xssve
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2007
- Posts
- 5,854
Please cite you source for this - this is a highly subjective definition. Heterosexual pair bonding has taken many forms over the centuries, ranging from polygyny and polyandry, to communal arrangements, to social monogamy - the word "marriage" itself, if I remember my OED correctly, was originally a alchemical/metallurgical term used to describe the production of alloys - literally, "a union of two dissimilar metals". Marriage as an institution, i.e., with the blessings of legal authority, was not even common in Western civilization until a few centuries ago, and has traditionally been more of a common law arrangement based strictly on the desire of two people to declare their exclusive affection for each other, and it carried little in terms of legal implications other than inheritance.
It was more common among the aristocracy and the wealthier classes where inheritance and family connections were more complicated. Such marriages often had less to do with love than the economic interests of the families involved; marriages were commonly by familial arrangement, a political arrangement, the bride and groom having little of no choice in the matter, and it represented little more than an incorporation of familial interests.
Pair bonding is a universal concept, true, often with the goal of producing an heir - Henry the Eighth was driven to the expedient of having to behead several wives who failed to produce a male heir, because the laws at the time forbade divorce, and "till death do us part" was interpreted quite literally, in spite of numerous references in the Bible concerning infertility: Hannah, Jacob and Rachel, Isaac and Rebecca, Michal, Abraham and Sarah, etc., all resolved in various ways.
Jesus himself was the result of an affair, technically speaking.
At the same time, the Egyptians practiced polyandry, as did the Spartans, while love between men was celebrated in various forms throughout the whole of classical civilization - in fact if you want to talk tradition, same sex unions were generally tolerated, if not encouraged, for the very reason that it would not result in reproduction, thus complicating inheritance issues that were often paramount in reproductive politics.
Second, the whole idea that sexual intercourse is only legitimized by impregnation is a medieval notion: in feudalism, a given lords wealth included the number of serfs he commanded in a labor intensive economy, and thus, any practice that failed to increase his personal wealth was necessarily frowned upon - at the time, the primary literate demographic were the priestly caste, and there are always mercenary intellectuals who will rush to create justifications for the highest bidder (Charles Murray, Dinesh D'Souza) - including the Church itself, who had their own economic interests to protect.
Many of the same religious theorists who debated on whether any position other than "missionary" was sinful, often condoned prostitution - apparently sex without "sinful" pleasure was a pretty hard sell, you could do it, just not with your own wife.
But the purpose of marriage has never been simply to produce children, childless couples do not have their marriages automatically annulled - it may be a convention, i.e, what everyone expects, but legally, it's simply a legal union between two adults, and as such, there has always been some level of same sex pair bonding, whether officially recognized or not.
The legal issues, however, have so complicated, that it's high time we abandon these medieval superstitions. You, no doubt, claim to be "well adjusted", so fucking adjust.
At one time, not so long ago in fact, interracial marriages were also proscribed, by law, and you social regressives screamed bloody murder about how "ungodly" and "unnatural", etc. that was too.
Last edited:
