In light of the recent SCOTUS decision regarding marriage equality, many an argument has sprung up; all religious and phobic, thus inarguable. One of them is the "it isn't natural" cry. People using this argument are of course speaking from a place of contempt and sense of superiority they feel knowing the wisdoms and ways of the earth and its hominoid inhabitants and their practices. But they couldn't be more right!
The word 'marriage' is sort of boring since it only originates from Middle English and ultimately is derived from the Latin marītāre meaning to provide with a husband or wife. The term 'matrimony', however, is interesting to study. It derives from the Old French word matremoine and ultimately derives from Latin mātrimōnium which combines mater meaning "mother" and -monium meaning "action, state, or condition." So one can conclude the idea was to spur motherhood into action with a contract between a man, one or two women, the man's family, the women(s)' family(ies), the incoming children, their children, their children's children, etc and the government/authority. Quite unnatural, isn't it.
But this is only the most accepted and widespread form of marriage and we don't even know the unnatural reasons behind this holy, federal matrimony. Let us dissect those.
Property: It could be that two brothers wanted to retain their property so they made their children marry each other; incestuous but what the hell, our line must go on and our property must stay within the family. Oh it’s also socially acceptable and even encouraged in our part of the world.
I mean, in the Himalayas notably, there isn't a lot of land to go around so instead of dividing the land into further smaller spaces, the brothers marry a single woman and the land doesn't have to be divided at all. Europe solved this with impartible inheritance.
Now let's say Khadem has 5 daughters and Adam has 5 cows, Khadem must give away a daughter to Adam in exchange for cows if he wants to feed the rest of his family. In many cases, the woman given away is a child. Because you just have to give away a vessel of pro-creation (so that Adam can have more sons to plough his farms someday) and/or pleasure, regardless of its ability or consent.
In parts of China, Sudan and France, people even marry off their daughters to dead people in order to retain property. If a woman's husband dies, the deceased's brother steps in as a stand in but the widow remains married to the dead groom and even her children with the alive brother are considered to be her deceased husband's.
In our own Pakistan, we marry girls off to the Holy Quran. All in the name of property.
Marriage is marriage and property is property, whether its land or women or cows.
Male Power: Let's say that a man wanted multiple off-spring and wanted to build strong ties with (or dominate) others in his area. What does he do? He takes women from each tribe/family hostage so they don't dare try and come in his way. Just kidding, he goes and selects the women he likes best from each tribe/family and marries them all. Hence, becoming the noble lord with ties to all families and with the most children to rally to his favor.
Or there could be a disparity in the male-female ratio resulting in more women than men thus many women had to be married to one man because you know an unmarried woman is an unworthy woman and hence marriage in necessary to a good female experience.
It could be that two men had to settle a score. Let’s say Khadem stole from Adam; now Khadem must give his sister/widowed mother/soon-to-be-divorced from him wife/daughter's hand in marriage to Adam or face consequences.
Legitimacy of kids and access: This ties in with the male power dynamic but is a big factor that plays part; men need to know the child they are feeding is theirs and that they have a complete monopoly on the woman who bore them.
Love/partnership: People are increasingly marrying each other for companionship now, they find somebody they want to have kids with, travel with, spend a good lifetime with, then decide to involve their parents, grandparents and the government because that is just how we have established easy living with a partner to be like.
Let us also not forget the manner of most marriages; pomp and glory, look-at-all-the-money-I-have-to-throw-at-a-personal-one/two-day-affair, the virgin bride wears white, his bride is better than your bride, they flew in a designer from India for her jora. How natural.
So is the sacred institute of marriage. Polygamous marriage, polyandrous marriage, child marriage, incestuous marriage. Marriage for the sole sake of property, marriage to legitimise one's kids and relationship, marriage to carry on bloodlines, marriage in the name of love; all inviting governments and third-parties to engage in so partners can be held accountable in front of the world. How is such an arrangement natural?
An institute built solely for the unnatural purpose of retaining property while carrying on bloodlines, property which was a human (in spite of being a woman) at times, an institute to legitimise harm done to women to make child-rearing machines out of them, an institute that legitimises authoritarian intrusion on your personal life. An institute which preys on misogyny and sexism, on the dehumanisation of interpersonal relationships, on capitalism and ableism; how could this institute possibly be natural?
So why do we only have a problem with one, harmless, type of marriage?