And not just because it’s impossible to pronounce, either. It turns out Silflay Hraka is a media power on a par with the News and Observer.
Archive for February 18th, 2004
Would same-sex marriage represent a giant step away from the norm in America? One of the more pervasive arguments against allowing same-sex marriages, one most recently presented here by my compatriot Blackavar, is that the institution of marriage is a sort of distillation of human knowledge, and an embrace of gay marriage risks undermining that structure.
The strongest argument, IMHO, is we shouldn’t go trifling with worthy and pretty much universally accepted social institutions that have accreted over thousands of years. Gay marriage has never been, as far as I can tell; and traditional marriage is the way it is because it works as an institution, for stabilizing relationships and families.
In my view, the problem with the above argument is that historically, family models are not static, even in the West. Less than 100 years ago the extended family model, consisting of husband, wife, children and one or more grandparents was much more prevalent than now. In the time since, it has largely given way to the today’s nuclear family model.
Outside of the Western tradition, and even inside in some cases, other family models may be found, including those where the partners are of the same sex.
Polygyny, to take the most widespread example. More commonly known as polygamy, it’s the practice of one male having multiple wives. It’s rarer but still extant opposite is polyandry, where one female possesses multiple husbands.
Another marriage tradition, this one from the Native American culture, was that of the berdache, men or women who assumed the gender of the opposite sex. The berdache was granted the social status normally accorded to a member of that sex, including the right to marry.
Australian aborigines have yet another system for pairing off and raising children, one so impossibly complicated it almost defies description.
Before trying to comprehend their patterns of marriage and family relationships, one must exclude from one’s mind our own familiar conception of such relationships which are, of course, based upon consanguinity. The fundamental difference is caused by the fact that the Aborigines do not regard children as simply the result of sexual intercourse, but as spirits appearing yet again in a process of reincarnation. Their communities are not made up in our sense of families related by blood, but by groups and sub-groups formally distinguished by the different ways in which they pronounce the names of the individuals within their groups. The child’s name is given according to the group or subgroup to which its mother and father belong. Its given name, moreover, subsequently determines which members of the group or sub-group are possible marriage partners for the children. The syllables of these basic names are capable of numerous arrangements as elaborate as a complicated game of patience. The child’s name provides, so to speak, the child’s permanent identity disc within the group relationship. When we use the word ‘father’ we mean our actual parental father. The corresponding word in the Aborigines’ language does not, however, signify one man, but several, the others all being members of the group to which the ‘real’ father belongs. All the members of the main group, similarly, are regarded as brothers though they are not related by blood. The son or daughter of any one of them calls them all ‘father’. It is easy to see how there emerge from this habit such paradoxes as that a man may sometimes be older than one of his ‘fathers’. Or, similarly, that a child may call his real father, ‘uncle’. The same principle applies in all other family relationships. The women of a group can, for instance, be called ‘mother’ by a child whose actual mother is one of them. When a man marries, his wife’s mother does not become his mother-in-law merely in virtue of the marriage. The man marries the daughter of a certain woman because that woman, together with other women in her group, is already his future mother-in-law according to the marriage rules. The nearest possible ‘blood’ marriage under this system is between half-cousins. A man can only marry a woman of a certain sub-group of the opposite main group and only if, according to her ‘rating’, it is her ‘turn’ for his special group. If a man entitled, on this basis, to marry the widow, were to marry her daughter instead, he would be guilty of incest. Again on this basis if a man entitled to marry a certain girl married her widowed mother instead. he, too, would be guilty of incest.
In every example above, the type of family structure present in a culture can be ascribed to environmental pressures–not religious belief, despite the role that religion plays in the rites of marriage in almost every culture.
In the West, extended families were common in rural and agrarian environments. The able-bodied needed someone to watch the kids while they tended to the farm or the flocks. The nuclear family began its rise when the growth of urban areas and the greater riches available within them gave families not only the extra money, but the extra time needed to raise children alone. The elderly, though still valued emotionally, were no longer an economic aid. Rather, they became an economic burden and began their slow disappearance from the nuclear household–a trend that continues today.
In essence, the impact of urbanism on marriage has been to reduce the number of adults necessary to rear children, from more than two, to two, and now to one, as the increasing number of single-parent households demonstrates.
Polygyny, like the extended family, is also typically found in rural or agrarian areas, though it is most commonly found in societies where men marry late and women marry early. Historically this difference in marriage age magnifies the normal human gender birth imbalance, producing a society where there are always more females of marriageable age than males. And, like the extended family before it, polygyny is under siege in areas where there is economic growth.
Given the gender imbalance that characterizes polygamy, one might expect polyandry to take place in cultures with a greater number of men than women. Indeed, this is so in some cases, especially in rural China, where the female infanticide rate skyrocketed in response to the communist’s government’s “One Child” policy.
But the classic example of polyandry, fraternal polyandry, is found in Tibet, where it developed in response to a lack of arable land. In fraternal polyandry, all the brothers in a family marry one wife, removing any need to subdivide a family’s land among numerous heirs.
The idea of Western marriage as a distillation of wisdom is an appealing one, and seemingly Darwinian in its logic. “After thousands of years of trial and error, we have arrived at the pinnacle. Any movement from here can only be downwards.”
But actual Darwinism states that as conditions change, organisms adapt to fit them, or perish. There is no pinnacle, only an everchanging background into which a organism must fit itself. Institutions face many of the same challenges as the organism, and display much the same behavior. The Catholic church of 1480 is hardly the same as the Catholic church of today, for instance. The institution of marriage is just as malleable, adapting itself time and again to fit within certain cultures and environments all over the world. Given its dizzying array of adaptations, the only thing that can be said for certain about marriages is that the human desire for it is universal.
Universal, as in every time, everyplace…..and everybody.
“All family forms should be judged by how well they provide commitment, care, and community for their members. Family arrangements that pass this test deserve greater measures of community support in the future.” - William J. Doherty
Update: Blackavar responds, as does Captain Holly.
Now, the question is, does these also get a “Meanwhile in the Warren” link?
Try and stop a freight train
Gay marriage will be to the election of 2004 what slavery was to the election of 1860. Except that the upper-class gay activists and their allies in the media are the practical and moral equivalent of the wealthy Southern slaveholders.
Secret Agent Stuff
Frankfurt Airport will start scanning passenger’s eyes to confirm their identities.
The 74th edition of the Carnival of the Vanities is hosted by Four Right Wing Wackos this week.
If you’d like to host the Carnival, drop us a line. Information on how to join the Carnival can be found here. If you would like to be added to the Carnival announcement list, send an email to cotvanities-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
Upcoming Carnival stops include;
February 25th Da Goddess
March 3rd American Digest
March 10th Aaron’s Rantblog
March 17th Patterico’s Pontifications
March 24th Pete Holiday
March 31st Eric Berlin
April 7th Leaking Pure White Noise
April 14th BoiFromTroy
April 21st Southern Musings
April 28th WOLves
May 3rd The Thief’s Den
May 12th Confessions Of A Political Junkie
May 19th Dispatches from the Culture Wars
May 26th Spot On
June 2nd Tiger
June 9th Ambient Irony
June 16th Jessica’s Well
June 23rd A Single Guy In The South
Also, be sure to check out the Carnival’s offspring:
Here’s a idea. I thought this would add a little more to our trip. I propose that we start an optional “pool” for all those who would like to participate and run a FDS tournament for the week. Here’s the details: Everyone (who wants to) can put up an entry fee ($20 for the week) and be entered to win. Have a few categories such as: 1st citation drum, biggest black drum, most rays caught, etc. Winners would then get prize $ based on # of categories. If say 10 of us entered, we have $200 to give out as prize(s). If we had 2 categories and you win one you basically pay for most of the trip. Just something to keep things interesting and promote more fishing time on the beach. Hell, I’d rather do this than lose my money playing poker at the house. Of course, we can still do that as well.