If I see another supposedly ‘reasoned’ piece on whether to ‘let’ same-sex couples marry, I won’t be held responsible for my actions. I here claim benefit of reasonable provocation and temporary insanity. Who, in the name of fuck, is ‘letting’, and what exactly are ‘we’ ‘giving’?
For the sake of clarity, I'm bypassing arguments (I won’t say what I think of them) about same-sex relationships and various notions about whether the concept is acceptable or not. This has been dealt with elsewhere.
What ‘we’ haven’t looked at much is the concept of marriage. What is the purpose of marriage? It is not, as a hell of a lot of people seem to think, the joining of two people (of whatever sex) to be loving and happy for evermore. Or even for a little while. They can do that perfectly well without marriage. You like someone, you stay with them, it’s comfortable. Why the hoo-ha? Big ceremonies, lots of expense, paperwork? To tell the world? Yes, but to tell it what? That you love each other?
No, not really. You’re telling the world, and the government, that you’re committed to making a social unit that is more manageable, more powerful, more economically viable than the same number of single, uncoupled individuals. That you will stick to the model you have, and provide social stability and greater motive force. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts.
In any such union, there is a division of labour. We’ll leave out whose labour is greater, who benefits in what way, who comes worse off and for what reasons. Let’s say it’s a rare case in which each party benefits completely equally, and in many cases the commodities and work being provided are so different it would be hard to judge in absolute terms. But in whatever way tasks are divided, it does allow for more total productivity, less doubling-up of resources, more flexibility overall, and above all greater stability and accountability. It’s a social and economic contract that benefits the society at large – probably more than it benefits the individual. If society were better organized, after all, we wouldn’t need to make sure there’s someone to take care of the kids, and someone to bring in cash. Ideally childcare would be communal enough to allow all parties of the contract to work externally, as well as spend time in their special tighter unit. If governments got their shit together, all the pressures on whatever marital unit we’re working with would ease dramatically. But we don’t, and that unit is what provides at least some sort of support. No wonder marriage takes a hammering. And we’re saying we want to exclude 10% of the population from contributing to this immensely lucrative and beneficial arrangement? NOW who should plead insanity, me or the governments who make these rules?
As a limber-up for our 21st century Western, calcified minds, let’s remember a few things about intimate social units outside our comfort-zone. There may be the good, the bad and the ugly but they all ‘work’ for whatever reason – even if many individuals within the system end up worse off, it is always a form of social stability.
Polygamy – has been the norm around the globe in many quarters. We can tell by the DNA evidence: relatively few men pass on their genes, whereas most women do. Current estimates of the age-gap between ‘Adam’ and ‘Eve’ float at around 40,000 years, and I love Stephen Fry’s facetious comment on this that ‘one can only suppose that life before Adam must have been heavy to industrial strength lesbianism’. Reasons for polygamy? (Apart from the obvious of male appetite and power.) Infant mortality and economic viability, as well as the propensity of said males to go out and get killed and thereby depleted in number. Not great reasons, but practical. Been around for a while, still is many countries – either legally or recognized at a government level. A study of 1,000 cultures found only 186 to be monogamous, the vast majority of the rest to be infrequently or frequently polygamous.
Polyandry – Much less common, but still practiced in Nepal, India, Africa and Tibet – although the Chinese government has outlawed it there. Typically it occurs in places where there are not enough resources to sustain a large population and the utmost has to be squeezed out of the land to survive. Most cases are fraternal polyandry, where the woman marries two brothers and they all live in the same house. Sometimes it can be father and son. The model usually works best when the two males are related, as the offspring have a better chance of being looked after well.
Matrilineal societies – When offspring are cared for in the unit of the females. It gives rise to ‘visit’ relationships, where either males or females visit their chosen sexual partner’s abode for the night, and live separately. This is still practiced in Yunan province in China (although of course it’s being stamped out by the authorities), and I found, to my utter surprise, in the Heian period in Japan. As older societies (we’re talking pre-Bronze age here) were much more prone to being matrilineal, one can assume it used to be more of a norm in the past.
One thing these arrangements have in common is practicality. All of them probably have issues in putting more than a fair share of the burden of life on one party or other. But it does get things done. The now-common idea of monogamous, lifelong marriage is by no means the majority view, so anyone on that high horse can get off it right away.
If we’re entirely honest, the best way to arrange things would be to live in groups large enough to sustain a rotation of duties. That way everyone has a chance to both have children and to work and forge an independent career. But we’re not asking for this. All we’re asking is that we be sensible and fit in with the social structure that’s already there. Personally, my first marriage was entirely for economic purposes – although based on a firm relationship. My partner was offered a job in the USA, and for me to be able to get a work visa, we had to be married. So we did. We didn’t love each other any more or any less because of the paperwork, nor did we stay together for longer because of it. But we were allowed to earn more money, pay more taxes, and contribute more to the economy. Governments incentivise marriage because of the social stability benefits already mentioned. It is unbelievable that this incentive would have been unavailable to a same-sex couple at the time. It simply shoots everyone in the foot. We seriously need to grow up.
For the sake of clarity, I'm bypassing arguments (I won’t say what I think of them) about same-sex relationships and various notions about whether the concept is acceptable or not. This has been dealt with elsewhere.
What ‘we’ haven’t looked at much is the concept of marriage. What is the purpose of marriage? It is not, as a hell of a lot of people seem to think, the joining of two people (of whatever sex) to be loving and happy for evermore. Or even for a little while. They can do that perfectly well without marriage. You like someone, you stay with them, it’s comfortable. Why the hoo-ha? Big ceremonies, lots of expense, paperwork? To tell the world? Yes, but to tell it what? That you love each other?
No, not really. You’re telling the world, and the government, that you’re committed to making a social unit that is more manageable, more powerful, more economically viable than the same number of single, uncoupled individuals. That you will stick to the model you have, and provide social stability and greater motive force. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts.
In any such union, there is a division of labour. We’ll leave out whose labour is greater, who benefits in what way, who comes worse off and for what reasons. Let’s say it’s a rare case in which each party benefits completely equally, and in many cases the commodities and work being provided are so different it would be hard to judge in absolute terms. But in whatever way tasks are divided, it does allow for more total productivity, less doubling-up of resources, more flexibility overall, and above all greater stability and accountability. It’s a social and economic contract that benefits the society at large – probably more than it benefits the individual. If society were better organized, after all, we wouldn’t need to make sure there’s someone to take care of the kids, and someone to bring in cash. Ideally childcare would be communal enough to allow all parties of the contract to work externally, as well as spend time in their special tighter unit. If governments got their shit together, all the pressures on whatever marital unit we’re working with would ease dramatically. But we don’t, and that unit is what provides at least some sort of support. No wonder marriage takes a hammering. And we’re saying we want to exclude 10% of the population from contributing to this immensely lucrative and beneficial arrangement? NOW who should plead insanity, me or the governments who make these rules?
As a limber-up for our 21st century Western, calcified minds, let’s remember a few things about intimate social units outside our comfort-zone. There may be the good, the bad and the ugly but they all ‘work’ for whatever reason – even if many individuals within the system end up worse off, it is always a form of social stability.
Polygamy – has been the norm around the globe in many quarters. We can tell by the DNA evidence: relatively few men pass on their genes, whereas most women do. Current estimates of the age-gap between ‘Adam’ and ‘Eve’ float at around 40,000 years, and I love Stephen Fry’s facetious comment on this that ‘one can only suppose that life before Adam must have been heavy to industrial strength lesbianism’. Reasons for polygamy? (Apart from the obvious of male appetite and power.) Infant mortality and economic viability, as well as the propensity of said males to go out and get killed and thereby depleted in number. Not great reasons, but practical. Been around for a while, still is many countries – either legally or recognized at a government level. A study of 1,000 cultures found only 186 to be monogamous, the vast majority of the rest to be infrequently or frequently polygamous.
Polyandry – Much less common, but still practiced in Nepal, India, Africa and Tibet – although the Chinese government has outlawed it there. Typically it occurs in places where there are not enough resources to sustain a large population and the utmost has to be squeezed out of the land to survive. Most cases are fraternal polyandry, where the woman marries two brothers and they all live in the same house. Sometimes it can be father and son. The model usually works best when the two males are related, as the offspring have a better chance of being looked after well.
Matrilineal societies – When offspring are cared for in the unit of the females. It gives rise to ‘visit’ relationships, where either males or females visit their chosen sexual partner’s abode for the night, and live separately. This is still practiced in Yunan province in China (although of course it’s being stamped out by the authorities), and I found, to my utter surprise, in the Heian period in Japan. As older societies (we’re talking pre-Bronze age here) were much more prone to being matrilineal, one can assume it used to be more of a norm in the past.
One thing these arrangements have in common is practicality. All of them probably have issues in putting more than a fair share of the burden of life on one party or other. But it does get things done. The now-common idea of monogamous, lifelong marriage is by no means the majority view, so anyone on that high horse can get off it right away.
If we’re entirely honest, the best way to arrange things would be to live in groups large enough to sustain a rotation of duties. That way everyone has a chance to both have children and to work and forge an independent career. But we’re not asking for this. All we’re asking is that we be sensible and fit in with the social structure that’s already there. Personally, my first marriage was entirely for economic purposes – although based on a firm relationship. My partner was offered a job in the USA, and for me to be able to get a work visa, we had to be married. So we did. We didn’t love each other any more or any less because of the paperwork, nor did we stay together for longer because of it. But we were allowed to earn more money, pay more taxes, and contribute more to the economy. Governments incentivise marriage because of the social stability benefits already mentioned. It is unbelievable that this incentive would have been unavailable to a same-sex couple at the time. It simply shoots everyone in the foot. We seriously need to grow up.