|Klevius: It seems that the only individuals not allowed to legally protect their relationship are close kins, e.g. parents and their grown up children, siblings etc! Why? In Sweden one can today adopt a small child and later marry him/her! But not if it's your own blood - allegedly because of genetic risks. But you don't have to have sex to marry, do you? We don't have sex polices checking that married couples really perform sexual acts, and besides, in most countries sex between parent and child or other close kins are forbidden anyway (albeit in Sweden many don't have a clue abt relatives anyway)! What we need is a legal paper on our attachment (including custody etc)to others!
The marriage debate is now perhaps the most visible effect of the underlying problem, namely sex segregation*.
Marriage as an institution is already undermined by the very fact that biological ("natural") reproduction is no longer a legal necessity nor even a social assumption. And, on the other hand, if a married couple does not procreate or adopt children at all, no one would suggest them to separate because of this, even if they had married at young age. And what about old persons who want to marry? They can hardly have an intention of raising a family, can they?
The development of marriage (in accordance with the theory put forward in Reursbegär - (Demand for Ressources) may roughly be divided in:
- The tribal marriage, within/between kins in two camps or clans, does not bother that much about who is the bio-father/genitor (he is a close relative anyway - compare parallel cousine, brother-sister and the kinship atom/vagina gate) but rather from where the child has entered the world (the Vagina gate). This system ensures absolute biokinship and proper naming (social coordinates) of the individuals.
- The civilized/economic resource-marriage can be sub-divided in:accordance with different traditions and arrangements depending on other particular aspects of local conditions etc.
- The secular/modern "marriage" (includes formally religious marriage of different types) can be described as a union between two individuals who have used to be of opposite sex just because of a cultural delay that still contains traces of the earlier history of marriage.
So which are the options?
We can either re-connect marriage to biological reproduction and kinship (which might be tough) or we can continue the on-going path to its logical conclusion, namely a legal statement of committed relations between persons not subject to custody. The former will cause a lot of additional problems such as issues on non-biological child-parent relations as well as same-sex relations. The latter will turn marriage into an entirely new realm of free and equal individuals creating social molecules in a network under negative human rights and democracy.
Except for its role as the basis for the custodianship of newborn children biological kinship lacks almost entirely legal protection today. With a "general marriage" system everyone who wants to upheld these bio-bonds (compare the old meaning of the word religion/religare = tie back) may also do so with the help of legal protection. This would of course include grown up children and their parents and siblings. When it comes to an especially deep form of friendship, which does not include bio-bonds, then of course there are no logical reasons for making that dependent on sex. The last and perhaps trickiest question is whether we should allow polygamy. Well, again according to reason we should, although we must elaborate a system of divource etc in such a way that it cannot be misused for fundamentalist/sectarian purposes that violates basic negative human rights.
The main parameter that affects our view on custody and adoption is biological kinship (i.e. that bioparents immediately get the right to custody only on the ground of being genitors**), and sex segregation (i.e. that there is some mysterious difference between the sexes that is important for the up-bringing of children. In fact this approach is a prolonging of an out-dated cultural/artificial sex segregation that hinders more than it helps). Without sex segregation and by following the rule that children always should have the possibility to bio-ties satisfied when it is possible, there seem to be no defense for a ban on homo-adoptions etc.
* Sex-segregation is already in many aspects described by feminist scholars although they themselves heavily rest on its ultimate form, namely feminism. Its opposite, de-sex segregation is no theoretical invention made by Klevius or someone else but rather the ongoing reality out there. Piece by piece the normal everyday worlds of females and males have been narrowing and there really seems to be no way (except by willful force) to hinder this development. And therefor the big question is why we should even bother to try! In its common usage sex segregation has been associated with occupational and institutional segregation. But although sex segregation in the broader sense, as used here, does not need to be that easily visible as e.g. Purdah (i.e. Hindu or Moslem system of keeping women secluded, in solitude, in a state of social isolation) the effects may be at least the same. A good example is a typical class-room in a Swedish school where boys and girls physically inter-mingle but in reality the girls are left outside, or maybe rather are leaving themselves outside because of a mix of up-bringing and sex-role expectations, and due self-made and self-fulfilling segregational incompetency (see The Swedish Girl-problem etc.).
** As described above kin-recognition/biokinship has been the main rule throughout human history and also applies to most animals and plants. However, what happened when marriage changed into a partnership between two individuals was that biokinship was no longer self-evident. On the one hand, a father because of marriage but not a genitor automatically became father of his non-biological son, and on the otherr hand, a real genitor outside marriage automatically lost his right as a father (which could only be demanded via court under certain circumstances). Again it should be said that the main and desirable (because of that extra power potential hidden in bioaltruism/kinrecognition) path should rest as much as possible on bio ties. But when these do not apply then we cannot either use the same bio- or sex- reasoning
|Marriage, Kinship and Friendship|
|Sex, kinship and friendship: From Klevius without love (The net's most visited site on a "sex segregation feminism" search?).
Negative Human Rights for a Positive Human Future (The net's most visited site on a "negative human rights" search?).
Angels of Antichrist - The social state detaching.kinship (An article by P. Klevius, available on several sites and read by thousands).
Childless female child psychoanalysts in search for motherhood/-femininity (Klevius' non-commercial info-site has > 30.000 hits/month).
Sex segregation from Freud to bin Ladin (Klevius' info)
World Values Survey + Klevius' AIQ net (Klevius' info)
Klevius hypotheisis on consciousness and AI
Out of Africa as "Pygmies" and back as global "Mongoloids" (The net's most visited site on an "out of africa mongoloid" search).
Klevius' Interdisciplinary News: Creeping, totalitarian Islam
|If marriage is only for the upbringing of children then no one above the legal adoption age, or who don't intend to raise children should be allowed to marry!|
|KLEVIUS INTERDISCIPLINARY NEWS:
Terri Schindler-Schiavo's parents without any legal right to protect their child (see posting from March 22, 2005)!
“No mother and father should have to watch their child that they love more than life itself, be dehydrated and starved before their eyes,” the Schindler’s concluded. “Civilized societies should not tolerate such barbaric acts.”