"In a disenchanted, scientific view of the world, it is unclear why we should think of even natural objects such as trees and rivers—let alone a social institution like marriage, which, contrary to the religious view, was invented by humans—as having permanent and unchangeable functions or essences." Well, you may not believe that that heart has the function of pumping blood, or the eye of seeing, but surely human institutions quite explicitly have purposes. If we don't think marriage - for example - has a purpose we should just abolish it. Problem solved. If you look objectively at marriage customs throughout history it is clear that the common themes (e.g. taboos against sex outside marriage, fidelity within marriage, life-long commitment, the assumption that a child born to a woman during a marriage is the child of her husband, customs concerning inheritance and family wealth, and ahem, the marriage being between a man and a woman) are related to reproductive objectives (establishing paternity
and the support of children by both parents, making sure parents stay together long enough to raise children, making sure reproduction is delayed until the economic means to support a family are available, etc). I would like to see an ethological explanation of marriage that does not involve these factors. Until I see one, I regard the rejection of the idea that the primary purpose of marriage is reproduction as simple "denialism". Of course that does not mean the purpose of marriage can not change. But if you want it to change it then you must make a case for a new purpose. You can't just deny that it has a purpose. And if you so radically change the purpose that little of the original remains than you can be rightly accused of seeking to abolish the original institution and replace it with something else. It is quite obvious that instituting "marriage" between two people who could never under any circumstances produce a child is such a radical redefinition. And the arguments for it have never been
made, they have been avoided by making spurious appeals to "equality". That is why I (an atheist and a rationalist) have no problem with civil partnerships (a new institution with a new purpose), but resist the institution of "same sex marriage" as a product of wooly thinking. Thanks for the book review, I have not read it, next stop Amazon!
Reply
15.