The Urantia Book

Settings

Reading
Theme
Text size
Line spacing

Typeface

Width
Alignment
Show
Listening

Kept in this browser only.

Paper 82

The Evolution of Marriage

Chief of Seraphim

5. Endogamy and Exogamy

82:5.1Very early the sav­age ob­served that race mix­ture im­proved the qual­ity of the off­spring. It was not that in­breed­ing was al­ways bad, but that out­breed­ing was al­ways com­par­a­tively bet­ter; there­fore the mores tended to crys­tal­lize in re­stric­tion of sex re­la­tions among near rel­a­tives. It was rec­og­nized that out­breed­ing greatly in­creased the se­lec­tive op­por­tu­nity for evo­lu­tion­ary vari­a­tion and ad­vance­ment. The out­bred in­di­vid­u­als were more ver­sa­tile and had greater abil­ity to sur­vive in a hos­tile world; the in­breed­ers, to­gether with their mores, grad­u­ally dis­ap­peared. This was all a slow de­vel­op­ment; the sav­age did not con­sciously rea­son about such prob­lems. But the later and ad­vanc­ing peo­ples did, and they also made the ob­ser­va­tion that gen­eral weak­ness some­times re­sulted from ex­ces­sive in­breed­ing.

82:5.2While the in­breed­ing of good stock some­times re­sulted in the up­build­ing of strong tribes, the spec­tac­u­lar cases of the bad re­sults of the in­breed­ing of hered­i­tary de­fec­tives more forcibly im­pressed the mind of man, with the re­sult that the ad­vanc­ing mores in­creas­ingly for­mu­lated taboos against all mar­riages among near rel­a­tives.

82:5.3Re­li­gion has long been an ef­fec­tive bar­rier against out­mar­riage; many re­li­gious teach­ings have pro­scribed mar­riage out­side the faith. Woman has usu­ally fa­vored the prac­tice of in-mar­riage; man, out­mar­riage. Prop­erty has al­ways in­flu­enced mar­riage, and some­times, in an ef­fort to con­serve prop­erty within a clan, mores have arisen com­pelling women to choose hus­bands within their fa­thers’ tribes. Rul­ings of this sort led to a great mul­ti­pli­ca­tion of cousin mar­riages. In-mat­ing was also prac­ticed in an ef­fort to pre­serve craft se­crets; skilled work­men sought to keep the knowl­edge of their craft within the fam­ily.

82:5.4Su­pe­rior groups, when iso­lated, al­ways re­verted to con­san­guineous mat­ing. The Nod­ites for over one hun­dred and fifty thou­sand years were one of the great in-mar­riage groups. The later-day in-mar­riage mores were tremen­dously in­flu­enced by the tra­di­tions of the vi­o­let race, in which, at first, mat­ings were, per­force, be­tween brother and sis­ter. And brother and sis­ter mar­riages were com­mon in early Egypt, Syria, Mes­o­po­ta­mia, and through­out the lands once oc­cu­pied by the And­ites. The Egyp­tians long prac­ticed brother and sis­ter mar­riages in an ef­fort to keep the royal blood pure, a cus­tom which per­sisted even longer in Per­sia. Among the Mes­o­po­ta­mi­ans, be­fore the days of Abra­ham, cousin mar­riages were oblig­a­tory; cousins had prior mar­riage rights to cousins. Abra­ham him­self mar­ried his half sis­ter, but such unions were not al­lowed un­der the later mores of the Jews.

82:5.5The first move away from brother and sis­ter mar­riages came about un­der the plu­ral-wife mores be­cause the sis­ter-wife would ar­ro­gantly dom­i­nate the other wife or wives. Some tribal mores for­bade mar­riage to a dead brother’s widow but re­quired the liv­ing brother to beget chil­dren for his de­parted brother. There is no bi­o­logic in­stinct against any de­gree of in-mar­riage; such re­stric­tions are wholly a mat­ter of taboo.

82:5.6Out­mar­riage fi­nally dom­i­nated be­cause it was fa­vored by the man; to get a wife from the out­side in­sured greater free­dom from in-laws. Fa­mil­iar­ity breeds con­tempt; so, as the el­e­ment of in­di­vid­ual choice be­gan to dom­i­nate mat­ing, it be­came the cus­tom to choose part­ners from out­side the tribe.

82:5.7Many tribes fi­nally for­bade mar­riages within the clan; oth­ers lim­ited mat­ing to cer­tain castes. The taboo against mar­riage with a woman of one’s own totem gave im­pe­tus to the cus­tom of steal­ing women from neigh­bor­ing tribes. Later on, mar­riages were reg­u­lated more in ac­cor­dance with ter­ri­to­rial res­i­dence than with kin­ship. There were many steps in the evo­lu­tion of in-mar­riage into the mod­ern prac­tice of out­mar­riage. Even af­ter the taboo rested upon in-mar­riages for the com­mon peo­ple, chiefs and kings were per­mit­ted to marry those of close kin in or­der to keep the royal blood con­cen­trated and pure. The mores have usu­ally per­mit­ted sov­er­eign rulers cer­tain li­censes in sex mat­ters.

82:5.8The pres­ence of the later And­ite peo­ples had much to do with in­creas­ing the de­sire of the San­gik races to mate out­side their own tribes. But it was not pos­si­ble for out-mat­ing to be­come preva­lent un­til neigh­bor­ing groups had learned to live to­gether in rel­a­tive peace.

82:5.9Out­mar­riage it­self was a peace pro­moter; mar­riages be­tween the tribes less­ened hos­til­i­ties. Out­mar­riage led to tribal co-or­di­na­tion and to mil­i­tary al­liances; it be­came dom­i­nant be­cause it pro­vided in­creased strength; it was a na­tion builder. Out­mar­riage was also greatly fa­vored by in­creas­ing trade con­tacts; ad­ven­ture and ex­plo­ration con­tributed to the ex­ten­sion of the mat­ing bounds and greatly fa­cil­i­tated the cross-fer­til­iza­tion of racial cul­tures.

82:5.10The oth­er­wise in­ex­pli­ca­ble in­con­sis­ten­cies of the racial mar­riage mores are largely due to this out­mar­riage cus­tom with its ac­com­pa­ny­ing wife steal­ing and buy­ing from for­eign tribes, all of which re­sulted in a com­pound­ing of the sep­a­rate tribal mores. That these taboos re­spect­ing in-mar­riage were so­ci­o­logic, not bi­o­logic, is well il­lus­trated by the taboos on kin­ship mar­riages, which em­braced many de­grees of in-law re­la­tion­ships, cases rep­re­sent­ing no blood re­la­tion what­so­ever.