Marriage - A call for information.

[Steave]

So marriage and who has the right to be married seems to be a big issue at the moment but a lot of people seem to be arguing with a limited amount of information so I thought I'd put the call out to you guys for some more information.

For example, one of the arguments that annoys me is 'Marriage has always been between one man and one woman.' Now this argument seems to come from Christianity mostly (a religion which has been around in it's current form for about 2000 years) so even ignoring that 'We've always done it this way' is a pretty poor argument, that seems like a relatively short 'always'

So I guess what I am initially interested in are marriage customs and traditions of older religions and cultures.

[Kea]

Well, this article claims that in traditional societies, polygyny was multiple times more common than monogamy. It was legal until 1971 in Hong Kong - and it was largely due to the influence of Christian missionaries that it finally got banned. Polyandry is much rarer, and usually occurs in the form of fraternal polyandry (one woman married to multiple brothers) in very resource-poor societies.

As for examples of same-sex marriage, they seem to be quite rare. There are many cultures that recognize a third gender, which usually do not map directly onto Western LGBT categories, but usually such individuals do not get married. Which is not to say that there aren't exceptions. Some Indian hirjas have been known to unofficially marry and live with men.

[CCC]

You can find notes on Zulu weddings in many places; here, for example.

A prospective groom will pay his future in-laws an amount (known as lobola) for his future bride (apparently this can be claimed back should the wife turn out to be barren). Traditionally, it is paid in cattle (in traditional Zulu culture, cattle were a sign of wealth) - the amount to be negotiated between the groom and the father. (In modern times, cash is an acceptable substitute - again, the amount is open to negotiation). A man can have as many wives as he can pay the lobola for (see: Jacob Zuma) but a woman is restricted to a single husband.

As far as I know, this has been the case for a very long time. I have no idea how long.

[quantumcat42]

A prospective groom will pay his future in-laws an amount (known as lobola) for his future bride (apparently this can be claimed back should the wife turn out to be barren). Traditionally, it is paid in cattle (in traditional Zulu culture, cattle were a sign of wealth) - the amount to be negotiated between the groom and the father.

A friend of mine grew up in Senegal, and a man once approached her father with an offer of (iirc) 50 camels for her hand. Occasionally her dad still expresses regret at not taking the deal.

[Kea]

I found an academic article:
A history of same-sex marriage

Click on the download link on the top right, and scroll down to page 1435. It's the most extensive catalogue of culturally sanctioned same-sex unions I've ever seen.

[Steave]

Wow. Thanks Kea.

I've been reading up on hirjas. It's quite fascinating.

[Kea]

I haven't even read the whole thing yet but the early Catholic brotherhood ritual that looks suspiciously like a gay wedding really did give me pause.

Editing to add: And even if it wasn't a gay wedding and was totally platonic, I think it says something about modern Western society that we're now way too squeamish to celebrate Guy Love* in such a public and overt way.

*Scrubs reference

[s.i.l.]

Editing to add: And even if it wasn't a gay wedding and was totally platonic, I think it says something about modern Western society that we're now way too squeamish to celebrate Guy Love* in such a public and overt way.

That makes me think of Abraham Lincoln's relationship with that guy which people point to when claiming it is evidence he was gay. Two grown men sharing a bed was actually acceptable platonic behavior back then. But now it's obvious he was one of teh gayz.

[weatherwax]

It's not just the mens who get the current-cultural-expectations-shallacked-on-past-relationships brush. Women were very touchy-feely with each other in the past as well, much more so than is expected currently. Sharing beds, kissing on the lips, writing intimate letters about pining away for eachother, holding hands, hugging and holding eachother. I'm not denying that some of the relationships recorded in letters and books weren't same-sex love, but people are a little too quick to point out any great affection as sexual in nature.

Anyway, thanks for the academic paper, Kea. As you may know, marriage throughout history and culture has been a particular fascination of mine, and this adds a new, interesting facet to my core knowledge.

And for Steave, one of my favorite current marriage traditions from other, less widely known cultures is that of the Mosuo's "walking marriage" which seems to be an instance of encouraged serial monogamy (essentially, a woman can take many partners in her life, so long as the relationships don't overlap). It really has nothing to do with the gay marriage debate directly, but it does poke a hole in the idea that marriage is even necessary, let alone the most natural union.

[arcosh]

I agree that sex is interpreted into things way too often. People who get along well with each other and are a good team, sure have sex (thankfully family members are an exception here, as long as people know about family ties). That works with any combination of sexes. At least if the group consist of more then 2 people, there is not (yet?) the assumption of group sex.

If kids do child stuff, such as playing naked in the garden, or dress up as adults, the first thing that comes into peoples mind seems to be "What would a paedofiliac think, if he sees that?". And god forbid if you make photos of it. Sure it's important to protect children from paediphiliacs, but making the latter the litmus test, what children should do, and how they may be displayed, is not all that healthy IMO.

[Steave]

I agree that sex is interpreted into things way too often. People who get along well with each other and are a good team, sure have sex (thankfully family members are an exception here, as long as people know about family ties). That works with any combination of sexes. At least if the group consist of more then 2 people, there is not (yet?) the assumption of group sex.

I guess my real gripe is; why the Hel does it matter? If I interact socially with a group of people who are all very close to each other, if they are all having sex behind closed doors doesn't change the way I socially interact with them.

[arcosh]

I guess my real gripe is; why the Hel does it matter? If I interact socially with a group of people who are all very close to each other, if they are all having sex behind closed doors doesn't change the way I socially interact with them.

It starts to matter once romantic interests become an option. If someone supposedly part of a couple makes a pass on you, does that mean it's pure social flirting, without intent, that the supposed relationship is open, that it just falls apart, that someone plans adultery, that the supposed relationship does not exist at all?

And if you are single and available, then being rumored to be bound, is likely not what you want.It might discourage people to show interest in you.

And it's generally annoying if people know things about you, that are not true.

[CCC]

Because people are complicated.

[Steave]

I guess my real gripe is; why the Hel does it matter? If I interact socially with a group of people who are all very close to each other, if they are all having sex behind closed doors doesn't change the way I socially interact with them.

It starts to matter once romantic interests become an option. If someone supposedly part of a couple makes a pass on you, does that mean it's pure social flirting, without intent, that the supposed relationship is open, that it just falls apart, that someone plans adultery, that the supposed relationship does not exist at all?

And if you are single and available, then being rumored to be bound, is likely not what you want.It might discourage people to show interest in you.

And it's generally annoying if people know things about you, that are not true.

These are all scenarios created around people being intimate with each other and others jumping to the conclusion that it must be sexual. If you and others acted under the notion that there's nothing there unless stated, those scenarios would not exist.

[Raffaele]

Actually the matter is not marriage, multiple marriage or same sex marriage, but make legal other forms of union or co-habitation like the pacts of coexistence.