can't imagine close relations without sex because of how we have distorted sexuality it doesn't mean they couldn't do it.
Are you really saying that there can be no deep emotional same sex friendships that is chaste?
blablabubles I read that most historians reject brother making as sort of same sex marriage. I think you are right, there are so called "bromances" right now, why not before?
Rod Gom Ola exactly.
blablabubles I'm not saying that at all. Of course there can be intimacy without physical sex. But do you really think none of those guys got it on? I'm sure most cathloc priests are not pedophiles, but look what happened there. If you think each and every one of those relationships were 100% non physical, you're kidding yourself.
orthodox has brother making?... oh... no,on,no, it isn't sexual! its just making your best friend your brother! its a bromance on higher level!
Well, who says that marriage is about sex?
Aludan1989
If I am recalling correctly, every religion which prohibits sex before marriage.
thestrangejames as the lovely lady in the video says "the names and laws of such arrangements may have differed" one can consider an orthodox brother making as such an arrangement. Of course it's not the same as a conventional christian marriage, it's not like the orthodox chruch now allows them to have an sexual relationship, if that's even what they would like to have. But tell me, for example, how should one of these people who married 'a ghost' have still sex? Our christian idea of marriage is not the only, true one. Most rules ever designed by religions have practical reasons, considering that time and the problems society was facing then. Well, those times and problems have passed, but the rules did not. That's a problem nowadays.
Aludan1989
Jesus, dude, I was just pointing out that many religions prohibit sex before marriage and thereby make marriage at least in part about sex. I wasn't making an argument.
thestrangejames in olden times only way to make shore that the child was yours they caped the woman virgin!
then religion came in the business and the child could be an ear only if he was born while his parents were married!
simply just watch game of thrones!
i think that marrage has become a joke for some people getting married for 73 days to 7 months
that explains kim Kardashian
In the ancient times people got married after knowing eachother for 1 day LOL happens still too though
ugh my aunt has married 8 times. 3 of them were with the same man and she has 4 children. 2 of them were accident. Now, she is going to marry another next month and they have known each other for like 2 weeks? it definitely is a joke for some people.
Kimmy Kardashian!. Maybe because his so tall. 😂 What a waste of millions
@@mmm-ek4cm wtf-
So did no one notice William and Kate at 3:17? Or at least I think it's them.
It is
They're at 0:33 too
we noticed
I was thinking the same. 😂
"As, a society's structure, values and goals change over time, the definition of marriage shall change along with it." Brilliantly summarised.
Statistically, modern marriage, which is usually based on love, is less successful than marriages based on economics. I don't think people love each other any less or any more than ever before. I think that the fact that marriages are no more than a whim, an expectation, or a confession of love and devotion, make them easier to give up on than before. The minute that things go south, it is easy to cut ties. It's all a matter of perspective. Marry or don't...the joys and the issues are the same.
100%
what is your definition of "successful"? Are you basing it on divorce rates? Could it be that perhaps those in economic marriages may not get as many divorces but might be miserable during their time together? Honestly I think your statement is kind of silly, because how do you know if hundreds of millions of couples are happy or not in their marriages today?
I request you to present the "Statistics" 🤔
this is EXACTLY how i feel about marriage. You summed it up perfectly lol
Me, an aromantic asexual who has no interest in marrying platonically watching this video:
ｅｄｕｃａｓｈｕｎ
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
bro i felt that in a spiritually level. the whole time i was watching i was thinking "pshhh marriage"
Yeab
Lol same 😂
lol
Think of this when you’re insecure or feel bad about yourself- *your present face is the face that you fell in love with, in your past life* it’s a Japanese legend...I think it’s beautiful
Thx now I will have nightmares
how did someone fell in love with this kind of face
Is anyone else bothered by the fact that only stereo-typically Muslim people are portrayed as polygamous? Polygamy has appeared in cultures all around the world, including China and European cultures (i.e. early Mormonism, the many mistresses of kings).
I don't think they were talking about modern muslim marriages but rather the ones way in the past.
+DuizhangLu I was bothered by it too...
+DuizhangLu I don't think they make it look that way, Muslim ppl here are only taken as an example, but there's also ancient Christian looking ppl and an example of many wives in the white dress with the man in the suit, plus it says only 1/4 of cultures prohibits polygam marriage, so don't worry I don't think ppl will think that all Muslim ppl have more than one wife :)
+DuizhangLu I'm truly sick of people like you on the internet. Instead of helping everyone in putting forward an actually useful fact unknown to many viewers out there, you like to point out that you are in some way "bothered" over a useless technicality.
You could've just said something like " hey guys, did you also know that there are other polygamous groups etc etc" but no. you had to take offence. Typical internet commenter.
+DuizhangLu Did you not notice their visual of a bunch of white women in white dresses next to one white dude in a tux? And vice versa? Granted those are closer to modern-day wedding attire, but I'm sure they weren't pretending that only middle eastern cultures practiced polygamy.
The Video is very misleading. Adelfopoiesis or 'brother-making' was not a marriage and wasn't even done for homosexuals. Married and heterosexual people could do it without any problem. The reason why existed is because the concept of brotherhood was more broader than today and a lot of alliances and friendships involved in some cultures a ceremony of Brother-making, in some cases having something to do with sharing each others blood. Adelfopoiesis was the way of christianizing this practices which dissappeared over time as the Adelfopoiesis did. Althrough there are some Churches in the East who still perfom this kind of ceremonies.
The ritual specifically assures that the ones doing it are doing so because of their love-as-friendship and not because of some kind of sexual love. That doesn't assure that all people who did it did't have sexual relations between them, we won't never know that. What we now is that the purpouse of the ceremony was not to do a 'homosexual marriage'. All of this comes from Boswell's misiterpretations of the ceremony by judging ancient doings by modern standards and concepts.
Back then there didn't even exist 'homosexuals' as we understand today. Being 'homosexual' wasn't an identity. No one really cared if you had attraction to people of the same sex unless you had sexual relations with them.
P.D: The Spanish Gay-Marriage cited in the video was not a marriage but an Adelfopoiesis.
I appreciate your corrections. Thanks.
+AnundGraenhjalm what do you expect-this video is pushing idea that you can change whatever you want in marriage and it won't make any difference. It is supposed to give such context for the issue so that "same sex marriage" will look as reasonable. So, in other words-they are manipulating or outright lying to achieve their goal. Thats why they did not explained ritual that you mention, and put homosexual spin on it.
+Zarrov uh huh. Because none of the men involved in brother making had sex with one another and you can prove that.
ROFLMAOSTD
+Zarrov Now you're just doubling down on being an idiot.
Jim Adcock you seem to have problem with rational argumentation. If legal insitution X is designed "to allow fornication of same sexes" then the fact, that two people of the same sex used it to start a corporation, and they never had sex with themselves does not mean, that insittuion X is designed for creating coprorations and living in celibate. Got it? This is not an argument. You are confusing things. Different example:
if I use buy-sell contract to donate something for free it does not mean buy-sell contract is made for donations. It means I used wrong institution. Wrong NAME.
Now just think about that in historical context:
you want to tell me, that in medieval fucking Europe fucking CHURCH allowed homosexuals to esentially get married. Are you high? Do you know what Bible says about homsexuality? This is propably the dumbest thing I heard in this month.
But, given the use of word "patriarchy" propably you are capble of that and even more amazing feats.
I've watched loads of ted ed, and I just want to say..
Alex Gendler is a genius.
Funny, I just watched the history of slavery and this was one of the suggestions. Ted-ed is trying to tell us something.
LOL. Same here.
I came here from the slavery also.
I wonder if this can go on r/arethestraightsokay
'' Marriage has always been shaped by society . and as a society structure, values and goals change over time . its ideas about marriage will continue to change along with them ''.... that is so true
Not true wake up you sheep
And there are cultures that do NOT have marriage concept :)
Which are those??
@@aathira9101 research for yourself please. Tell me something later.
😒laidback
Ok?
Native Americans don't seem to place as much emphasis on marriage as mainstream society. Indigenous tribes' marital paradigm was, for the most part, radically different from Europe's at the time Columbus and the first settlers arrived.
Marriage is Love between two souls. Not the vessels we inhabit. It’s just that simple. Our bodies are only a driver for our being
Oh Ghost husband, you’re such a great listener 😁
👻-go make me a ghost sandwich 🥪
When conservatives say we need to defend traditional marriage send them this
Yes, my lord, it will be done.
I like to tell people that when it comes to marriage, form meets function. If your marriage is primarily romantic and emotional in purpose, any arrangement will do. Marry whoever or whatever you love.
If you have something higher in mind (hopefully in addition to romance), then certain prerequisites must be met.
I'm pretty happy to live in a nation that is free enough, and prosperous enough to have this debate; even if I don't agree with every opinion placed on the table.
What does that mean
I'm not a history EXPERT, but even I know that things like the Adelphopoiesis aren't "same sex marriage." It's something more akin to a holy oath of brotherhood and friendship.
Adelphopoiesis is by use, intention, and meaning not meant to be a "same sex marriage/union" we know of now.
i think the greek term means creating or making a brother...not marriage, so but creating probably family ties
crolmac yeah, like I said
*****
Adelphopoiesis isn't about "marriage" as in
"putting a ring on it" or about procreation.
It's "family ties" as in swearing to be faithful and supportive like a "family."
*****
I guess I have to bring out the fact that this "love" and "family making ties" weren't meant to be of or from romantic love, which is basically what "same sex marriages" we have nowadays are about; people of the same sex, being romantically/sexually attracted to each other and "marrying."
Some gay people in the past may have use Adelphopoiesis as a substitute form of marriage, I don't deny that, as people of the same gender couldn't get married officially as "marrying/dating etc" with the same gender was considered even more absurd by the majority and a sacrilege. But how various kind of people have come to use a certain tool, event, word etc, as they want behind the scenes is not the same as that thing being originally what people have made it. It's like Valentines Day being the day of chocolates and flowers we know of now.
***** that's a LOT of info
Why is married life unhappy?
It's common in for one person to feel like they're missing out on because they're “tied down” to someone or feel like they were rushed and pressured into
before they were ready. ... If this sounds like you, tell your partner
how you're feeling and do what you need to in order to feel happy.
Am I the only one that wouldn't mind getting married, but definitely don't want children?
Me too!
Me too
I'm gonna have 30 kids
@@percaholic6939 do you know if you are going to have to much children . Most of your kids will not be happy and you will have have to work hard to earn money so please at least have 3 children
@@percaholic6939 unless you have godly genetics and blessed health, please don't pollute the earth with your needless desires
What bothers me the most is how, even in the most progressive societies/countries nowadays, getting married grants you so much more privilege than if you're in a union that's not legally defined or if it's even more mildly defined like a domestic partnership. For example, when I read about emigrating to another country (one of my main occupations lately, as I'm trying to at least encourage myself to even think of it since it seems too unrealistic for me right now, but I can't stand living/existing in my home country anymore, and it seems the only possible solution is working on it like crazy for some time before I even apply for a residence), I see everywhere the mention how marriage makes everything 100x easier. I have a partner, but we're not married legally, even though we live together. I know one example of his friend needing to marry his partner to get something from the government, and it's a well-known fact how so many people from my country even managed to emigrate to better countries only via marriage to a citizen of the country they moved into. It feels so backward and discriminating. People really are denied so many things just because they are single, still in this day and age.
It took us thousands of years of trial and error to reach to this conclusion. and that worked so far.
You may not see the adverse effects of non biding contracts like marriage, but it doesn't mean it doesn't exist and does not have a devastating effect on the society.
Family unlike any other unions extremely affects the society. a functional family results in a functional and flourishing society, and a non functional family will adversely affect it.
So like an old saying, if it doesn't hurt, why not use it? if the two of you are faithful to each other and plan on living til death do you apart, then marrying shouldn't be an issue at all.
It's not backward, marriage provides a sense of stability, or at least a commitment to be stable, government institutions don't want to waste their time and money addressing the mood swings of a non-cemented relationship that could end at any time. Granting benefits just so the couple decides to break up and they're done, is a costly uncertainty. Of course, many marriages end up in divorce, but they're far more solid than a simple domestic partnership.
The first guy to get married in the modern world must've thought: I love you so much that I'm gonna get the government invovled so that you can never leave me
Haha!!
That's true love
"To marry means to halve one's rights and double one's duties"
Arthur Schopenhauer
Marriage is a 3 ring circus. First there's the engagement ring, then the wedding ring, then suffering.
lol
You made me spit out my coffee with that one. Bravo!
best comment so far
Ultimate
It shouldn't be
The thing is that marriage doesn't serve a practical purpose in today's society. People can live together without being officially married, so the marriage itself means nothing. The only reason people still cling to the idea is because of a romanticized idea of weddings, which have for some ridiculous reason become integrated into our tax return forms.
Shut the up
Shawn Ravenfire I know this is an old comment but I'd like to give my thoughts.
I think marriage has adapted from being a practical way of increasing wealth and quality of life (like it was for thousands of years), to a foundation of societal stability (Nuclear Family). Where people are encouraged to have families and encourage their children to do so in order to maintain society.
I think in the future we'll see a reversal of values, where marriage is beneficial for both partners due to affects climate change and overpopulation will have on the world. If you can afford fresh water or food, you'd be better off with a partner where you can afford fresh water and food together.
Shawn Ravenfire hey thats really interesting. But I think marriage is still a thing necessary in certain family traditions, cultures, and religions. So it's still does serve a practice, depending on who's being spoken about.
Marriage shows that that couple are taking the next step...
And cultures have many rituals that happen in a marriage that have a very special purpose...
Just because a couple are not married but live together doesn't mean that marriage has no purpose...
but. lower taxes :(
Imagine being so in love that you get the law involved, this is SCARY!!
Marriage should be about love and companionship not your sexual orientation! Same sex marriages should not be an issue! They have just as much right to marry for love as anyone else!
I disagree strongly.
Marriage is about one thing and one thing only.
The Duchy of Aquitaine.
"One wife of all brothers" concept. definitely came from mahabharat 😂🤦
@Satyam Raj draupadi*
Not entirely accurate. Though happiness and love were not key consideration in making marriages, they did occur, and they were considered "good". There are artifacts (of love poems shared between spouses) from almost all ancient cultures (depends on if they had writing/if the writing survived). Similarly, even ancient myths idealize love in marriage, showing people were aware of the concept and wanted it.
+kfox2222 Yes. People did manage to fall in love with their spouses from time to time.
Most ancient myths idealize love outside of marriage more than inside the institution.
@@IllusionJim that could be because marriages were forced back then.
I’ve been craving for marriage and having my own children for years. The more I want it, the more hurtful will be
to me marriage is an recognition of the bond shared between the interaction of two people (or more) bestowed with legal and social entitlements. "A partnership". Marriage as an mean to accomplish lineage and status "family duties" is an mean to an end
Hei Lok Ho Same.
I'm from Sudan, and i never knew thet some of us marry ghosts. 😂💔
Hahaha
I would add something to love and marriage relation.
Muslims and many other religions and cultures acknowledged love as a part of marriage more than a thousand of years ago.
Just it wasn't necessary for marriage and it was supposed to develop in marriage or during courting.
It is not like all men hated their wives back a thousand years ago.
Help me answer 3 questions:
1.Explain how a tribal alliance through marriage might work to prevent conflict between two groups.
2. Why would the authorities in an agricultural society have official laws governing marriage?
3.What are some of the social problems that allowing multiple simultaneous marriages could create?
Comments section on this video are a riot. But learned some stuff. I like learning stuff.
Marriage... proof that love is very, very conditional...
Ghost Marriage sounds awesome but probably isn't
I can just imagine someone walking around their empty house and talking like their significant other is there, like "What should we have for dinner today honey? Oh no don't worry i'll make it you don't have to lift a finger." lol
Thanks for not disappointing me , i want to thank you for making this video
2017: Men can now marry anime characters via VR
Bang goes traditional marriage.
Or even, as the video implies, the notion of there being a single "traditional marriage" in the first place. :P
Well, the fact something was common in the past does not make it a tradition in today's culture.
There was a traditional marriage. Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden were married. There was no same-sex "marriage," no marriage to ghosts, just the union between one man and one woman for life. The state has no right to change what marriage is
Sofie Pieschel According to your religion Adam and Eve were tempted to sin and caused the damnation of humanity, they're not exactly role models, or people we should base stuff of. I mean even Adam was remarried his first wife was Lilith
Sofie Pieschel please watch the video again, this time without your face shoved inside the bible
I heard a lot. SOmeone marrying a Love + 3DS, and even married their body pillow. But ghost marriages, for some reason, surprised me a bit.
AFAIK - marriage as an institution was created to solve 2 major problems or sources of conflict. 1 - inheritance, as this was often fought over, such as inheriting the throne or dukedom. 2 - social unity, as to secure alliance or to avoid conflict between two clans.
obviously the days of these society needs have changed and the meaning of marriage changes with it. but nonetheless the institution of marriage had always served some practical purpose. and love was usually not among it. not because our ancestors are incapable of emotions, but simply put, there are more urgent matters that require solving. and this should be something to keep in mind.
Highlights the fallacious appeal to tradition argument from those against same sex marriage today.
Also highlights that the definition of marriage is too unstable/controversial for it to be tied to government benefits.
***** It's not just about government benefits. It's about all the rights that married people have including having a say in the treatment options of a spouse when that spouse is incapacitated somehow.
ebudae2000
That is a government-granted benefit. There are no universal rules to marriage.
I'd call that a government denied benefit since I think in most western cultures the norm is that the closest relative\s determines what happens to someone who cannot decide for themselves. In places where the government doesn't allow gay marriage this is a right denied to people who are in long term relationships and would otherwise be married.
In France we have a very funny show called "Kaamelott".
One of the many characters once said:
"As me you are married, so You know that monstrosity can take very diverse forms."
That sounds Perfect.
This video has many good points. Marriage means different things to different people and cultures. There seems to be a few common themes, mostly bonding, land, inheriting, procreation, commitment, and probably some others.
I always thought marriage was a mix of true love and the prospect of a family if possible.
If two people love each other in a special way, why not seal the deal? True love is there for a reason after all. Procreation and bringing new humans into this world is very important; I'd argue that if two people want to start a family and contribute to the next generation of future humans, they should truly love each other and want to commit to the massive project that is raising a child... it is very hard but still possible for a single parent to raise a child by themselves so two people would be ideal. The two people should support each other and be loyal no matter what comes at them. Unfortunately, this does not happen all the time... there is a reason why cheating with someone else is bad in most western world societies, but ideally the partners in marriage should truly love being married and love each other.
Marriage is usually a beautiful thing, though sometimes two people aren't meant for eachother. It seems like throughout cultures, marriage is for procreation and or to make the love between two people official. Of course not everyone who gets married wants to or is able to start a family, but maybe that's a good thing at this point considering how big the population of the world is right now. Either way I'd argue that the true point of marriage is for true love and happiness.
No one argues that the practice of marriage has changed over time. The question is really what structure has worked best to foster true stability in a culture and society and why marriage exists at all. More and more, it has become separated from having and raising children, but that is really the primary reason for upholding a traditional marriage.
Every society has had flawed and broken marriages, but the breakage of what marriage should be has always led to the destabilization and ultimately the destruction of even the strongest civilizations. What the speaker fails to acknowledge is that polygamous and homosexual marriages, for instance, or unfaithful or abusive heterosexual marriages are not just "there" but have actually caused jealousy, unhappiness, instability, and harm for children who long for a mother and a father who love and care deeply for one other.
It's not a question of whether it can work; of course children and families can survive within a broken system, whether that be within a government, community, or family. It is, rather, a question of what is BEST for all involved. That is the question that is most often lost these days.
Great vid, clearly explained and very good animation too. Well done!!
This book is actually transformative if you bother to spend the effort reading learning and understanding the institution of marriage.
I have ALWAYS been thinking about this.
Thank you for enlightening me
In countries that don't have divorce, marriage is more thoroughly thought of as a serious decision, their basis for getting married is not just because they love the person. They also think long term like, how many kids they are going to have, where to live, heck the couple must have the 100% percent blessing of their parents just to get married. That's why i think divorce is something that destroys the family. It makes marriage seem like it is not a big decision and that it is enough reason that you love someone and not see the entire picture. (Of course i totally agree that if you have an abusive partner then you should definitely divorce them or annul them)
I think if you want to marry whatever gender it's fine by me as long as it makes you happy
+kelsey provident Yes!
some people have an hard time understanding that
+Radical Raven "whatever gender" pretty sure she's implying human beings only
+Radical Raven I by your logic marrying the same gender is like marrying another animal, you guys are the ones who sound rather funny
+Radical Raven what problems does it creates though?
And of course people didn't fight against it, the mentality back then was to hate them, in some countries they would get killed or tortured, not only that but they are a minority and people are mostly centred on themselves and only family, so they don't really care, only if the thing involved the majority of the population like for example with women like you said
If we have to be honest, what you called Israel in 1:46 is actually Palestine, and even if the organization of TED recognizes Israel over Palestine, its historically innaccurate
1:46 that’s the land of Palestinian . let her see it guys
Well ted-ed should be the highest rated channel in the world 💫❣️
Absolutely fantastic video. I will be showing this to anyone who insists that marriage has always been between one man and one woman.
What we fail to see is marriage is an alliance , of two people and their families .
Today where females are seen as equals , the bonds of needing a man is not needed , so the alliance is the only part needed .
Marriage as a social institution makes a lot of sense.
When I was a kid a teacher of mine says you dont choose who you marry your family do that was in early 2000 , and sometimes you hear old people saying they were 14 or even younger when they get 1st pregnant from their husband and have many children and I became a bit curious and made a little research that choosing someone you love to marry seems only became popular in the mid to late 19th century. and its weird that almost all parts of the world have the same tradition before.
4:29 平绮版版白绮配墨 does not mean anything, as far as I can tell, it's just plain gibberish...
Either I'm wrong, or they are just not being serious of the contents they created.
They probably forgot to add text at that part
Marriage was originally to decide who should inherit the parents land and property after their death. Nothing more.
+umwha The video said that...
0:13 the ones who wishes for stability in life
My perspective about marriage is unless n until both are happy n in love with each other they last...
And if both are not... Separation is best option then sufferings..
Being happy matters..
Or if either partner is unhappy, it's time to end it or reassess it.
I wish I could marry a whole family of brothers.
You can but you have to migrate to Ladak or Nepal rural areas.
Amen brother.
It is as old as mankind.. and it lasts forever regardless of any condition..
hello,
I am native Chinese speaker, also speak Japanese.
I am totally sure that 平綺版版白綺記墨(on 4:29) is not mean marriage in Chinese and Japanese.
Could you please tell me what's that?
Thanks
I am a native Chinese speaker too, and I don't get it either. lol
They probably googled "calligraphy" and just slapped something down. ;P
I only speak english and spanish, but I'm curious about the accuracy of any calligraphy I see, here in the states. Have you spent much time in any western countries? If so, what did you think of the chinese and japanese script you saw there; was it at least generally accurate, or way off the mark?
I have a cousin who got a tattoo that he thought meant "dragon," only to hear from a friend years later that it roughly translated to "dog food." lol!
Seems like a weird tongue twister or just plain gibberish.
Google translate tells me it means "Ping Yee Yee Kee edition version of white ink." This: 婚姻 should be marriage. So... really have no idea how that happened.
Best channel TED-ED
Amazing video, really open the mind to the reality that marriage was never a constant.
I live in the Himalayas but no where have I seen a woman marrying multiple brothers to keep the land within one family.... Maybe this practice was there before my time..
It's primarily the practice of the Niymba people that live within the Niymba valley between Nepal and Tibet. Though, even if you are a part of this community, you probably haven't seem much evidence of polyandry, no. The system largely broke up over the past century, especially within the last 50 years due to economic hardship.
And I haven't seen any racially-motivated hangings here in the U.S. Doesn't mean it hasn't happened.
IstasPumaNevada that is possibly the stupidest argument I have EVER heard.
Michael Pomeroy wow you are so mature, can't actually believe that you are married
IstasPumaNevada
Somehow that is simultaneously the worst argument and best response ever. Good job. I think...
I am not getting married ever... and I love being single :)
Same :)
Update? Bet you're still single :D
@@gokulkrishm51 Yes, that's true.
@@Ferdinand.. Cool, man! 🙌
The animation is so over the top I legitimately had to restart the video more than five times before I got through a minute of it.
I've also heard of marriage I believe normally only in Asian culture where some men marry in to the brides family and take her name becoming the family's male heir and taking on the duties of the family as if he were born in the family. I've also heard that it's still done today but for some different reasons and that it's normally only the first daughter who does this.
There are also couples who start there own family by changing there last names to a completely new one, such as if Gina White married Eric Grayson but both became Mr and Mrs. Reddington. This is normally the couple either wanting to get away from their family's due to problem's or they both think it's fun and a fresh start.
love is simple but not marriage .......
Brother-making, learn something new every day!
thanks for telling us the history of marriage