Quote:
Originally Posted by hip hop bunny hop
No, not the state - but if we use anthropology as a tool, you'll find that marriage (for the VAST majority of human history, and I'd argue for most humans continuing to live today) is not out of love. It is, and was, a practicial institution used to produce heirs and navigate patrilineal, matrilineal, or bilineal societys to ones advantage.
The notion of marriage for love is really quite novel, and considering how divorce rates have skyrocketed, I'd say it hasn't been succesful.
|
I'd argue that commonly, marriage is still very much a socioeconomic contract, divorce itself (especially the concept of alimony) being the almighty collateral. Producing heirs is the evolutionary flip of the coin, but marriage really hasn't evolved much over time. And when you think about it, same-sex marriage puts that contract at an even keel, since the gender roles are the same.
There's not much sacred about marriage. It just sort of grew around the "I'll provide food for you and your progenitors if you have sex with me" contract that's existed since the beginning. Yup, can't have any homos invalidating the practicality of that institution.
If you're going to offer critiques of marriage as an institution, why pick a side? I say homosexuals have the right to be as miserable as the rest of us.