http://blog.talkingphilosophy.com/?p=7581WHY GAY MARRIAGE IS ‘JUST’
In response to:
http://blog.talkingphilosophy.com/?p=7581
(The argument in the post was based upon a definition that I feel is arbitrary.)
RESPONSE:
Of course the definitional argument is flawed as stated.
One performs the following analyses, not an arbitrary definition.
1) what is the history of the institution – why did it arise, and what caused it to evolve?
2) what properties does the institution of marriage have that are unique to the institution?
3) of those properties, which are necessary and which are either optional or preferential?
4) What are the incentives of the individuals who wish to be married?
The purpose of marriage is to prevent violence over access to mates. Most violence in the world (statistically speaking) is mate, or mating related.
When property rights were developed by indo europeans, the control of reproduction moved from the matrilineal line (exchange for sex) to the paternal line (exchange for access to resources.).
When property became necessary under agrarianism, in effect, the marriage contract became a corporation for the control of physical assets and inheritance, not just for access to reproduction (sex).
Under agrarianism and property the responsibility for the economic support and care for children became a family matter not a tribal matter. (something women are still trying to reverse.)
Marriage represented both wealth and legitimacy, and evolved to become a status symbol as well as solve the problem of access to sex. Most cultures permit polygamy, however, in all cultures, very few men were, or are, wealthy enough to afford more than one wife. Monogamy solves the problem of the danger to every culture and civilization of single men – the source of all revolutions.
Under Manorialism, marriage evolved into more of a status symbol, because one could not only obtain access to reproduction, but could also gain access to land, and a household for farming. The family became both a reproductive and an economic unit.
Legal institutions developed to resolve conflicts over property in the event of death – wills etc.
When divorce became an option, the state intervened as the monopoly arbiter of conflict because there were disputes over the distribution of property during divorce as well as death.
When the state became the provider of services, those services were provided to the ‘corporation’ we call a ‘marriage’ which is a union of assets for the purpose of self sustenance, and reproduction.
It is unpleasant, but the relationship between property, marriage, mating is and reproduction is eternal. It is inescapable. Morality in EVERY culture is constructed by the relationship between the structure of the reproductive unit and the structure of the economic unit. While monogamous marriage is unnatural to man, almost all cultures, under agrarianism, adopted monogamous moral codes because it was such an economic and reproductive advantage to do so.
We are leaving that era of agrarian monogamy behind and returning to serial monogamy which is the natural (as we understand it) behavior of mankind when given longer life spans.
The reason homosexuals want access to the marital corporation is:
a) Legitimacy and status to compensate for lower status of homosexuals in society.
b) The ability to form a marital corporation for the pooling of assets.
c) The ability to use the pooling of assets to place a greater burden on the dissolution of the relationship, and a greater reward for retaining it.
d) The ability to obtain an open power of attorney on behalf of one another that comes with the marital corporation.
That we express the EMOTIONAL RESULTS of doing these things says nothing about what it is that we do and why.
The reason we rejected Homosexuality in the past is that it is innately distasteful – although the disgust reaction is higher in conservatives than progressives – much higher. The other is that we had wrongly assumed that it was a voluntary choice, and therefore homosexuals were hedonistically corrupting youth. Now that we understand that homosexuality is a combination of genetic and in-utero conditions that largely runs in families, and is essentially a ‘natural birth defect’ that causes no genetic harm to the body politic, then there remains no reason to eschew homosexuals other than some people’s innate distaste for visible displays of homosexual affection. And that is no reason to deny people property rights – access to the marital corporation.
Given that the reason for marriage is the prevention of violence, the economic efficiency of marriage, the economic necessity of marriage for child rearing without borderline poverty, the status symbols associated with marriage, the career benefits that come from marriage, the value of having a partner with power of attorney to protect your interests, and the state’s use of marriage as a vehicle for redistribution, it is somewhat illogical to force people into economically disadvantageous circumstances by denying them access to legal corporations for the pooling of interest and assets.
Now as a bit of humor, I suspect that when homosexuals decide to divorce in large numbers, there will no doubt come a day when they ask for special dispensation in the distribution of assets because of their homosexuality. But that will be a natural consequence of self interest. 🙂
I am fairly sure the reason that the movement succeeded was the active suppression of the rather excessive public behavior of some members of the community. As such both sides have achieved their objectives.
As far as I know, (and this is what I do) there is no better argument than this one -albeit for this blog I have used more brevity than is desirable.
Affections.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute, Kiev.
Source date (UTC): 2013-10-02 11:29:00 UTC