Traditionally, in socieites which accepted homosexuality, there was no equivalent of the marriage relationship for people of the same sex.
That sounds like a naked assertion not much supported by evidence. Since we were talking about Asia, here is a passage from Wikipedia talking about Japan:
From religious circles, same-sex love spread to the warrior (samurai) class, where it was customary for a boy in the wakashū age category to undergo training in the martial arts by apprenticing to a more experienced adult man. The man was permitted, if the boy agreed, to take the boy as his lover until he came of age; this relationship, often formalized in a “brotherhood contract”,[11] was expected to be exclusive, with both partners swearing to take no other (male) lovers. This practice, along with clerical pederasty, developed into the codified system of age-structured homosexuality known as shudō, abbreviated from wakashūdo, the “way (do) of wakashū”.[12] The older partner, in the role of nenja, would teach the wakashū martial skills, warrior etiquette, and the samurai code of honor, while his desire to be a good role model for his wakashū would lead him to behave more honorably himself; thus a shudō relationship was considered to have a “mutually ennobling effect”.[13] In addition, both parties were expected to be loyal unto death...
Looks like an “equivalent of the marriage relationship”, doesn’t it?
The man was permitted, if the boy agreed, to take the boy as his lover until he came of age
It doesn’t really look like a marriage relationship, it seems more like the master-disciple pederastic relationships of ancient Greece, although perhaps more formalized.
It doesn’t really look like a marriage relationship
That’s the thing, isn’t it? Whether it looks like one or not critically depends on your idea of what a “marriage relationship” is.
For example, there are a bunch of people who define marriage as a “union between a man and a woman”. Given this definition, of course the idea of gay marriage is nonsense. Given a different definition it may not be, though.
I repeat my suggestion of tabooing “marriage”. I suspect that talking about what kind of relationships should society recognize and what kinds of rights and obligations do these relationships give rise to could be more productive. If that’s possible, that is.
That sounds like a naked assertion not much supported by evidence. Since we were talking about Asia, here is a passage from Wikipedia talking about Japan:
Looks like an “equivalent of the marriage relationship”, doesn’t it?
It doesn’t really look like a marriage relationship, it seems more like the master-disciple pederastic relationships of ancient Greece, although perhaps more formalized.
That’s the thing, isn’t it? Whether it looks like one or not critically depends on your idea of what a “marriage relationship” is.
For example, there are a bunch of people who define marriage as a “union between a man and a woman”. Given this definition, of course the idea of gay marriage is nonsense. Given a different definition it may not be, though.
I repeat my suggestion of tabooing “marriage”. I suspect that talking about what kind of relationships should society recognize and what kinds of rights and obligations do these relationships give rise to could be more productive. If that’s possible, that is.
For starters, compare it to marriage in the society in question.