Some of us wander to strange corners of the web and since primary school I have had a fascination with archaeology, so I stumbled on two posts destroying the American uber-Catholic politician Rick Santorum’s highly conventional view of traditional marriage, as he rubbished the idea of marriage equality for LGBT people.
So here’s the world’s anthropological expert on sex, gender and archaeology, Rosemary Joyce, Professor of anthropology at University of California, Berkeley, who is definitely on the side of the LGBT angels. She rips apart Santorum’s claim that ‘“marriage” has been a relationship between one man and one woman since “the beginning of human history’, in two blog posts.
What human relationships were there around 24,000 - 22,000 years ago when the 'Venus' of Willendorf and this German device were created?
Start with her first response to his orthodox Catholic defend-traditional-marriage views at Psychology Today, What Makes Us Human:
Coupling and Culture - What has marriage been “since the beginning of human history?”
There is a slogan that I find inspiring: “You are entitled to your own opinions, but not to your own facts.”
Sometimes, though, it is hard to uphold this: trying to challenge the way that politicians, in particular, attempt to ground their policy arguments in claims about what is natural for humans can seem impossible.
And you do it knowing that the politicians involved, and their followers, are going to continue to insist that they actually are entitled to their own “facts.”
So this post is not for Rick Santorum, the latest to claim that marriage is
something that has existed since the beginning of human history as an institution where men and women come together for the purposes of forming a natural relationship as God made it to be…
Two people who may like each other or may love each other who are same-sex, is that a special relationship? Yes it is, but it is not the same relationship that benefits society like a marriage between a man and a woman.
This post is, instead, for anyone who, reading that quote, might disagree with it but think that, even taking away the poisonous argument that only procreative couples “benefit society,” Santorum has history on his side.
He does not.
Now read her second take on Sanctorum’s Catholic traditional marriage nonsense, at her own blog, Ancient Bodies, Ancient Lives where she discusses and explores the polygamy that so frequently appears in the Bible but is so completely ignored by proponents of “traditional marriage”, using her world-class anthropological expertise.
Debatable Terms: “Marriage”
In response to a provocation from a politician with a loose hold on historical facts, yesterday I posted (on What Makes Us Human) a deconstruction of his claim that “marriage” had been a relationship between one man and one woman since “the beginning of human history”.
…..
I think the post worked for its purpose.
But it has gotten me into a side exchange with a critic who has accused me of giving ammunition to opponents of gay marriage in the US today by mentioning that polygamy was a valid form of marriage in “human history” aka the documentary record in Mesopotamia and the Levant, and the ethnographic record pretty much all over the place.
Reflecting on the sidebar conversation, I realize that one of the problems with the original post– one I decided to sidestep on purpose– is that it doesn’t tackle head-on the question that has, up till now, made it impossible for me to write anything like this: what is “marriage”?
Read the rest of Debatable Terms: “Marriage”
Related articles
I have a question: Has anyone actually found a society or culture that had literally same-sex marriage that was considered the same type of thing as heterosexual marriage? I have yet to see anything of the sort. All I have seen are anomalous examples of ‘gay couples’, or some sort of ‘group’ marriage like polygamy that once in a while included a ‘male’ as a wife.
The following thing are out of scope in the discussion of defining ‘marriage’ across cultures and times:
- A few cases of same-sex coupling, with or without a ‘ceremony’; it is not “same sex marriage” unless it is a common practice. exceptions are not the rule, not in science, not in math, and not in the social sciences or historical commentaries. Unless the wider culture affirmed a ceremonial union of two people of the same sex that is both long term, sexually active, and on equal social and political footing with the way that culture defined heterosexual marriage then it is same-sex unions are NOT in the definition of ‘marriage’ for that culture.
- Cultures where homosexual activity was openly tolerated. WE are a culture that openly tolerates homosexual activity, but generally not marriage (at least not officially yet). Neither Greece nor Rome nor really ANY culture that I am aware of that tolerated, accepted, or even institutionalized some form of homosexual activity included it in their definition of ‘marriage’. The prevalence and acceptance of homosexual activity does not in anyway mean that it was included in the “definition of marriage”.
- A few rare tribal cultures that allowed the occasional effeminate male as a ‘wife’ in a collection of wives in a polygamous marriage are also out of scope. First, these are rare exceptions in those cultures. Second, the male wife is not considered a MAN, but rather a woman or some form of double gender. This does not equal same-sex marriage either conceptually or equally because the male wife is generally not considered ‘male’ in the way that the husband is and a group marriage, and a husband with several wives does not redefine marriage in the same way that same-sex marriage does because the main principle of “male and female bound together for a sexual, supportive, economic, and reproductive unit” is not changed (merely the number of females is changed). The single largest “redefinition of marriage” that I am aware of in history was the development of MONOGAMOUS marriage, which was first (as far as I am aware) widely institutionalized by pre-christian Greeks, Romans, and some Germanic tribes. The ancient south, central, and south-eastern European cultures instituted monogamous marriage before the Hebrews did.
So back to my question, are there any historical examples from any culture in human history that have people of the same body type in a ‘marriage type’ union where BOTH are considered to be “men”/”males” and not simply ‘a rare female with a penis’? And is anyone aware of a single example of a culture that officially viewed the relationship between two people of the same-sex to be apart of their definition of ‘marriage’ (as in “the same” as the relationship of a heterosexual couple)? I am aware of a few contemporary gay thinkers who argue that same-sex relationships are fundamentally different than heterosexual ones and therefore are not “the same” - today we have confused the concept of ‘different’ with ‘inferior in value’, which is a in no way accurate. THis is from modern feminism, which believes that women and men are ‘the same’, and to say they are different is to promote ‘inequality’ - this is fundamentally false because it denies reality. male and females (particularly when defined more accurately by personality and role rather than body type) are NOT interchangeable because they are NOT the same, but that does not mean that they are “not equal”. The Dao has it perfectly, the half-black half-white yin-yang represents two fundamentally opposite (opposite does NOT mean opposed) and not interchangeable forces/natures that must work together and be balanced; but the argument that ‘different’ means “unequal” seeks to destroy the balance of forces in the yin-yang and replace it with one grey circle rather than a half black and half white circle.
Also, I would like to put forward the argument that the ‘marriage being different’ in other times and cultures has no bearing on arguments for same-sex marriage in Church, or for the Church to stop resisting the its secular institutionalization. To make that argument is principally the same as saying “well many ancient societies had sex as part of their religious services so that means that the Church can change and accept ritual sex if there was ‘majority support’ for it”. Staying in scope is a difficult discipline that does not come naturally to most people, the only reason that I can even begin to identify unspoken parts of a discussion such as “scope” is due to my formal training in preparation for the Law School Admissions Exam. Obviously you are free to dispute anything that I have said, and if tradition/trends are anything to go by then you probably will.
AD, the short answer to your question is - yes. The best known example is the traditional Native American societies, who recognized that gender is not a simple binary affair. This played out in different ways in different local groups, but the common feature was that it was common for some biological males to live as gendered females (and vice versa). You reject this because such persons were not “really” men, but women: but that ignores the complexity around biological gender, which is not nearly as simple as only male and female. Besides, these two-spirited people did not necessarily follow opposite sex marriage in terms of their gender, either: some biologically male/ gendered females married men, some married women.
A longer answer would be that it’s a complete red herring to look for examples from history of “gay marriage” that closely resemble modern heterosexual marriage - because modern heterosexual marriage itself is very different from historical models. “Traditional marriage”, as understood by the vociferous lobby supporting it, is a very modern invention. Marriage has taken numerous forms across geographic regions and historical periods, and has been constantly redefined. There is no reason whatever why it should not continue to evolve.
I now make the same point, by adapting your own question:
“Has anyone actually found a society or culture (before modern times) that had
literally same-sexmarriage that was considered the same type of thing as (modern) heterosexual marriage? That is, marriage which was:a freely chosen contract between one man and one woman, on the basis of romantic love;
with am expectation of exclusive sexual fidelity on both sides;
celebrated before the start of a sexual relationship;
for the purpose of procreation;
seen as simultaneously a civil contract and a religious rite, consecrated in a place of worship by a minister of religion (or equivalent);
and where these characteristics applied routinely across the entire society, and not as occasional exception?
If there are any such, I’m not aware of any. Certainly this was not the case in ancient Rome, where sexual fidelity was expected only of the wife, or of the earliest Christian Church, where some writers valued virginal marriage more highly than marriage with sex, or the early medieval Christian Church, where marriage in church was required only for clergy, or for the political elites for dynastic reasons, or later, when the formal marriage in church came after a period of cohabitation - especially once fertility had been proved by the onset of pregnancy.
Nor did it apply in classical China, where all men are expected to marry and have children - but this did not include an expectation of sexual fidelity. It was considered completely acceptable for men to have male lovers on the side - and, if rich enough, female concubines as well.
My knowledge is not detailed enough to state categorically that there are no examples that match all the criteria for the modern understanding of “traditional” marriage, but I do not know of any. Do you?
AD, the short answer to your question is – yes. The best known example is the traditional Native American societies, who recognized that gender is not a simple binary affair. This played out in different ways in different local groups, but the common feature was that it was common for some biological males to live as gendered females (and vice versa). You reject this because such persons were not “really” men, but women: but that ignores the complexity around biological gender, which is not nearly as simple as only male and female. Besides, these two-spirited people did not necessarily follow opposite sex marriage in terms of their gender, either: some biologically male/ gendered females married men, some married women.
A longer answer would be that it’s a complete red herring to look for examples from history of “gay marriage” that closely resemble modern heterosexual marriage – because modern heterosexual marriage itself is very different from historical models. “Traditional marriage”, as understood by the vociferous lobby supporting it, is a very modern invention. Marriage has taken numerous forms across geographic regions and historical periods, and has been constantly redefined. There is no reason whatever why it should not continue to evolve.
true, thank you for showing me the deficiencies in my line of thought. This is why I comment, I am not looking for agreement, I am putting forth what comes to my mind so that I can test it against another people’s thought to better measure its strength.
but Like I was saying, the native american berdaches not being “men”, they were a ‘third gender’ yes, but they were still considered a woman (or a man if they were a physical woman):
“And although gay cultural-studies types like to use the berdache institution as some kind of vindication of the non-homophobia of the wonderful Gaia-loving sustainable Indians, as they do of the martial and philosophical Greeks, that set-up also fostered rather than challenged the dual-gender regime of the tribes and was equally constructed of clear rules, rituals and boundaries. It was really closer to transgenderism than to homosexuality because it was focussed mostly on gender roles and symbols rather than sexual behavior. Berdaches were males who were ritually transferred into the world of the female (and much more rarely, females into the world of the male.) They dressed, acted like and, crucially, were restricted to the work of their new gender. As far as I know, there was no institutionalizing of a marriage-like relationship between two fully fledged men.”
True. The “two- spirit ” phenomenon was a gendered one, not a sexual one. In that respect, I have no problem with your quotation. Where I do take issue with it, is in the final sentence. ”
As far as I know, there was no institutionalizing of a marriage-like relationship between two fully fledged men”
What on earth is meant here by “fully fledged men”? There clearly was marriage between biological males. Further, my reading from numerous sources, is that there was sometimes marriage between gendered males, and between gendered females. Some two- spirit people who were biologically male and gendered female, married men - and some married women. Some who were biologically female and gendered as male, married men - and married women.
Further, picking up on your original question, there were examples of institutionalized same - sex marriage among the Maya, and in classical China - for the aristocracy. Admittedly, this means that the practice was restricted to just a few - but why? The reason was that in early agricultural societies, children were needed for their labour, to help in the farmwork. Children were needed for the family’s economic survival, a factor which hardly applies today, when in economic terms, children are a drain on family resources, not an asset..
“fully fledged men” means that they were both male bodied and held the male gender role. THe difference is all non 20/21st century western civilizations believed in ‘gender roles’. they were defined differently by culture, but the idea was the men do this and women do that. today in the west, under the corrupted claim of ‘egalitarianism’ we assert that there is no difference between male and female. And therefore you can do whatever you want and ‘identify’ as male or female as you desire.
when it says “no institution of two fully fledged males getting married” it means “two men” and not “two people with penises”. Being Male and having a penis were not as rigidly equated as the west has viewed for the past couple of centuries. It is difficult to grasp becuase we today do not define gender by action and role in society, but try to imagine what that does to your world view for a minute.
If a man is defined by his actions/what he does in society, and a woman/female by what she does/what her role is, then being a berdache with a penis means that you are a woman/a female. This means that even though they had a penis, they were not allowed in men’s spaces or to do male activities because they belonged to the female gender. Basically, it maintains and strickly enforces the gender role/dichotomy/structure. Such things are not the equivalent of ‘same-sex marriage’ beucase they are not of the same sex (just of the same body type). For example, in this system, if you were to marry your current partner (if you have one), then one of you would officially have to take the identity of a female - identify with women, do female things, and be adressed as “she, mrs, her” so to speak. Homosexual marriage is the idea of two MEN getting married, where as the two spirit, and more or less all institutional examples of marriage between two people of the same body type, is not “two fully fledge men” but still a union between a male and a female. Basically what it is saying is that two people of the same gender cannot be married, only two people of the same body type. You cannot have two people be married and both of them be adressed as “him”, one has to be him and one has to be her, even if they both have a penis. You cannot have two husbands in a marriage or two wives in a marriage, you can only have a husband and a wife (even if both of them have penises or both have vaginas). Modern ‘same-sex marriage’ is not like this because it defines gender based on body type. Therefore, other cultures may have had “same-sex marriage” but it was not “same-gender marriage”, where as we think they are the same thing becuase we do not restrict the genders to specific roles/actions. The absence of gender roles is a largely unspoken factor of our world-view that distorts our ability to understand “same-sex marraige” in other cultures. Say the berdache thing was practiced in the early 1800′s in western Europe: while Two physical males could get married only one of them could preform male roles, and the other would be Mrs, would wear a dress and corset, could not vote in political elections, and could not hold a job. Full fledge males means a man, someone who is adressed as ‘he’ and can only use the men’s restroom, and “not” fully fledge males are those who are physically male but are adressed as “she” and can only use the women’s restroom.
Adapting your own question:
“Has anyone actually found a society or culture (before modern times) that had literally same-sex marriage that was considered the same type of thing as (modern) heterosexual marriage? That is, marriage which was:
a freely chosen contract between one man and one woman, on the basis of romantic love;with am expectation of exclusive sexual fidelity on both sides;celebrated before the start of a sexual relationship;for the purpose of procreation;seen as simultaneously a civil contract and a religious rite, consecrated in a place of worship by a minister of religion (or equivalent);
and where these characteristics applied routinely across the entire society, and not as occasional exception?
If there are any such, I’m not aware of any. Certainly this was not the case in ancient Rome, where sexual fidelity was expected only of the wife (and men could take their sexual pleasures pretty well where they liked: in Mark Anthony’s famous question, “What does it matter where I put my dick”?), or of the earliest Christian Church, where some writers valued virginal marriage more highly than marriage with sex, or the early medieval Christian Church, where marriage in church was required only for clergy and for the political elites to forge dynastic tied, or later, when the formal marriage in church came after a period of cohabitation – especially once fertility had been proved by the onset of pregnancy.Nor did it apply in classical China, where all men are expected to marry and have children – but this did not include an expectation of sexual fidelity. It was considered completely acceptable for men to have male lovers on the side – and, if rich enough, female concubines as well.
My knowledge is not detailed enough to state categorically that there are no examples that match all the criteria for the modern understanding of “traditional” marriage, but I do not know of any. Do you?
well, this reminds me of why my history professes refuse to allow us to ‘generalize’ (even though I am often quite guilty of the offense). For example, many think that Rome was a quite sexually free culture, but that is ONLY true for certain time periods, specifically the times of great corruption and instability. For example, the Rome that over threw its king and established a republic was VERY sexually restrictive, that does not mean that sexual activities did not happen, they were just not ‘approved of’ by society. Mark Antony’s quote was from the period of greatest political and social corruption and disaster in the 500 years since the founding of the republic; which is why that period saw the rise of several dictators and the Caesars. Augustus, who defeated Antony and his sex goddess cleopatra, pulled off on of the most amazing feats of restabalization of a society in human history. Under Caesar Augustus (previously known as Octavian) he established the great Pax Romana (the largest period of widespread peace in the ancient world), and created a situation that allowed for so many people to reach such a high standard of living that no human culture would be able to repeat such widespread wealth and wellbeing until the late 1800s. A major part of achieving this was Augustus’ “restoration” of traditional Roman institutions and values - including harsh penalties for sexual misconduct and adultery (including for men). He banished his own daughter from Rome for being a ‘public slut’, he made divorce extremely difficult to obtain (for both women and men), and so on and so forth. he extended this restoration to the old values of the Republic into religious, political, and cultural life as well. Though he never quite brought things back to the prudishness of the glory days of the ancient Republic, where a censor (which was an official designed to ensure morality among nobles and holders of public office) banned one of the candidates running for Consul from the race for being so immoral as to kiss his wife in public - people think christians and americans are prude, but there many cultures that were more restrictive of sex and physical affection than anything found in traditional christianity or even 1950′s America/Victorian England.
There is only one example that I can definitavly say had the same definition of marriage that we have had traditionally in the west, which is actually the pre-Christian early/middle Roman Republic definition of marriage (though the post French Revolution, and especially post WW2 definition of marriage in the west inverted the primary and secondary aspects of marriage from their 2500 year old definition: which was that marriage was for love and satisfaction first and children second). I sent you an email about the roman definition of marriage, though I do not know if you received it.