One of the things that came to my notice while watching part 2 of Origins of us (which I discussed in my previous blog post) is that monogamous marriage is not a recent innovation in human society. It is a natural imperative found in ancient hunter-gather societies because marriage was critical to the survival of the human species.

Monogamous marriage is therefore around 200,000 years old, as old as the FIRST humans.

Without monogamous marriage as a pivotal institution, none of us would exist today. 

My earlier impression – that marriage is a social institution, i.e. something "designed" by man (however unwittingly) because it was a "natural" thing to do – is incorrect. Marriage is designed by NATURE. It is in our genes.

Marriage was necessary for our species as it gave a crucial survival advantage: the wife foraged for fruits and tubers and the husband hunted animals. The combined relationship provided both the necessary calories and dietary variety, but also the necessary shelter for, and grooming of human children. 

In India a wife is called ardhangini, i.e. the other half of a person. This is absolutely correct. Husband and wife complement each other in every way, and this was not a discovery of society. It is a NATURAL MANDATE. Without the family (with a  husband-wife and children) as the natural unit of humans, humanity would disappear.

Marriage (preferably monogamous) is thus a crucial INSTITUTION OF HUMAN EVOLUTION.

There is another vital reason apart from the survival argument – that of the design of the brain of children. While the documentary doesn't talk about the survival advantages that children get from having a father and mother, it is CERTAIN that the "need" (if that's the word) of both father and mother is imprinted into the design of the human child's brain – and the role modeling that children learn this way is CRUCIAL to their survival in adulthood.

It may well take another 20 years to prove this theory, but humanity should NOT experiment  with children in the meanwhile and try to raise them in relationships that humans have not evolved from. That would amount to destroying the natural development of the brain of these unfortunate children who are used as guinea pigs and their humanity itself discarded.

Gay marriage gives no EVOLUTIONARY ADVANTAGE. This is clearly AGAINST the laws of nature. I'm even more clear about that now.

Where there is no case against a contractual relationship between "gays" on such ground (for gays are an evolutionary dead-end, an experiment that nature is conducting for "purposes" unknown), there is now a very strong case against letting gays raise children.

I'm providing a link to part 2 of Origins of us, below, in case you missed listening to it earlier. This issue of monogamous marriage is discussed in the second half.

Related posts:

1. There is no natural “right” to marriage, hence no “right” to “gay” marriage
2. A child is not a play thing – for use in “gay marriage”
3. Natural resources are not finite
4. My FIRM opposition to the idea of “gay” marriage
5. The imperative to revert banks to unlimited liability
6. My position on gay “marriage” summarised in a table
7. Our moral imperative to eliminate poverty will also reduce the rampant growth of human population
8. Graphic evidence of the results of corruption: destruction of our children’s future
9. Evidence piles up: the medical profession must reform
10. Agree with JP that even the most corrupt politician deserves natural justice