V_V comments on Stranger Than History - Less Wrong

52 Post author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 01 September 2007 06:57PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (329)
Tags: future

Comments (329)

Sort By: Old

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: V_V 25 March 2014 11:14:20PM *  5 points [-]

All known human societies, present and past, have heterosexual marriage: a man and a woman perform a ritual in front of their community and a religious figure or elder, throw a large party with lots of food, and then they go to live toghether and have regular sex, and the community will consider them a family, which entails a number of rights and obligations depending on the local laws and customs.

In many societies a man can marry multiple women, although usually only high status men do it. In very few societies a woman can marry multiple men, usually brothers or cousins. But even in a polygamous marriage the marriage relationship is largely intended to be binary: one party can be married with multiple parties, but these other parties aren't married to each other. They have few mutual rights and obligations and are generally not expected to have sex with each others.

Traditionally, in socieites which accepted homosexuality, there was no equivalent of the marriage relationship for people of the same sex. Homosexual relationships were intended to be pre-marital and extra-marital, occurring aside heterosexual family-building marriage.
Cohabitation and regular sex between unmarried people of the same sex may have been tolerated, but it was not encouraged, and certainly not given social or legal recognition.

Legally and socially recognized homosexual marriage only occurs in some modern Western societies.

EDIT:

Apparently, some ancient societies did give some degree of legal recognition to same-sex unions, although not equivalent to heterosexual marriage: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_unions

Comment author: EHeller 26 March 2014 12:10:01AM *  1 point [-]

I'm not sure this is true. In ~350 Emperor Constantius II ordered executions of people who were same-sex married, and outlawing it going forward. It seems this law would be unnecessary if legal, same-sex marriages weren't rarely occurring and legally recognized in Republican Rome. Also, Nero famously married two men, so there were at least two legally recognized Roman same-sex marriages, if only legal by will of the emperor.

Also, many traditional societies (the Gikuyu and Nandi for instance) have same-sex or third-sex marriage as a legal practice to deal with inheritance. Its purpose is not sexual, but nothing stops it from becoming so. Native American tribes had marriages between berdaches and men. The fuijan, in China, also had religious same-sex marriages (I have no idea if they were legally, but according to Passions of the Cut Sleeve they were socially recognized).

Comment author: V_V 26 March 2014 12:25:53PM 1 point [-]

Emperor Nero was known for being a weirdo, hence I wouldn't consider him as representative of Roman culture.

Anyway, according to Wikipedia, stable or semi-stable same-sex relationships were given some degree of legal recognition in Rome and other ancient societies, hence it appears that my original claim should be weakened.

Comment author: Lumifer 26 March 2014 12:11:30AM *  0 points [-]

Traditionally, in socieites which accepted homosexuality, there was no equivalent of the marriage relationship for people of the same sex.

That sounds like a naked assertion not much supported by evidence. Since we were talking about Asia, here is a passage from Wikipedia talking about Japan:

From religious circles, same-sex love spread to the warrior (samurai) class, where it was customary for a boy in the wakashū age category to undergo training in the martial arts by apprenticing to a more experienced adult man. The man was permitted, if the boy agreed, to take the boy as his lover until he came of age; this relationship, often formalized in a "brotherhood contract",[11] was expected to be exclusive, with both partners swearing to take no other (male) lovers. This practice, along with clerical pederasty, developed into the codified system of age-structured homosexuality known as shudō, abbreviated from wakashūdo, the "way (do) of wakashū".[12] The older partner, in the role of nenja, would teach the wakashū martial skills, warrior etiquette, and the samurai code of honor, while his desire to be a good role model for his wakashū would lead him to behave more honorably himself; thus a shudō relationship was considered to have a "mutually ennobling effect".[13] In addition, both parties were expected to be loyal unto death...

Looks like an "equivalent of the marriage relationship", doesn't it?

Comment author: V_V 26 March 2014 12:11:50PM 6 points [-]

The man was permitted, if the boy agreed, to take the boy as his lover until he came of age

It doesn't really look like a marriage relationship, it seems more like the master-disciple pederastic relationships of ancient Greece, although perhaps more formalized.

Comment author: Lumifer 26 March 2014 03:01:18PM *  2 points [-]

It doesn't really look like a marriage relationship

That's the thing, isn't it? Whether it looks like one or not critically depends on your idea of what a "marriage relationship" is.

For example, there are a bunch of people who define marriage as a "union between a man and a woman". Given this definition, of course the idea of gay marriage is nonsense. Given a different definition it may not be, though.

I repeat my suggestion of tabooing "marriage". I suspect that talking about what kind of relationships should society recognize and what kinds of rights and obligations do these relationships give rise to could be more productive. If that's possible, that is.

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 27 March 2014 12:29:44AM 3 points [-]

Whether it looks like one or not critically depends on your idea of what a "marriage relationship" is.

For starters, compare it to marriage in the society in question.

Comment author: Ceph 16 October 2015 03:01:11AM 0 points [-]

The religious leader is not actually required in marriage cerimonies for all religions.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit