Within the past few days I've seen a rejuvenated flurry of posts and threads discussing the merit and necessity of gay marriage in our modern culture. Heated and passionate on both sides, science and religion are volleyed back and forth as if they are tear gas canisters in Kiev. I love imagining angry red faces lit by tiny foreign-built laptops, as calloused fingertips furiously pound away hoping that the next click of the "post" button will set forth that definitude-cast wrecking ball to pierce and penetrate the other's staunch chicanery, finally letting in the first warming rays of honesty and obligation to fellow man. Wishful thinking is, and always will be, our most trusted opioid.
The fact is, that while we scream and yell and dream up new witty sarcasms to lay upon the hearths of our opponent's naivete, deep in the recesses of the human collective consciousness, nature is hard at work burning and clearing the planted forests and constructs of our now unnecessary past. We are allowed to have our petty games of what we believe we need, so long as we don't stand in the way of instinct and desire, and it's never-ending pursuit of catering and accommodating what will be. Those who now, or in the past, have tried to stop it, always end up meeting their demise. Whether it be at the hand of the group or of themselves.
Marriages are failing. That is the truth. And this is not, nor has it ever been, due to what is a minority homosexual population. Given church records and census statistics, the institution of marriage has been failing since its inception, and will most likely continue on that trajectory so long as it remains an institution based upon love and preservation of individual happiness. The anterior is always there to remind us that we are multiples in life, and because of this, as a person's interests and obsessions change as often as the leaves, so goes their affections.
Modern ideology and myopic historical nearsightedness would tell us that marriage has always been between a man and a woman, when in reality marriage throughout the myriad of eras and civilizations has taken on many forms. Scholars and clergy, men and women, have tried their hand at finding that all-encompassing explanation to capture the entirety of its simple complexity.
Because there are several well-documented cultures who adopt marriage formats that had/have nothing to do with child rearing, (some could argue that even our own current generation fits within that definition now that more and more couples are choosing not to invest in progeny), or extending family, or even love for that matter, annotating one definitive calculation will be nearly impossible. If I were to take a stab at it, based on what I've seen and read, I truly believe that any potential relevant definition would have to focus on marriage as largely being a vehicle for the distribution and division of goods and/or property. That seems to be the constant throughout time.
To me, this is why marriage will continue to atrophy. It's not coincidental that as humans made large strides with technological and agricultural advancements, the labor and workforce changed dramatically making men and women less reliant on the lands of ancestors for survival. Free to roam, and free from the bondage of ancestral influence, we all became empowered to choose who we wanted, when we wanted, for whatever reasons we wanted.
Things will change. Elated or miserable as that may make you. Homosexuality, as any historian will point out, has been around for thousands of years (plainly evidenced by its inclusion in a book as old as the bible) and will remain for a thousand more. In fact, in most early cultures, the bond between two men was seen as having far more emotive value than the bond between a man and woman. We all know that with sex comes lust and ultimately love, whatever the fuck that is. And, as I just mentioned above, because choice of who to marry is based largely on emotional and spiritual interest, people of all walks of life will want to participate.
In, 'Marriage, a History Of...", the author points out that modern dogmatic law regarding the prohibition of gay marriage is relatively new (in the span of history) and was brought on when wealthy land owning nobles bribed local bishops to denounce legal unions between members of the same sex in an attempt to halt the already popular practice of elite families marrying together two men, or blood relatives (thus the churches stance on incest, an age old practice as well), so no new illegitimate children were born, or outside families welcomed in, circumventing the socially recognized practice of marrying out offspring and thus inviting foreign clans to dip greedy hands in kindred coffers. Plainly speaking, if you married your sister, cousin, or best friend, well then, no new heirs are created, so no new lineal ties, and thus you get to keep all your land. Now that the practice of dowries and land ownership rights among kin is nearly obsolete in the United States, it will fall by the wayside. Man was never really into it to begin with, as evidenced by closet homosexuality.
(The ultimate irony to me is that what was most likely adopted as a law to prevent the seemingly unfair practice of wealth and resource hoarding, an ultimate oppression to any cohesive group at large, is now a law that is a source of tension without the community en masse. We're fucked no matter which direction we go.)
I've heard a lot of talk about the injustices and wickedness that humans are capable of. But, to me, times like these show the beauty of our design. This duality make us truly unique and amazing. It's as if we were hardwired with a safeguard against our own potentially harmful non cognitive impulses. We have this ability to manufacture vehement and stalwart rhetoric, while simultaneously possessing instinctual desires that rarely ever make long term investments in said rhetoric if it proves cumbersome and needless to the momentum of tomorrow.
