With the divorce of marriage from child-producing hetero-sexual sex both from the pill and so called gay “marriage”, the author argues that marriage cannot be effectively denied on the basis of sex or sexual orientation thus permitting a host of adult relationships to claim the rights of marriage. This will inevitably lead to the lost of kudos for marriage leading us toward a “marriageless – and as the author argues a “fatherless” – society in which it is no longer seen as acceptable that men should be penalised for casual sexual relationships when it is women and not men who are in control of her fertility.
What then would this society look like? Fortunately we can see what it might look like from the Mosou ethnic group in China where they have walking marriages. However this arrangement of mother-centred society would only suit socially immobile groups such as those on “benefit estates”. Thus there is no real conclusion as to who would fund most child care – particularly amongst the affluent socially mobile care in the marriageless society.
Marriage is a socially endorsed relationship between a man and a women – which society endorses because it protects us and the children from such relationships from the idiocy and selfishness of parents. In other words, marriage is a way to prevent unwanted children – or at least proscribe in very clear terms who society expects to look after them.
And it is unequivocally equal – because whatever the nature of the child, marriage gives the same protection to all children.
However, for the last century or so, we in the West have been bombarded with what can only be described as “Romantic bullshit” from Holywood and authors like Geoffrey Archer who have created a modern myth that marriage is about romance – but more importantly it is ONLY about romance. And by divorcing marriage from its actual purpose – which is the protection of children and ascribing it only to a Holywood fictional idea of “romance”, the idea grew up that because you could get same sex romance – there was no reason to deny them marriage.
The immediate impact on marriage
I’ve nothing against giving homosexuals equality, however, just as men cannot be given equality in child birth to women, it’s a simple fact that only heterosexual relationships can create the problem of unwanted children. But by attempting – and I say attempting, because what marriage actually means is not defined by law – by attempting to change the nature of marriage, politicians have in reality changed marriage from being the social endorsement and support for relationships that can bear children, to being one where it matters not at all about children at all.
But … in reality, this has been an ongoing trend since the introduction of the birth control pill. That sex occurred outside marriage in the past was a matter of fact from the number of women who married whilst pregnant (or miraculously had a much shorter term than nine months!). But the social taboo was huge and it has been suggested that whilst sex before marriage did take place, it was largely confined to those who were intending to get married.
And sex and marriage were locked together because (unless infertile) sex inevitably meant child bearing.
And yes there were other relationships. Before modern medicine, life was pretty short and often one spouse would die meaning the “nuclear” family was not as typical. But also before modern domestic appliances, there was plenty of work around the house and many households had unrelated live in servants. The result was that most households had a variety of people living together – some married, some family and some not – and there was much more variety in society and there was not just one “template” for a household.
The death of the Nuclear family
Thus the nuclear family as the only template for a household is a very recent introduction – coming after the advent of modern medicine that meant most marriages lasted a long time, after the advent of domestic appliances – that removed servants from most houses, and after the advent of Holywood and cheap romantic fiction – which created the “romantic template” of “marriage” which started the rot to divorcing marriage from children.
However, whilst Holywood and romantic fiction started the rot, the pill broke the mould of traditional marriage by removing the inevitability of children as a result of sex. And perhaps the final straw, was a host of “well intentioned” legislation forcing absent fathers to pay for their children and others providing welfare to women who did not want the inconvenience of living with a man.
The Legal problems with Gay “marriage”
In essence, marriage was society condoning a man and woman having sex. Not because sex was in itself important (as can be shown in certain societies – see later), but because sex led to children, and in effect, society was saying: “it’s now OK for you to have sex – ONLY BECAUSE you have agreed that you yourselves will look after any children that result”. So, the legal (i.e. morally neutral) rational for controlling sex through marriage was to protect a third party (namely children).
However, once the pill divorced the immediacy of the connection between sex and marriage, the legal rational (marriage protects children) was reduced leaving the main rational for marriage being the moral one of “society condoning or otherwise sex between couples”.
And whilst in the early 20th century it was still accepted that society could and did have an obsession with sex – that is when we lived in an era when the Church could force law to proscribe morals – in an era of “Universal rights” which are divorced from that on any religion, it is not longer permissible for the church to enforce its morals onto the law.
Thus with the divorce between sex and children, leading to a divorce between marriage and children and the decline of the power of sexual morals to dictate law, it became possible to make the argument that marriage was only a legal relationship between adults – and therefore it was not possible to discriminate on the grounds of sexual orientation.
If you define marriage so as to divorce it from “sex-produced” children, then as sex which is divorced from children is purely a moral issue – because sex between adults has no impact on any third party, then who we have sex with or not, is a purely a moral issue and has no relevance to this new definition of “marriage”.
In other words, if we define marriage to be divorced from children, then what type of sex or whether sex is or is not part of the relationship is NOT A LEGAL ISSUE BUT A MORAL ISSUE.
Polygamy and other multiple marriages
The rationale to change the definition of marriage was that the law could not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. However, monogamy is just as much part of someone’s sexual orientation as is homosexuality. If someone’s desired sexual coupling is with multiple partners (and I hardly need argue how prolific that reality is in modern society) – then how can the law discriminate against those who wish to live with multiple sexual partners? The simple answer, is once you take morality out of law – and take away the linchpin that defined marriage as being about children – and make it just about adults, there is no legal way to bar marriage to people of ANY SEXUAL ORIENTATION and that includes those who prefer multiple partners.
Thus it is simply a matter of time before those whose sexual orientation is for “group-sex” successfully win a case to permit men having multiple wives, wives having multiple husbands and even multiple men and multiple women all being inter-“married”.
But with Gay “marriage” you cannot discriminate against sexless marriage
To explain this, let us suppose that someone is born with no sexual organs. For simplicity lets call them a “Eunuch”. If marriage was defined by the act of who we had sex with – then it follows quite simply that a Eunuch cannot marry because they have no means to indulge in sex (or indeed, they may have no interest in it at all).
Thus like “homosexual” “no sexual desire” becomes a “gender” that the law cannot discriminate against. I think any reasonably person would see that this is a logical extension of the idea of redefining marriage to include Gay “marriage”.
Now – having shown that the law cannot proscribe that sex is part of marriage – we must now accept that in order to allow no discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation – and thus include no sexual orientation at all, the law cannot proscribe sex is or is not part of marriage.
In other words: the law CANNOT say “sex is part of marriage”.
Let’s take a simple example. Let us suppose there are two people who have no romantic attachment to each other but just want to get married as a statement of some form. Let’s as an example take the Archbishop of Canterbury and the pope – who “marry” as a symbolic union between the two churches. They do not live together, they certainly do not have sex with each other, they are “married” in name only.
But legally, because the law cannot discriminate on sexual orientation or none – it cannot dictate sexual conduct in marriage (only morals can), so it cannot prevent any two consenting adults getting married (only morality can), because the law cannot proscribe that sex is or is not part of marriage.
The implications that the law cannot proscribe sexual conduct in marriage
The law cannot say you must have sex, the law cannot say you mustn’t have sex outside marriage, when marriage is defined as to remove the key ingredient of children, there is no legal way for the law to dictate sexual conduct at all – except through the general rules that apply to all society.
Society can condone who we have sex with, likewise morality can condone or otherwise, but the law must be based on reason and not value laden morality. So, the law cannot say the Archbishop of Canterbury cannot marry the Pope because they lack Romantic attachment, or because they’re not going to have sexual relations.
However the converse of that is that just as the law cannot stop people getting married because they do not intend having sex with each other, it cannot prevent people getting married assuming they will have sex with each other.
Let’s start with the simple example: two sisters that have shared their home since childhood and like the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Pope have no intention of getting married. On what basis can the law dictate to them that sex is a part of marriage – and that because they don’t intend having sex they cannot marry? NOT AT ALL!
Sex is only important to society because of it’s link to children. But Gay “marriage” says that marriage has nothing to do with children and because the law cannot proscribe or dictate sex within marriage (except for the wider laws on the issue) – you cannot bar marriage to adults simply because they will not be producing children – which means you cannot bar marriage to simply because they will not be having sex with each other.
Which means, you cannot bar two sisters from getting married, nor can you bar a brother and sister. Yes, the law bars sex between brother and sister – but as the law cannot proscribe or deny or otherwise comment on sex in marriage – as I have argued above it cannot be a grounds to deny marriage.
If that sounds odd ask yourself the following:
- Can the law stop a brother and sister living together?
- Now that gay “marriage” has divorced the connection between sex-produced children and marriage, how can the law deny marriage to people just because they cannot have sex with each other – either due to (no) sexual orientation – or legal prohibition?
Take children out of marriage, and it simply becomes a set of laws to do with one partner acting for another, inheritance etc. it’s just a relationship which the law cannot link to children/sex So..
Gay “marriage” is de facto “sexless marriage”.
The future of Marriage
Unless we see a massive change away from “universal human rights” and the reintroduction of moral-based laws (which inevitably means saying whose morals are right and whose are wrong) … what I have described above is simply what will happen … given time for enough people to go to court.
Thus the possible scenarios are:
End of Gay “marriage” – and relinking to children.
One possible way that society may change, is to refocus marriage on children and to agree with the millennium old definition that marriage is the way to protect children from the stupidity of parents (and I might add politicians). However, this would be difficult in the face of a society where the pill has largely broken the link between sex and children – and therefore between marriage and children.
Recreation of marriage in some other form – linked to children
Another possibility, is that marriage is irreparably changed to be just a “selfish”, largely meaningless statement by adults – which is increasingly downgraded as anyone and everyone gets to be married, but that some kind of new institution is created – either by society in general – or less likely endorsed by politicians, which recognises the importance of hetero sexual relations and their unique importance in the family which is so important to society.
The de-legalisation of Marriage
One possible scenario, as “marriage” becomes increasingly complex for legislators, where it becomes more and more impossible to link any laws or benefits to the institution and that it becomes increasingly nightmarish for the politicians that created the mess, is that having created havoc – they will inevitably try to dump the problem. That likely means that “marriage” stops being something that is “licensed” by the state.
That is to say, most of the legal status of getting married would disappear, and instead, “marriage” would be farmed out to those groups who have a specific interest: the churches, other religion or other “moral” groups like humanists.
Then, for supposedly very specific reasons to do with looking after children – it is likely politicians will re-introduce de facto marriage by creating some form of contract between hetero-sexual couples outlining provisions for the protection of their children.
The move to the Marriageless society
Another possibility, is that as marriage becomes more and more meaningless, as more and more children are born outside the traditional nuclear family, that we move increasingly toward a society where only a small minority get married.
In this society, marriage has nothing to do with children, but also it has little to do with romance. Or to turn it around – it is a society where just because two people are romantically involved – it is no way implies they should get married. But it also implies there is no link between sex and marriage, sex & children, and THEREFORE between (male) sex and caring for children.
Because in a society where it is expected to have many casual sexual relationships, where women are in control of their own fertility – how can a man be penalised if THE WOMAN fails to control her fertility?
That was the whole reason we had marriage – men were contractually obliged to look after their children. But when men have no control over whether women get pregnant – except by abstinence – but now non-abstinence is the social norm – where people having sex have no intention at all of producing children … when men are not in control of what women do with their bodies – how can men be held accountable for their children?
Assigning responsibility for children to men – is part of the monogamous marriage society. But if society moves away from monogamous, if there is no link between marriage, sex, and looking after children, then that society will not tolerate men suffering the consequences of (some) women failing to control their fertility. And if some feminists complain – a Gay “marriage” society – where marriage is no longer an altruistic act to protect children, is by definition a selfish society. A society where adult men – who are (largely) powerless to prevent women abusing their sexual urges, will no longer see it as their responsibility to look after children.
Child-care in the Marriageless Society
Thus a marriageless society is one where adult men will no longer accept responsibility for children. And it is not too hard to see that this kind of society already exists on many “benefit estates”.
Thus who should look after the children in a marriageless society? Unfortunately for women, whereas men can argue that they had no control over the women’s fertility (or were duped), women can’t argue the same. So, as has been the case throughout time immemorial women will burden the majority of the cost and effort of child rearing in the marriageless society.
But then we get back to the age old question – if women are doing the lion’s share of child-caring – how will they afford to look after them?
– State-funded child-rearing
One option is the “benefit estate” model, which is that increasingly society becomes split between single men (with no responsibilities and loads of cash) and single mothers (with all the responsibilities and much less money except that the state provides).
Remember! This is not necessarily the kind of relationships that anyone will intend for themselves. No doubt (at least at first) most people will aim to have their own “nuclear family”. But with little social kudos for marriage, easy divorce, and increasingly generous state benefits to ease the transition to marriageless child rearing – and with absolutely no social or legal pressure on men to contribute to child-care as will happen – an increasing number of people will join the marriageless society until it becomes the de facto norm for all parts of society.
– Family centric child-rearing
Imagine the society: women are struggling to raise children, often divorced or in desperate need of child care having to rely on family. In contrast, young men – perhaps with 2-3 children of their own through several relationships – but no prospect of getting married – and therefore still living with “mum” with well paid jobs. Now it is the men who are bringing most of the income into the family – but ironically, rather than paying to look after their own children, they are now paying to look after their own nieces and nephews.
And why? Because whereas a marriageless society divorces men from responsibility for their own children -the now “mother-centric” society means that their strongest bond is with their own mother (they may not even know who their father is, let alone get any support from them). But that means that the children they feel obliged to care for are not their own children – but those of their sister.
Or to view that more cynically – without a marriage “contract” to force them to support women, the only women who can rest their money from their greedy hands are their mothers and sisters.
The Mosou Family centric Marriageless Society
Whilst such a society and its implications may be difficult to imagine, fortunately the world already has such a society and so we can envisage what such a society may look like without too much difficulty.
The Mosou in China are an ethnic group around Lake Lugu. In this society, they practice what they term as “Walking marriages” in that women and men form relationships, where they have sex, but they each remain in their mother’s home.
However, what is important to know, is that these homes are large mansions with space for many families built by siblings for each other. Also, because it is the mother’s home, because her daughters have the family, it is naturally the women who inherit property from their other mother.
Is this going to become the norm in Britain?
Given the historical development of the Mosou society and the current social trends in the UK amongst low income “benefit estates” – without the state stepping in to become “state guardian” with all the responsibility for funding child-care, it seems almost inevitable that in the absence of actual fathers to many children, that these estates (with poor social mobility) will increasingly turn into Mosuo style matriarchal “mother empires” with a lot of children living at home and bringing in money to their own (i.e. mother’s) family rather than that of some estranged/stranger women.
However … there is a huge problem for the Mosuo style “mother-centric” society – which is if children are geographically mobile and leave the parental home – then “uncles” will no longer see the relevance of supporting their nieces and nephews in the same way.
Thus I can see a social division starting to occur between low-income estates filled with “mother-centric” families like the Mosou and higher income social mobile social groups where family members will naturally disperse preventing the establishment of the men-supporting nieces and nephews, mother-centric household.
However, almost by definition, governmental politicians are all part of the socially mobile group. Thus we can expect government policy to be entirely adapted for their needs and totally alien the realities of socially immobile impoverished groups (as they always are).
As there appears to be no other template, amongst the socially mobile group, the “nuclear family” will continue to be what they espouse, but with increasing contempt from both men and women and government policies continue to support single families and (as tends to be their way) to penalise hetero-sexual couples. Thus marriage break-up and single mother households must be expected to become the norm even amongst the socially mobile. However who funds child care or how the law supports women who will likely continue to share the lion’s share of childrearing is hard to see.