Anthropologists have debunked this "traditional marriage" nonsense for years...

[DRoseDARs]

We wouldn't be having this civil union vs marriage vs economic vs religious debate if more people had a basic understand of the true history of marriage. If you agree with what follows, please recommend and keep this kicked.



Here is just one example of people who know what they are talking about weighing in on a subject that they know and can talk about. This article was published in 2004 when Bush was peddling his Defense of Marriage Act schlock to stir up his base.
http://www.washingtonblade.com/2004/4-16/news/national/antrho.cfm

AAA (no, not the auto group) web link to their 2004 statement and related links:
http://www.aaanet.org/issues/policy-advocacy/Statement-on-Marriage-and-the-Family.cfm

Of particular note, the American Anthropological Association in March of 2008 even called out Focus on the Family for misrepresenting and grossly distorting what the AAA had said about the issue.
http://aaanewsinfo.blogspot.com/2008/03/anthropologists-defend-their-position.html



Main points from the Washington Blade article:
What we as Americans understand as "traditional marriage" in the United States is only about 200 years old.
Polygamy (polyandry is the reverse, one wife taking several husbands) was the norm up to Roman times and remains practiced in several cultures.
The Romans "systematized marriage by establishing an age of consent and specifying unions across socio-economic classes."
The Church (now the Roman Catholic Church) pushed monogamy, but it still took centuries to take.
Marriage was first and foremost an economic arrangement, secondly about children, finally about love.
The ancient Greeks and later both the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox performed a few of what may be considered "gay marriages" in the Middle Ages.
Today, some societies still have "gay marriages" as part of their traditions, handed down through many generations over the centuries and millennium.



A 4-paragraph selection from the Washington Blade article:
In his recent book, “The Trouble with Nature: Sex in Science and Popular Culture,” George Mason University anthropologist Roger Lancaster argues that the notion of one-man, one-woman marriage crept into the collective consciousness of American society only within the past 200 years — a result of both the industrial revolution, and the media’s influence.

“Leaders often make global pronouncements about ‘marriage,’ as though it were a self-evident institution,” Lancaster said. “Depending on its cultural context, marital unions can involve a host of different persons in a number of possible combinations. People are inventive and creative about the way they create kinship networks.”

Marriage, as Americans envision it today, didn’t exist during the time of the Old Testament, or even as the Apostles spread the word of Christianity across the Middle East and Europe. Rather, marriage has consistently adjusted to religious, political and economic changes, anthropologists said.

Throughout the pre-Christian world, most civilizations practiced polygamy, until the Romans systematized marriage by establishing an age of consent and specifying unions across socio-economic classes, according to Lancaster. The Roman Catholic Church soon spread the vision of monogamy, but it took hundreds of years to become the universal axiom, he added. Even then, families arranged marriages, usually as a business transaction with the bride accompanying a piece of land to farm, or a livestock inheritance.



My comments:
Ever since I took my first (and only; haven't had the time to take others, not part of my degree path) cultural anthropology class, I've been amazed at the lack of even a basic understand most people have of what they're talking about, on BOTH sides of this issue. My view is the government should do one of two things: Either provide equal rights to legitimately-based marriages OR don't provide any government-sponsored benefits whatsoever to any matrimonial arrangement. It's as simple as that. Governments of a small d democratic nature have a vested interest in promoting stability in society (whereas governments of other types have a more vested interest specifically in not being overthrown by popular revolt). Marriage provides economic security for millions of Americans. From that economic security comes better health care, roofs over heads and food on tables, higher education opportunities for progeny, better quality of life for spouses, and a better chance of stable and secure living circumstances after retirement. Though it is not obligated to per se (though the Preamble to the US Constitution implies otherwise), our government would be acting in its and our best interests in promoting marriage for as many people as possible.

Some will complain about the slippery slopes of polygamy (polyandry too) and incest and bestiality and child marriage, but only one of those arguments has any merits worthy of discussion/consideration. Children are literally incapable of giving legal consent as they haven't developed physiologically enough to sufficiently understand the world around them or to even fully understand what is being asked of them in marriage. Animals can't give legal consent, full stop. Incest is usually of the adult-child variety and as such runs afoul of the "children can't give legal consent" problem so it's a nonstarter. Incest of the adult-adult variety can cause health problems for any progeny resulting from their union. That one is a gray area, but the vast majority of people won't touch it, especially within their own family (pun intended). There's an almost primal, instinctual revulsion to it that goes well-beyond whatever society says of it, so you won't find many honest proponents.

That leaves us with polygyny/polyandry. The only thing wrong with it isn't so much it as it is the people who practice it. No, I'm not talking about Mormons or Muslims. I'm talking about the people who take several spouses and treat them all as less equal to themselves. As already mentioned, and fleshed out in the article a bit, polygamy was about ownership since the beginning. In modern times, polygamy is oftentimes STILL about ownership. Polygamous husbands are often sadistic and controlling, making their wives and children into everything but slaves outright. If polygamy didn't exist, these men would be beating their wife instead of their wives. Either way, these individuals have no business having spouses or children in the first place because they'd abuse them in either scenario. I imagine polyandrous
examples of this abusive environment exist too, but good luck find them. I won't demonize polygyny/polyandry (funny thing, this having a basic education on the subject matter) because like any marriage the people involved have to make it work equally for all, but I will say I would never go for it for myself. The economic security (and the things that come with that) are greater in such arrangements but just as some people have zero interest in having even one spouse, I have zero interest in having several or sharing one with others. Call me selfish.

Correction: Polygamy is one person having multiple spouses, polygyny is one husband having multiple wives, polyandry is one wife having multiple husbands

For me, marriage is still about economic security, but that takes a backseat to everything else. In truth, to me the old formula has reversed:
1)Love first - What is the point if you hate each other? Do you really want that bastard spending YOUR hard-earned money on his/her selfish needs?
2)Children second - Are you really such bastards as to bring/adopt children into such an unhealthy relationship?
3)Economics last - You're out what, the price of dinner and a movie when you find out you hate each other?
And what of bad relationships? If you find out after you're married, just end it. Don't drag it out. Don't wait for him to hit you a second time. Don't wait for her to promise not to cheat again. It's clear that the relationship isn't based on what either of you thought it was based on. End it as amicably as you can now instead of waiting for the situation to turn poisonous for all involved. Maybe you can salvage a friendship or if not, then at least make things easier for your children.

Coming back specifically to gay marriage, anyone pushing "civil unions" may be (and on DU, almost certainly are) well-meaning, but the same might be said of "separate but equal" and I don't think anyone here on DU really wants to go down that path because that is the only place it leads. Anyone pushing "civil unions" may as well be pushing the anti-science noise against Climate Change for all the sense it makes, because it is the same unfortunate display of ignorance (willful or otherwise) of the subject matter. People who are smarter and more educated than either you or I have spent their professional careers researching the actual history of marriage throughout Human history and have called out the "traditional marriage" nonsense for what it is: Nonsense. Please stop peddling the nonsense and don't feed the trolls.

[hobbit709]

1. Logic and reason have no place in the thinking processes of religious zealots.

[DRoseDARs]

2. I'll tell you what, I worked on that for 2 hours and damn near had a stroke when DU gave me an error

...message when I tried to post it. I came this close >.< to seeing Jesus and getting the Final Word on the subject. ;)

[annabanana]

3. lol

We've all been there.

The actual history of the institution we know as "marriage" would be a good baseline for genuine, intelligent discussions around here. It's a pity that more people aren't interested in the necessary nutz & boltz for a really good conversation.

[annabanana]

4. k&r for a fact-filled post. Thanks. . . . n/t

[Trillo]

5. "a result of both the industrial revolution, and the media’s influence. "

If I recall correctly, the industrial revolution occurred about the same time that corporations became persons.

Prop 8 was a wedge issue.

[Antennas]

6. Good post.

"Marriage was first and foremost an economic arrangement, secondly about children, finally about love."

This is an EXTREMELY important fact that must be thrown in the face of the religious zealots.

[Delphinus]

7. Kicking and Recommending

Good information here.

I recently read an article on the 'net about the times when homosexuality was not considered aberrant behavior - will find it and post.

[Moody]

8. book marked for later. Thank you. nt

[HamdenRice]

9. In southern Africa, women were allowed to marry women, but men did not marry men

Just as an example of what your OP is saying.

The woman-woman marriage, however, was usually for political reasons. If a chief, prince or king died without leaving a male heir to take over the kingdom, but leaving a female heir, the daughter became chief.

If this female chief needed to produce an heir for the future by a wife by a particular family, she could be married to that woman, and that woman's child (biologically she was impregnated by some appropriate male) was the famale chief's heir.

[PinkoDonkey]

10. Great post!

Thanks for making the time to put together these resources! :7

[riderinthestorm]

11. You've left out Native Americans and many tribes' acceptance and embrace of gays and "marriage"

for those partnerships. They are the first Americans and ignoring them and their contribution towards the discussion is a mistake. Their history and culture is as important European immigrants in this land.

If it's not too late to edit, I would respectfully ask that you (as an anthropologist), add Native American religious traditions to your most excellent OP. They are very apropros.

[DRoseDARs]

15. Actually, it is too late to edit. There's a window of 30 minutes and I started the thread hours ago.

As for including this culture or that, I didn't intentionally leave out anyone per se. The first cultures I mentioned were simply drawn from the article to make quick summary points for those who won't read the article. I mentioned Mormons and Muslims by name only because those are the first 2 people think of when polygamy is mentioned (far more engage in it). As for gay marriage, I used non-specific qualifiers as I didn't know an exact count and such a count is irrelevant as there are a lot. The AAA article takes care of mentioning the Amerindians. It'd be a daunting task for me to mention every culture in the interests of fairness. And besides, like the article you have added additional information and you, as an anthropologist, are more knowledgeable than I. You basically filled your own request, love. Feel free to add more information. ;)

[riderinthestorm]

16. Heh! I wish I was an anthropologist. I'm just a simple farmer with a voracious

anthropology interest.

Great OP and I was so pleased to recommend it. Thanks for taking the time to write it out.

:hi:

[DRoseDARs]

18. Wait, we both thought the other was an anthropologist? Lol. What, are we both blond today?

Of course, I'm a redhead so that makes it worse. ;) :P

[Solly Mack]

12. Thank you!

K&R

[lysefish]

13. Thanks from an anthropologist.

I just taught my first-year students about this on Friday. It's great to see here on DU. The only comment I'd make is that polygamy is allowed (if not always practiced) in a majority of cultures throughout the world, not simply 'several'.

[crickets]

14. Great post. K&R

[Toucano]

17. This is like trying to explain the true meaning of Christmas.

While it may all be well and true, thousands of years of misrepresentation kind of nullifies the facts.

Perception has become reality.

But kudos for the well-researched contribution for those of us who like to know. :)

[Lydia Leftcoast]

19. I think part of the problem is that marriages in this country can gain

legal status with a religious ceremony alone. This is not the case in most countries, where all couples, gay or straight, must have a civil ceremony before their marriage is legally recognized. They may have a religious ceremony before or after, if they wish, but the religious ceremony alone does not give the marriage legal standing. This is the case in most European and East Asian countries.

The fundies and Mormons have their knickers in a bunch over the prospect of their ministers being "forced" to perform gay marriages. Well, as the daughter of a (non-fundamentalist, liberal) clergyman, I KNOW for a fact that clergy can and do refuse to perform religious ceremonies for anyone they consider unsuitable. For example, my father once refused to perform a wedding ceremony for a couple of teenagers who were of legal age but still in high school. (This was in the days when horny teenagers would sometimes try to get secretly married so that it was "all right" to have sex.) Catholic priests do not perform ceremonies for divorced people unless they have a Vatican annulment. Many rabbis will not perform ceremonies for Jews who marry non-Jews. Other clergy will not perform ceremonies for couples unless both people are members of their denomination. There is no reason to believe that this clergy selectivity would be banned under a gay marriage law.

One step toward public acceptance of gay marriage would be to require EVERYONE, gay or straight, to have a civil ceremony to receive the rights accorded married people. Then, if they wanted a religious ceremony, they could have one with whatever clergy person was willing to perform it. (My church holds several same-sex marriages per year, but Minnesota grants them no legal status.)

[Delphinus]

20. Posted on another thread too:

http://www.theloomisnews.com/detail/91429.html
When Same-Sex Marriage Was a Christian Rite
Posted by: ThosPayne

A Kiev art museum contains a curious icon from St. Catherine's Monastery on Mt. Sinai in Israel. It shows two robed Christian saints. Between them is a traditional Roman ‘pronubus’ (a best man), overseeing a wedding. The pronubus is Christ. The married couple are both men.

Is the icon suggesting that a gay "wedding" is being sanctified by Christ himself? The idea seems shocking. But the full answer comes from other early Christian sources about the two men featured in the icon, St. Sergius and St. Bacchus, two Roman soldiers who were Christian martyrs. These two officers in the Roman army incurred the anger of Emperor Maximian when they were exposed as ‘secret Christians’ by refusing to enter a pagan temple. Both were sent to Syria circa 303 CE where Bacchus is thought to have died while being flogged. Sergius survived torture but was later beheaded. Legend says that Bacchus appeared to the dying Sergius as an angel, telling him to be brave because they would soon be reunited in heaven.

While the pairing of saints, particularly in the early Christian church, was not unusual, the association of these two men was regarded as particularly intimate. Severus, the Patriarch of Antioch (AD 512 - 518) explained that, "we should not separate in speech they who were joined in life". This is not a case of simple "adelphopoiia." In the definitive 10th century account of their lives, St. Sergius is openly celebrated as the "sweet companion and lover" of St. Bacchus. Sergius and Bacchus's close relationship has led many modern scholars to believe they were lovers. But the most compelling evidence for this view is that the oldest text of their martyrology, written in New Testament Greek describes them as "erastai,” or "lovers". In other words, they were a male homosexual couple. Their orientation and relationship was not only acknowledged, but it was fully accepted and celebrated by the early Christian church, which was far more tolerant than it is today.

Contrary to myth, Christianity's concept of marriage has not been set in stone since the days of Christ, but has constantly evolved as a concept and ritual.

Prof. John Boswell, the late Chairman of Yale University’s history department, discovered that in addition to heterosexual marriage ceremonies in ancient Christian church liturgical documents, there were also ceremonies called the "Office of Same-Sex Union" (10th and 11th century), and the "Order for Uniting Two Men" (11th and 12th century).

These church rites had all the symbols of a heterosexual marriage: the whole community gathered in a church, a blessing of the couple before the altar was conducted with their right hands joined, holy vows were exchanged, a priest officiatied in the taking of the Eucharist and a wedding feast for the guests was celebrated afterwards. These elements all appear in contemporary illustrations of the holy union of the Byzantine Warrior-Emperor, Basil the First (867-886 CE) and his companion John.

Such same gender Christian sanctified unions also took place in Ireland in the late 12thand/ early 13th century, as the chronicler Gerald of Wales (‘Geraldus Cambrensis’) recorded.

Same-sex unions in pre-modern Europe list in great detail some same gender ceremonies found in ancient church liturgical documents. One Greek 13th century rite, "Order for Solemn Same-Sex Union", invoked St. Serge and St. Bacchus, and called on God to "vouchsafe unto these, Thy servants , the grace to love one another and to abide without hate and not be the cause of scandal all the days of their lives, with the help of the Holy Mother of God, and all Thy saints". The ceremony concludes: "And they shall kiss the Holy Gospel and each other, and it shall be concluded".

Another 14th century Serbian Slavonic "Office of the Same Sex Union", uniting two men or two women, had the couple lay their right hands on the Gospel while having a crucifix placed in their left hands. After kissing the Gospel, the couple were then required to kiss each other, after which the priest, having raised up the Eucharist, would give them both communion.

Records of Christian same sex unions have been discovered in such diverse archives as those in the Vatican, in St. Petersburg, in Paris, in Istanbul and in the Sinai, covering a thousand-years from the 8th to the 18th century.

The Dominican missionary and Prior, Jacques Goar (1601-1653), includes such ceremonies in a printed collection of Greek Orthodox prayer books, “Euchologion Sive Rituale Graecorum Complectens Ritus Et Ordines Divinae Liturgiae” (Paris, 1667).

While homosexuality was technically illegal from late Roman times, homophobic writings didn’t appear in Western Europe until the late 14th century. Even then, church-consecrated same sex unions continued to take place.

At St. John Lateran in Rome (traditionally the Pope's parish church) in 1578, as many as thirteen same-gender couples were joined during a high Mass and with the cooperation of the Vatican clergy, "taking communion together, using the same nuptial Scripture, after which they slept and ate together" according to a contemporary report. Another woman to woman union is recorded in Dalmatia in the 18th century.

Prof. Boswell's academic study is so well researched and documented that it poses fundamental questions for both modern church leaders and heterosexual Christians about their own modern attitudes towards homosexuality.

For the Church to ignore the evidence in its own archives would be cowardly and deceptive. The evidence convincingly shows that what the modern church claims has always been its unchanging attitude towards homosexuality is, in fact, nothing of the sort.

It proves that for the last two millennia, in parish churches and cathedrals throughout Christendom, from Ireland to Istanbul and even in the heart of Rome itself, homosexual relationships were accepted as valid expressions of a God-given love and committment to another person, a love that could be celebrated, honored and blessed, through the Eucharist in the name of, and in the presence of, Jesus Christ.