[Hugin]

Marriage --- as obviously defined in all of human history across centuries, continents, and civilizations --- makes sense only as a setting for procreative sex which then defines two-and-only-two people,

No, polygamy has been common throughout history for practical reasons. If a high proportion of men died in war, polygamy both took care of the widows and orphans, and allowed the clan, tribe or whaterever to procrate at the maximum rate.

[Mrs. Don-o]

You are right. I would have done better to say "Marriage, whether monogamous or polygynous....makes sense only as a setting for procreative sex which then defines a particular man and a particular woman as the natural, social, and legal parents of children."

Polygyny (not for everyone --- the numbers don't work out! --- but for the top males) is certainly more common across cultures than strict monogamy, and it fits the pattern of reproductive fitness esp. in societies where many men are missing or disabled. But these new so-called "marriage" forms being pressed upon us today, have little or nothing to do with reproductive fitness.

These new marriages are also, I will venture to say, inevitably statist, because they have no obvious social reinforcement from deepseated religious/cutural or customary practice, and thus require constant redefining and intricate negotiation and enforcement via the legal apparatus, lawyers, judges ---- ultimately, the state.