Shouldn't the woman take the man's last name when getting married?

Question

This is what I was always taught - it was a sign that the woman was joining the man's household and was his property now. Am I right here?

Answer 1

wrong you are never his property I do believe that the two of you become one but that is saying his body is part of you and yours is part of him but you both belong to the lord and I think the name thing has to be agreed upon be fore hand if the woman has reasons why she wants to keep it then she should ppl who are actresses or in the public eye keep there own name sometimes but others don't it all is up to the person I thought about adding my married name to my other last name because of my kids but I did not I did not want to keep my ex's name even for the kids but it would have maybe made them feel better to have the same last name but I did not want to keep it!!!some times tradition needs to change ppl use to only have one name back in the early bible days IE Jesus of ..... they would put the name of they city you were from can't do that any more too many ppl in the world plus to many city with the same name now too!!!!

Answer 2

No. You are wrong.

Marrying a man doesn't make a woman his "property." If the only way he knows that she's "his" is by her last name, he has issues.

Not taking a man's last name doesn't mean that the person isn't Christian, either, as someone has suggested.

Answer 3

My husband and I both kept our maiden names and had no problem with that. We had many friends and family members who had strong opinions on it and actually started referring to me by his name, not respecting our choice. So you know what I did... started returning their mail because there was no such person at my address. They finally started respecting (or tolerating) my decision.

I think it's an important thing for a couple to discuss prior to getting married, it shouldn't be assumed that the name change is going to happen and ultimately, a man should respect a woman's decision either way.

Answer 4

The woman doesn't have to take her husband's last name. Why should she be considered a husband's property unless he PAID for her at the wedding! What you've been taught is incredibly old fashioned and disgraceful to women...would you like to consider your mother being your father's property so he can throw her out like a piece of trash when he feels like it?

Answer 5

You don't have to take his last name if you don't want to. It's your choice. Just to point one thing out about what you said ... even though you get married and decide to take your husband's last name ... you are NOT his property. You may be married to him, but you are your own, independent self. Being married doesn't make you anyones property. You are free to make your own decisions.

Answer 6

If the marriage is religious based, the woman is given to the man as his wife, and he is considered her owner, but not in the sense of her being his property. If the marriage is based on the Holy Bible, it has many specific conditions that both spouses must carry out in their respective roles in the marriage, one being that the man should treat his wife like he treats himself. It also says that a man should cherish his wife.

Answer 7

They used to but now days they keep there last name or use both names.

Answer 8

No it does not mean you are his property, it means that you are now as one. It is a sharing thing. Also Christian.

Answer 9

no, the woman keeps her fathers name and if you have children they will take your last name.

Answer 10

take the last name and get a pre-nuptuial agreement from a legal advisor. if you are financially intelligent.