As you say, Vicki, historically there have been several societies which accepted homosexual behaviour. And yet all of these societies defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman. Is there a reason for this insistence on marriage between a man and a woman, and the universal historical rejection of same-sex marriage?
I think there is. And the reason, obviously, is procreation. Not only that, but I will insist that procreation was more important earlier in history than it is now. How so? The answer is relatively simple. There were comparatively few people around at earlier times, and the farther back in history we go, the fewer people there were.
This is an animated graph of the growth of the human population since 1 A.D.:
Animated graph of the growth of humanity since 1 A.D. Here is a link to another estimate of the world's population growth since 10 000 B.C.:
World population growth history Here is a graph of the growth of the human population since 0 A.D.:
![[Linked Image]](http://library.fes.de/images/digbib/01061007.gif)
Earlier in history there were many fewer people, and the available techniques used to build houses, farm the land and produce everything else that was necessary for survival were primitive. All work was labour-intensive. Much work needed to be done, and a lot of people were needed to do the work, and few people were available.
In other words, it was critically important that societies earlier in history managed to produce all the workers necessary to provide all the labour that those societies needed to survive.
Bear in mind, too, that we have every reason to believe that child mortality was high in most societies earlier in history. If those societies had allowed a large fraction of their (small) populations to eschew 'traditional marriage' and live in same-sex relationships, producing no children, those societies would probably have been doomed.
Remember what God says according to Genesis to the humans he created on the sixth day of creation:
So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.
28 God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground."
Well, humanity has rather achieved that goal now, don't you think? Not only have we all but filled the earth - see the animated graph above - but we have subdued the earth to the point that we are about to overwhelm it and quench it:
GLAND, Switzerland, October 24, 2006 (ENS) - Earth's resources are being used faster than they can be replaced, according to a new report, which claims humanity's impact on the planet has more than tripled since 1961.
"Living Planet Report 2006," released today by the global conservation group WWF and the Global Footprint Network, says that by 2050 humanity will demand twice as much as the planet can supply.
Earlier in history, there were few people around, but a largish number of people were necessary to provide the labour needed for those historical societies to survive. It was critically important that people back then produce as many children as possible. For that reason, most societies have traditionally outlawed any homosexual relationships at all, and all societies that existed back in history have, as far as we know, forbidden same-sex marriages (or insisted on opposite-sex marriages).
But the world in which we live isn't the same as the world that our ancestors lived in. We need other things than they did in order to survive.
Sure, we need children too. That goes without saying. But I don't see any signs that humanity isn't still producing rather more than the number of children it needs to survive.
The title of this thread is 'Protecting Marriage to Protect Children'. Well, I'd say that those historical societies that forbade homosexual relationships and same-sex marriage didn't do so to protect children. Rather they did so to
produce children, as many children as possible.
It should perhaps be pointed out that Catholic Christianity has offered celibacy for both men and women as a real, highly respectable alternative to child-producing marriages. Interestingly, Catholicism has occasionally celebrated celibacy even in marriage, so that a married couple did well if they stayed childless for quite a long time back when contraceptives weren't available. But for Catholicism, too, the only alternative to marriage as a way of producing children has been a noble form of celibacy. And the reason for why Catholicism has praised celibacy may be that Catholicism traces its roots back to when the first Christians expected the world to come to an end very shortly:
1Now for the matters you wrote about: It is good for a man not to marry.[a] 2But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband.
...
29What I mean, brothers, is that the time is short. From now on those who have wives should live as if they had none; 30those who mourn, as if they did not; those who are happy, as if they were not; those who buy something, as if it were not theirs to keep; 31those who use the things of the world, as if not engrossed in them. For this world in its present form is passing away.
But few societies have, like the early Catholics, expected the world to come to an end probably within the lifetimes of most of its living members. Therefore they needed to provide for the future and create children to take care of this future. The father who was the head of the polygamous family I posted an image of earlier would have been a hero in many historical societies. Today it would not be a good thing if every sixth man produced thirty children, twenty-nine of which survived, and forced five out of six men to live in celibacy or in homosexual relationships.
Ann
