Sexuality and gender ID - a discussion

[Sparhafoc]

Incidentally, among the numerous errors being construed of my position is the notion that I am 'against' marriage.

If someone believes I have said that, or it is my position, would they be so kind as to point to where I actually said it?

In much the same way as explaining something doesn't infer that you're justifying it, so criticizing something doesn't infer that you are against it.

 

[MatthewLee]

Rhetorically that's wonderful.

Thank you.

It also means that you didn't understand my point.

Does it? Or does it suggest, as said, why the points being made become less relevant than the tone in which they're being made?

It also means that you made a bunch,of claims external to your relationship about law and national attitudes that you didn't support with evidence.

Such as?

For starters the legal definition of stepfather, if I recall. There were a host of claims. Btw,not sure where the polygamy thing came from but its not legal in any state,and is illegal and criminal in half the world.

 

[Sparhafoc]

For starters the legal definition of stepfather, if I recall.

I offered no legal definition of step-father.

There were a host of claims.

So list them.

Btw,not sure where the polygamy thing came from but its not legal in any state,and is illegal and criminal in half the world.

Wrong

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_polygamy

The legality of polygamy varies widely around the world. Polygamy is legal in 58 out of nearly 200 sovereign states...

Legal in more than 25% of the world by states.

It's polyandry that's illegal nearly everywhere, which should induce some thought as to the whys.

 

[MatthewLee]

I may have missed a relevant thread in this conversation topic, but I would say that it is absolutely unarguable that marriage was until very recently exclusively economic in concern, mostly about inheritance rights.

It's only in the last century or so that some countries have linked it to other factors like love or child-rearing, but this is a speck in comparison to the weight of historical marriage.

Comments like this could lead one to believe that you have a negative opinion of marriage. Or at the very least believe it to be irrelevant.

 

[Sparhafoc]

I may have missed a relevant thread in this conversation topic, but I would say that it is absolutely unarguable that marriage was until very recently exclusively economic in concern, mostly about inheritance rights.

It's only in the last century or so that some countries have linked it to other factors like love or child-rearing, but this is a speck in comparison to the weight of historical marriage.

Comments like this could lead one to believe that you have a negative opinion of marriage. Or at the very least believe it to be irrelevant.

Not sure how you would take that as being of negative opinion of marriage: I am simply stating facts.

As far as I can see, I actually didn't express any opinion of marriage therein.

If you disagree, perhaps others could weigh in to share whether they think that the cited sentences connote a negative opinion of marriage, or in fact, any opinion at all.

 

[MatthewLee]

For starters the legal definition of stepfather, if I recall.

I offered no legal definition of step-father.

There were a host of claims.

So list them.

Btw,not sure where the polygamy thing came from but its not legal in any state,and is illegal and criminal in half the world.

Wrong

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_polygamy

The legality of polygamy varies widely around the world. Polygamy is legal in 58 out of nearly 200 sovereign states...

Legal in more than 25% of the world by states.

It's polyandry that's illegal nearly everywhere, which should induce some thought as to the whys.

Read your own source. It specifically shows map and says polygamy is illegal and criminal,here... And its half the world.

Also, my mistake, I thought,you meant,state as in territory of the US. That 25 percent is also Muslim largely.

I am not,going to list your claims. You made them and I challenged them. I will, at least say, you did make claims about the definition of father,and stepdad which contradict the definition of the word legal or otherwise and thentold me I was wrong when I correctd you. Is this incorrect?

 

[Sparhafoc]

Read your own source.

I did... and I quoted the relevant excerpt.

It specifically shows map and says polygamy is illegal and criminal,here...

What's "here" got to do with it?

I don't use the USA as a yard-stick for anything, Matthew. I was never just talking about the USA, but was clearly talking about the world

And its half the world.

Well, about 70% odd of the world.

Also, my mistake, I thought,you meant,state as in territory of the US.

Fair enough, but no, whenever I use the word 'state' I mean it in terms of a polity, or nation. I also referred to the Leviathan earlier as a useful metaphor for the overwhelming power of the nation state.

That 25 percent is also Muslim largely.

And?

The interesting factor is rather that there are a number of Muslim states there which don't permit polygamy, which interestingly overlays pre-existing cultural traditions for the most part. Much of Africa was polygamous prior to the arrival of Islam, for example.

I am not,going to list your claims. You made them and I challenged them.

I still don't know which claims you have challenged because you declared

It also means that you made a bunch,of claims... about law and national attitudes that you didn't support with evidence.

So I can hardly be expected to respond with evidence to claims you haven't identified as not being supported.

Rest assured that I will happily provide citations for any claim of mine you wish to challenge, or I will withdraw them if I cannot.

I will, at least say, you did make claims about the definition of father,and stepdad which contradict the definition of the word legal or otherwise and thentold me I was wrong when I correctd you. Is this incorrect?

It is incorrect, yes.

You contend that I made claims about the legal definition of "step-father":

For starters the legal definition of stepfather, if I recall.

And I responded that I never offered any legal definition of step-father whatsoever, so if you wish to continue contending so, you're going to need to show where I supposedly did this.

You also attempted an argument by dictionary with me, but I haven't yet responded to that post largely on account of having been at work, but also because the post was full of nonsense like making arguments by dictionary and responding to it is going to perpetuate the same tone I am trying hard to convince you to abandon, but apparently failing.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Rhetorically that's wonderful. It also means that you didn't understand my point. It also means that you made a bunch,of claims external to your relationship about law and national attitudes that you didn't support with evidence.

For clarity, you repeatedly use the pronoun 'it' there in a complicated fashion. That usage of the pronoun in such a fashion is termed a 'pleonastic pronoun' because it functions syntactically but doesn't appear to stand as a proxy for any noun - its meaning is not explicit.

Assuming 'it' means my wonderful rhetoric, then how does 'it' mean I made a bunch of claims about law and national attitudes that I didn't support with evidence?

I really don't grasp what you're trying to say.

But any which way, I accept the burden of proof, I just can't accept a scattershot version of it because that would require me to intuit which claims I made that you would like to see evidence for. That burden is on you, I am afraid.

 

[Gnug215]

To make a long story short:

Divorce sucks. Deadbeat dads suck. Bad moms suck. Dysfunctional parents suck. Difficult relationships suck. Single parenting (probably for most) sucks. People suck.

Marriage does not fix ANY of those.

An excellent series of points, all true. Marriage isn't meant to fix them. Marriage (in this case defined as civil marriage and not just lifetime pairing) is a contract. The purpose of a contract is enforceability. Marriage assumes enforcement of the provisions that:

1. Divorce should hurt because monogamy is supposed to be forever.

2. Deadbeat dads have to pay because they are contractually obligated.

3. Mom's have a legal responsibility of care enforceable by the state's interference in their lives and possible removal of the child for their own safety.

4. Dysfunctional parents also have a legal responsibility to provide a home free of conflict in which healthy children can grow enforceable by the state's interference...

5. Single parenting should suck less because the other parent, if they abandon their responsibility in the child rearing department, has to pay and pay a lot.

True marriage is the joining of two people for a lifetime relationship that may or may not include children but is assumed to include monogamy and to supersede selfishness but represent sacrifice and partnership in love and trust. Civil marriage is the contractual formalization of these relationships which special attention paid to protecting the states compelling interest which is child rearing. The community cannot be expected to monitor this and deal with divorces, break ups, abuse and tom-foolery. The state is set up to deal with stuff like this and contracts give it the authority to deal with these things. These are facts of Jurisprudence.

I mostly agree here. We could debate point 1 for a bit, but I don't think that's necessary.

The point I want to make is that with these points, I don't really see a big difference between a marriage and a non-married relationship.

Marriage cannot be expected to reign in the terrible behaviors of humans. So I think the purported sanctity of that institution is a misplaced religious relic, a tradition from a time where it was much more feasible and relevant.

The problems (and by that, I mean basically only how we best help out children) are not, I think, solved or even helped by marriage, and we should focus elsewhere.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Marriage cannot be expected to reign in the terrible behaviors of humans.

The oldest element is still present: to account for the ownership of goods (estate) so that they can be inherited by the appropriate parties. Other benefits accrued by modern states include joint income tax and exemption from inherited spousal estate, being able to sue a third party in the event of a wrongful death, spousal priority on guardianship or conservator roles particularly in the scenario of a debilitating disease or event, visitation rights in hospitals, jails and other government institutions, making decisions about burial and final arrangements, etc..

In reality though, none of these actually need to be limited to marriage; they could all be conferred on a couple who elect to have their union recognized by the state - and this is already the case in most modern, liberal states. All that really is necessary is a process to notify the state of the couple's intent, because the state actually doesn't (shouldn't) have any say in who can marry whom.

This last is actually a valid issue with respect to anyone arguing that the state confers legitimacy to a union via marriage recognition. Plenty of couples still alive today recall anti-miscegenation laws where the state decreed that citizens with more melanin in their skin couldn't marry citizens with less melanin in their skin. I assume no one here would argue that the state should still retain that power, and all would instead argue that any citizen should be able to marry any consenting adult that they please. In that case, it is not the state which confers legitimacy, rather it is the state's obligation to recognize the free choice of its citizens.

 

[LawyerLee]

Do you recognize the same (in parity) values inherent in states with polygamous marriages, with consequent state interests in said marriages?

No. It is my opinion that polygamous marriages are inherently harmful.

First, polygamous marriages are harmful to women in that polygamy is an institution rooted in patriarchy. Is it possible for women to have multiple husbands? Sure, but the overwhelming majority of polygamous marriages consist of men married to multiple women. Women in polygamous marriages are likely to experience incidents of domestic violence from both the husband and the other wives. Additionally, in polygamous marriages, there are bound to be elements of favoritism, opposition, and competition. Perhaps Hubby likes #3 and her children a little more than #1 and her children. Perhaps #3 and #1 hate each other and each other's kids. Maybe #2 lacks the ability to have children. There is an ever-present competition for the love of the husband. This can make their relationship significantly more adversarial than it is matrimonial.

Next, it is no secret that marital conflict is terrible for children. Witnessing domestic violence is terrible for children. It is harmful to all facets of their development. There are also concerns about the fluidity of the relationship in that the marriages don't typically take place all at the same time. In other words, the relationship is constantly subject to change at any moment. Children do not get what they need in terms of consistency and stability.

It is also important to consider that while there may be multiple wives and their children, there is only one husband. He may also be the sole financial provider for the family. He will need to speak himself terribly thin to meet the needs of the different family members. He must work more to provide for them financially. He must maintain a relationship with multiple wives and each individual child. He must also, if he wants a home without the conflicts described above, balance the the maintenance of those relationships in a way that does not make one or more wife or child feel inferior. He is only one man after all!

Lastly, the dissolution of the family unit, or even a part of it would create significantly more complications. Whether we're talking about divorce or a custody case for parents who are unmarried, there are a few things that need to be dealt with.
The first matter is to determine who will be the parent with decision-making authority in matters about the children (school, education, vaccinations, dance class or martial arts, etc. ad nauseum). Traditionally, decision-making power goes to one parent solely or both parents jointly. The next matters are to determine with whom the child/children will primarily reside and what rights of contact the non-custodial parent of the child will have. These issues are usually settled either by agreement or by an order as a result of a contested divorce or custody battle. These divorces/breakups are already emotionally complex, traumatic, expensive, and potentially harmful to all parties involved (especially children). What happens when you add a second, third, or even fourth "mommy" to consider in the equation? Should they be considered in the equation or should the divorce just be between the husband and the wife leaving the relationship? Do we need to determine what contact the other wives will get with the children after divorce? Do we need to factor in the harm that could occur to the children of the wives who are not leaving the marriage? There are so many vagueries here and I'm not even going to get into how in the world child support obligations would be determined and calculated.

Any values which can be said to be inherent in polygamous relationships are grossly and overwhelmingly outweighed by the potential for harm to the inviduals, the family unit, and society as a whole.

 

[Sparhafoc]

A well-written response, thanks...

While I have a few reservations about what you've written, they pale in comparison to the main point... everything you wrote is equally true of monogamous marriage only magnified.


i) rooted in patriarchy
ii) marital conflict is terrible for children
iii) sole financial provider in traditional setup
iv) divorce sucks for everyone


But intriguingly, your position on monogamous marriages was about as far away as possible from your conclusion on polygamous marriages:

Any values which can be said to be inherent in polygamous relationships are grossly and overwhelmingly outweighed by the potential for harm to the inviduals, the family unit, and society as a whole.

versus

That being said, I believe, as does the legislature of the state in which I reside and practice that the union of two people joined in monogamous marriage is of inestimable value to society, that the State has a compelling interest to nurture and promote the unique institution of monogamous marriage in the support of harmonious families and the physical and mental health of children; and that the State has the compelling interest in promoting the moral values inherent in monogamous marriage.

My personal take on the contradiction there is that we humans have a tendency to believe that the way we do things is necessarily good, and yet find the barely different way other human groups do stuff utterly perplexing.

 

[Sparhafoc]

While I am not sure quite why this thread has become wholly about marriage given its title, I think we're a bit too far along to worry about it now.

One positive component of marriage that I think is very well grounded in empirical data (and is both historical and cross-cultural) is that young (18-29) single men in a society tend to be one of the biggest threats to civil harmony in that society. They commit more crime, engage more in violent behavior, and murder at a higher proportion than other sectors.

Marriage, however, plays a domesticating role, perhaps refocusing their attention on material provision for their families.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Edit: oh fudge it... the forum software had kittens with my reply. I'll try and edit it back in later!

 

[Laurens]

While I am not sure quite why this thread has become wholly about marriage given its title, I think we're a bit too far along to worry about it now.

One positive component of marriage that I think is very well grounded in empirical data (and is both historical and cross-cultural) is that young (18-29) single men in a society tend to be one of the biggest threats to civil harmony in that society. They commit more crime, engage more in violent behavior, and murder at a higher proportion than other sectors.

Marriage, however, plays a domesticating role, perhaps refocusing their attention on material provision for their families.

I am starting to see more benefit to marriage. I always used to think it was a bit weird to get the government involved in your relationships, but I've started to see the points raised by people who are more conservative on that front.

As I understand it, people from single parent families are at a disadvantage statistically. Having an institution that discourages families from breaking apart is potentially a good way of stopping that from happening too often. At least that would be the idea.

If someone gets married, but decides they no longer want to take responsibility for the family they have created, at least they are going to think twice about walking away and leaving those children at a disadvantage.

I don't think it is ideal. It would be nice if people did take responsibility and perhaps not shack up with someone and create new life without being committed to it. But if marriage prevents even a percentage of families from breaking down our society is better for it.



Sent from my LG-H840 using Tapatalk

 

[Sparhafoc]

I am starting to see more benefit to marriage. I always used to think it was a bit weird to get the government involved in your relationships, but I've started to see the points raised by people who are more conservative on that front.

As I understand it, people from single parent families are at a disadvantage statistically. Having an institution that discourages families from breaking apart is potentially a good way of stopping that from happening too often. At least that would be the idea.

If someone gets married, but decides they no longer want to take responsibility for the family they have created, at least they are going to think twice about walking away and leaving those children at a disadvantage.

I don't think it is ideal. It would be nice if people did take responsibility and perhaps not shack up with someone and create new life without being committed to it. But if marriage prevents even a percentage of families from breaking down our society is better for it.

I think it's a nice idea, but I don't think it is evident. It's more like a Nirvana Fallacy.

In reality, the divorce rate is very high - not quite at the highest recorded levels, but close to. It's a little under 50%, for example, in the US. So in terms of the utility in predicting whether a family will stay together, marriage seems roughly equal to flipping a coin.

Marriage doesn't actually work to stop spouses breaking up in most cases - if people find they can't live together, then it's not really healthier for them to maintain a fiction. In fact, it could very easily turn out to be the worst for them and for the children. Having separate parents may be far from ideal, but is it actually less ideal than having warring parents in your own home?

Really, the only compulsion under the scenarios provided are financial - divorces are expensive - and the only group benefiting from that are lawyers. The wealth leaves the family.

People who are committed, who are prepared to work through difficulties whatever the cost, seem likely to find a way to solve their mutual issues regardless of marriage.

 

[Laurens]

I think it's a nice idea, but I don't think it is evident. It's more like a Nirvana Fallacy.

In reality, the divorce rate is very high - not quite at the highest recorded levels, but close to. It's a little under 50%, for example, in the US. So in terms of the utility in predicting whether a family will stay together, marriage seems roughly equal to flipping a coin.

Marriage doesn't actually work to stop spouses breaking up in most cases - if people find they can't live together, then it's not really healthier for them to maintain a fiction. In fact, it could very easily turn out to be the worst for them and for the children. Having separate parents may be far from ideal, but is it actually less ideal than having warring parents in your own home?

Really, the only compulsion under the scenarios provided are financial - divorces are expensive - and the only group benefiting from that are lawyers. The wealth leaves the family.

People who are committed, who are prepared to work through difficulties whatever the cost, seem likely to find a way to solve their mutual issues regardless of marriage.

I guess I am being idealistic in some sense. I'm also operating under the assumption that a society with no legislation for marriage, where a person can leave unhindered at any point from a family, would have a higher instance of single parent children than our current society. I don't know whether the data on that exists. However if marriage increases even by a fraction the percentage of families that don't break apart, then there will be a net benefit to marriage.

Divorce should obviously exist, people need to be able to leave desperately unhappy situations, and I would always advocate for leaving an abusive marriage over not having another single parent child in society. But for those people who maybe really didn't think of the long term implications of their decision to have kids with a particular person, but are making a go of it for the kids, could possibly do with an incentive to deal with the situation they have created and do the best thing for their kids.

And yeah that would lead to a lot of unhappy people, but you have to deal with your choices especially when you are responsible for creating another life. I don't know that people should just be able to walk away from that without some hurdle, such as having to sacrifice a lot of your stuff. It's totally imperfect, and there will always be infidelity, and divorce etc. But if it disincentives even 5% of people who might otherwise leave without a legislative disincentive, then society benefits. Of course if the rate of single parent children would be the same irrespective of whether marriage exists then that argument is bunk, but if there is a decrease then the result would be a decrease in the number of disadvantaged kids, thus a more prosperous society, even if only a fraction more prosperous.

I am idealistic in that I think people shoudln't make stupid choices without really thinking what they mean. A one night stand without contraception could lead to a person who doesn't have a very good life because dad wasn't around. Something has gone wrong when society doesn't think about that. As with anything it comes down to education; sex education, which should also encompass love education and particularly self-love (no I don't mean wanking) and responsibility. Also a de-emphasis on a wife and kids being an achievement to unlock in our culture would benefit a lot of people.

Is that going to happen? Probably not in my lifetime... So for now we have the institutions we have for a reason. A least that is how I've come to see it now I've got a few grey hairs coming through

Edited because I failed to make sense at numerous intervals

 

[Sparhafoc]

I guess I am being idealistic in some sense. I'm also operating under the assumption that a society with no legislation for marriage, where a person can leave unhindered at any point from a family, would have a higher instance of single parent children than our current society. I don't know whether the data on that exists. However if marriage increases even by a fraction the percentage of families that don't break apart, then there will be a net benefit to marriage.

That's just it. I don't think the evidence supports the idea. I don't have actual numerical data to hand across all cultures (and it would be hard to come by given the nature of the point), but I do have many years of studying various cultures around the world and throughout history so I am drawing on my experience in that regard. There's still a social cost to abandoning your role and leaving your family and responsibility to them. In many cultures, this social cost would be so significant it would have a far greater impact on your well-being than the breaking of a state-ordained contract or any financial quantity. Ostracization ain't something most humans would have survived until relatively recently.

That is, of course, if you survived the spear thrust of your partner's enraged family!

Divorce should obviously exist, people need to be able to leave desperately unhappy situations, and I would always advocate for leaving an abusive marriage over not having another single parent child in society. But for those people who maybe really didn't think of the long term implications of their decision to have kids with a particular person, but are making a go of it for the kids, could possibly do with an incentive to deal with the situation they have created and do the best thing for their kids.

But the argument so far stated is not an incentive: it's a punishment, a financial one that actually negatively impacts that family regardless of the outcome.

And yeah that would lead to a lot of unhappy people, but you have to deal with your choices especially when you are responsible for creating another life. I don't know that people should just be able to walk away from that without some hurdle, such as having to sacrifice a lot of your stuff.

Common law is difficult to navigate, not least because of its lack of universality, but it and other forms of recognized unions also frequently entails having to sacrifice a lot of your stuff on termination, only that stuff has somewhat more chance of ending up with the spouse you're leaving (and therefore your kids too) rather than with lawyers.

It's totally imperfect, and there will always be infidelity, and divorce etc. But if it disincentives even 5% of people who might otherwise leave without a legislative disincentive, then society benefits.

So it disincentivizes them to leave an unhappy marriage, but this then means they are all forced to endure this state of affairs. My parents remained together - although not due to this punishment - and have been wildly unhappy all their lives. Even as a kid when the specter of divorce came up and I realized what an impact it would have on me, my brother, and my parents... I still thought it was basically a good idea rather than living as we did.

As you say, it's hard not to idealize here... but I would generalize that a family based on an unhappy union is not going to be of benefit to anyone, from the individual, to the family, to the society.

Of course if the rate of single parent children would be the same irrespective of whether marriage exists then that argument is bunk, but if there is a decrease then the result would be a decrease in the number of disadvantaged kids, thus a more prosperous society, even if only a fraction more prosperous.

For me, I'd want to look at how the kids would actually be disadvantaged, and if there's a genuinely universal quality to this, then it may be something society should seek to resolve. I think this is actually often the case in some countries, such as through tax breaks for single parents.

Can the state fill the emotional? Surely not, but then nor can the state making it so disincentivizing partners from leaving each other if they make each other's lives miserable.

I am idealistic in that I think people shoudln't make stupid choices without really thinking what they mean. A one night stand without contraception could lead to a person who doesn't have a very good life because dad wasn't around. Something has gone wrong when society doesn't think about that. As with anything it comes down to education; sex education, which should also encompass love education and particularly self-love (no I don't mean wanking) and responsibility. Also a de-emphasis on a wife and kids being an achievement to unlock in our culture would benefit a lot of people.

I agree in principle, but in practice it has always happened. In the past (and sadly still in many places) this actually results in something little different to forced marriage. I can't see how that benefits anyone. It can't even under an idealized notion produce a stable home for kids.

Is that going to happen? Probably not in my lifetime... So for now we have the institutions we have for a reason. A least that is how I've come to see it now I've got a few grey hairs coming through

Edited because I failed to make sense at numerous intervals

My sense is that it still just comes down to commitment. If people aren't genuinely committed to each other, then no paperwork or threat of financial penalty is going to change that. Whereas, regardless of marriage, civil union, or just trust - if commitment is genuine, then even the worst outcomes can be mitigated.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Incidentally, I should have cited this earlier:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common-law_marriage

Common-law marriage, also known as sui iuris marriage, informal marriage, marriage by habit and repute, or marriage in fact, is a legal framework in a limited number of jurisdictions where a couple is legally considered married, without that couple having formally registered their relation as a civil or religious marriage. The original concept of a "common-law marriage" is a marriage that is considered valid by both partners, but has not been formally recorded with a state or religious registry, or celebrated in a formal religious service. In effect, the act of the couple representing themselves to others as being married, and organizing their relation as if they were married, acts as the evidence that they are married.

...

The term "common-law marriage" is often used incorrectly to describe various types of couple relationships, such as cohabitation (whether or not registered), or other legally formalized relations. Although these interpersonal relationships are often called "common-law marriage" they differ from true common-law marriage, in that they are not legally recognized as "marriages", but are a parallel interpersonal status, known in most jurisdictions as "domestic partnership", "registered partnership", "conjugal union", "civil union", etc. In Canada, for instance, while couples in "marriage-like relationships" may have many of the rights and responsibilities of a marriage (laws vary by province), couples in such partnerships are not legally considered married, although they may be legally defined as "unmarried spouses" and for many purposes (such as taxes, financial claims, etc.) they are treated as if they were married.

...

Otherwise, common-law marriage differs from statutory marriage as follows:

There is no marriage license issued by a government and no marriage certificate filed with a government
There is no formal ceremony to solemnize the marriage before witnesses
The parties must hold themselves out to the world as spouses (this is not a requirement of statutory marriage)
Most jurisdictions require the parties to be cohabiting at the time the common-law marriage is formed. Some require cohabitation to last a certain length of time (e.g. three years) for the marriage to be valid. But cohabitation alone does not create a marriage. The parties must intend their relationship to be, and to be regarded as, a legally valid marriage.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Incidentally, the economic anthropology approach to marriage in the sense of the broad cultural universal institution may put some stitches in britches for some people.

The entire essay is well worth reading if you want to know what marriage means outside of provincial/contemporary notions.

http://www.economics.uci.edu/~dbell/marriageandlegit.pdf

a relationship between one or more men (male or female) in severalty to one or more women that provides those men with a demand-right of sexual access within a domestic group and identifies women who bear the obligation of yielding to the demands of those specific men.

Everything additional was added later, if it was added at all.