Yuku free message boards

Fred, I have a slightly different view. Marriage was a necessary institution for the wife to have and raise children. It seems self-evident to me that society need children. Children need to be provided for. The institution of marriage was one way that societies provided for those children.

A man had to be tied to the woman so that he provided for her and his/her children otherwise the woman would be flat out trying to provide for herself and her children. As the children are born and grow, so do their needs. The world has rarely been such a place of plenty that a woman could fend for herself while she was nursing and pregnant.

And not trying to be sexist, the man needed to be bound to the woman as she grew older [and somewhat less attractive]. The children had to be provided for until they were independent. Then, there is always the issue of provision for the woman into old age.

I remember reading that English marriage law and custom, did not originate with Christianity as such but owed more to Germanic traditions. Like lots of other heathen customs, marriage was adopted and modified by Christianity in the middle ages.

So I have trouble with gay marriage as such, on the basis that it is not for the raising of children or if it is, it has no notion of exclusivity. There is also the notion of for the rest of the natural life. Put it down to homophobia if you want, but my experience of gays has been that there unions do not normally last for life [and I can immediately think of those that do].

In parts of Africa, there is a plague of single mothers because of war, drought and poverty. The woman is left by the man as he moves on to greener, less onerous pastures. Men can do this because society has broken down. The social pressure to stay and provide for your wife and family do not exist.

In Australian Aboriginal society, children were seen as the responsibility of the tribe or the extended family group. Aboriginal societies' rules about marriage are repugnant to Europeans, especially women. Aboriginal men traded women. Aboriginal men had more than one wife. Old Aboriginal men had the young girls as wives before they had "marriage" to a warrior.

It sounds pretty sexist to me and I cannot dress it up any other way BUT, it worked, because Aboriginal rules about marriage and having children were the most serious and complex set of laws in their society. Aboriginal women in traditional society were not without power too [but it still seems a ruinously sexist society from the outside looking in].

In our rich, Western world of today, children are guaranteed their basic needs by society. The need for marriage is not as great. As well, contraception is the rule rather than the exception. men and women do not run the risk of having a pregnancy every time the come together. Society guarantees the rights of and protection of women. The need for marriage is further reduced. But there is still the bringing up of children. here too, the state plays a major role.

The original need for marriage as an institution is at least much reduced. Now perhaps it is simply a celebration of love between two people with certain property and income rights attached. However, I find the archaic institution of marriage attractive emotionally.

If gays want to celebrate some other institution that celebrates their promise to stay together and provide for each other, then let them recognize that it is a different institution from traditional marriage, period.