(Sarcasm if it wasn't obvious)
But that's still heterosexual.
> And cultures where abstinence/celibacy etc. is revered.
> The Na of Yunnan is supposedly one such example
But those cultures aren't thriving, are they?
I knew you'd say that. So you'd be ok with government subsidisation of polygamy?
I was only replying to your claim of universality. Who knows what will be the norm in another few centuries.
In the cultures which approve of it? It's none of my business. In my own country, no.
I actually thought marriage itself was likely to die as an institution until I saw just how much support there was for gay marriage in my own country (it has something close to 70% support now. Maybe not "vast majority" but pretty close). FWIW the lowest divorce rates in the last 50 years were all recorded after same sex marriage was legalised.
Traditional nuclear family is a tenant of many cultures, including the one I have a feeling of belonging to. Also, the amount of propaganda and censorship which is needed to push these things is quite worrying.
> I actually thought marriage itself was likely to die as an institution
That's unlikely, at the very least because of Lindy effect [1]. In the traditional sense, it is under attack though.
> something close to 70% support now
First, these things are measured by polls, and the outcome of course depends on how do you ask the question. Do you think you'd get the same outcome if it was phrased as "subsidising" instead of "the right to marry"? Plus, how much propaganda and censorship did that take? Are people free to make fun of these things or harshly criticise them without fear of "consequences"?
Official nation-wide referendum, in 2017, with 61% responding yes. 80% participation.
No censorship that I was aware of, and I would very much have been concerned if there were. Lots of propaganda, arguably more on the "no" side, but accepted, that's not an entirely objective view.
Homosexuality is not unique to humans, it's common in the animal kingdom (including humans) and only unusual in some countries for cultural reasons.
It's also universal among all countries around the world. Just some criminalize it.
What does this mean precisely?
Marriage without the associated state components (shared property rights, child custody rights, inheritance, etc, etc) seems like it would be much less effective than our current approach.
Being able to legally form a union where are assets are shared is a really useful function of marriage, and that function relies on the state to work.
I agree that it's a vague proposition in our era though. I'm just saying that it's not completely unreasonable.
If this were true then everyone everywhere would be in a heterosexual lifestyle. Demonstrably false.