Marriage

[Duxwing]

Dear Forum,

Why do we marry?

-Duxwing

 

[Chad]

I got married for love, companionship, and a life time commitment.

The last one is the logical kicker the first two are just help balance my emotions with my need for a sexual relationship.

Also, as long as my marriage is faithful I have little need to fear of STDs.

 

[HDINTP]

I would also like to know why. As I think about it I would say it brings lots of risks when you marry. Still you can justify your sexual needs and so you feel more balanced isn't it? However it also may bring more positive things like someone takes care of you when you get to desperate situation in your life. The problem I have here is that Human males are not monogamous...

 

[Duxwing]

I would also like to know why. As I think about it I would say it brings lots of risks when you marry. Still you can justify your sexual needs and so you feel more balanced isn't it? However it also may bring more positive things like someone takes care of you when you get to desperate situation in your life. The problem I have here is that Human males are not monogamous...

Let's not turn this into a man-hate thread: Neither are human females.

-Duxwing

 

[Duxwing]

I got married for love, companionship, and a life time commitment.

The last one is the logical kicker the first two are just help balance my emotions with my need for a sexual relationship.

Also, as long as my marriage is faithful I have little need to fear of STDs.

Why would one want to even pretend to commit for the rest of one's life? What if one or one's partner changes, thereby rendering the marriage unworkable? Divorce is possible, but if one knew that such an event were possible, then why ever profess a lifetime commitment? For the sake of enjoyment, relationships should last as long as both parties gain from them, and no longer.

As for STD's, isn't the better option simply openness? That is, any number of people can have sex if they all know who their partners are having sex with.

-Duxwing

 

[Chad]

I would also like to know why. As I think about it I would say it brings lots of risks when you marry. Still you can justify your sexual needs and so you feel more balanced isn't it? However it also may bring more positive things like someone takes care of you when you get to desperate situation in your life. The problem I have here is that Human males are not monogamous...

I am monogamous and I am quite sure that I am both human and male.

This is not to say I would never be temped not to be monogamous but I hope I would be mature enough to deal with my basic sexual urges responsibly.

 

[HDINTP]

I am monogamous and I am quite sure that I am both human and male.

This is not to say I would never be temped not to be monogamous but I hope I would be mature enough to deal with my basic sexual urges responsibly.

Ok I did not want to make this man-hate thread but it is true it could be percieved like that so...

 

[GodOfOrder]

Marriage originally began as a business contract, and was later repurposed to be about love. So really, like anything else, it can be traced back to our pocket books. And even if it is about love or sex, it is still done for purposes of a perceived mutual advantage.

In older times, it was the advantage of the family, for political or financial gain, not in the interests of the bride, but likely the husband and father of the bride. In modern times, it is done out of a spirit of similar advantage, but only between the two parties involved in the marriage, the husband and wife.

If it is about sex, it is about securing a partner of regular availability, and one that is claimed and secured. It is a matter of sexual convenience. If about love, it is about intimacy derived from assured exclusivity. If it is about money, it is likely about taxes, or otherwise reduced expense, or perhaps older notions of political gain. It is likely that all three, or four, motivators are at work here.

This guaranteed exclusivity that comes with marriage also potentially makes procreation easier, as one has the protection and division of labor that comes with their partner. It is easier to raise a child between two responsible people than one.

 

[Chad]

Why would one want to even pretend to commit for the rest of one's life? What if one or one's partner changes, thereby rendering the marriage unworkable? Divorce is possible, but if one knew that such an event were possible, then why ever profess a lifetime commitment? For the sake of enjoyment, relationships should last as long as both parties gain from them, and no longer.

As for STD's, isn't the better option simply openness? That is, any number of people can have sex if they all know who their partners are having sex with.

-Duxwing

You gain form commitment as more then personal enjoyment. Commitment is in many ways a form of delayed gratification and Its very hard work at times but at other times its very rewarding to know that you made it through and that the other person made it through with you.

Marriage is like a life long friendship that both parties are commuting too. With the commitment the person you are with could just up and leave you one day for no reason. Yes, in are current world this is still possible in marriage too. However, it should be frowned upon in my opinion.

Divorce is should be allowed because sometimes people are fake before you marry them. Also at times it become dangerous to live with people that are abusive or self destructive. In these cases I find divorce to be the lesser of two evils. (people really shouldn't take marriage lightly and there should be more soul searching done on both sides before the marriage happens in the first place).

Commitments also make raising children more practical. As it very hard to raise children and therefore spreading the work load between two able bodied people is much more reasonable.

In the end marriage is a personal chose and it's not for everybody. I am hear explaining why I choose to get married but I may not have made this choice if my life wasn't were it was at the time I chose it.

As far as the open multiple partner idea and STDs. Look at the 70's it is a good practical test of were free open sex leads too.

You can do it if you wish you are not accountable to me. However, all it takes is one person being dishonest and a lot of people will get sick and some may even die.

I personally feel the risk is too high.

 

[Absurdity]

Why do we marry?

Fear, love, lust, stupidity, boredom, convenience, unexpected pregnancy, social expectations, money, sex, tax benefits, draft-dodging, citizenship, kids, grandkids, immortality, political alliance, free housekeeping, social climbing, religious obligation, security, and because I majored in communications in college and joined a sorority.

 

[Chad]

Marriage originally began as a business contract, and was later repurposed to be about love. So really, like anything else, it can be traced back to our pocket books. And even if it is about love or sex, it is still done for purposes of a perceived mutual advantage.

In older times, it was the advantage of the family, for political or financial gain, not in the interests of the bride, but likely the husband and father of the bride. In modern times, it is done out of a spirit of similar advantage, but only between the two parties involved in the marriage, the husband and wife.

If it is about sex, it is about securing a partner of regular availability, and one that is claimed and secured. It is a matter of sexual convenience. If about love, it is about intimacy derived from assured exclusivity. If it is about money, it is likely about taxes, or otherwise reduced expense, or perhaps older notions of political gain. It is likely that all three, or four, motivators are at work here.

This guaranteed exclusivity that comes with marriage also potentially makes procreation easier, as one has the protection and division of labor that comes with their partner. It is easier to raise a child between two responsible people than one.

Very well said. I love it when someone else says what I am thinking way better then I could have said it.

 

[Back2Basics]

Why do children have to be raised only by their parents, shouldn't the whole world voluntarily and cooperatively raise younger generations?


Marriage is a scam, why do you need the label of "married" to reproduce or have a committed relationship with someone? I am committed to family and yet I don't have a contract to prove it. Same with my relationship with my Company, and if i quit I don't have to go to a judge to justify myself. OH HONORABLE PLEASE VALIDATE MY DISCOMFORT

 

[Chad]

Why do children have to be raised only by their parents, shouldn't the whole world voluntarily and cooperatively raise younger generations?


Marriage is a scam, why do you need the label of "married" to reproduce or have a committed relationship with someone? I am committed to family and yet I don't have a contract to prove it. Same with my relationship with my Company, and if i quit I don't have to go to a judge to justify myself. OH HONORABLE PLEASE VALIDATE MY DISCOMFORT

Why would the whole world voluntarily and cooperatively raise your children? Personal responsibility is important.

You don't need to be labels married to reproduce or have a committed relationship with someone. At least not were I live I am not sure were you live so I can't be 100% sure.

Anyway all you need to reproduce is to have sex. Marriage is a about security and commitment. Having sex is just about sex.

 

[Duxwing]

Why would the whole world voluntarily and cooperatively raise your children? Personal responsibility is important.

You don't need to be labels married to reproduce or have a committed relationship with someone. At least not were I live I am not sure were you live so I can't be 100% sure.

Anyway all you need to reproduce is to have sex. Marriage is a about security and commitment. Having sex is just about sex.

And that same security and commitment cannot be achieved by a simple question, "Will you help me raise the kids and take care of me when I'm hurt?"

-Duxwing

 

[Chad]

And that same security and commitment cannot be achieved by a simple question, "Will you help me raise the kids and take care of me when I'm hurt?"

-Duxwing

This is true you can take this approach if you wish. However, if you are willing to make it work then what does it hurt to make it official.

I am not saying you have to or your should even.

 

[Back2Basics]

Why would the whole world voluntarily and cooperatively raise your children? Personal responsibility is important.

You don't need to be labels married to reproduce or have a committed relationship with someone. At least not were I live I am not sure were you live so I can't be 100% sure.

Anyway all you need to reproduce is to have sex. Marriage is a about security and commitment. Having sex is just about sex.

I agree with you 100%, especially when you point out that personal responsibility is important. But wouldn't voluntarily cooking dinner or taking time out of your day to help your son's friend with homework count as personal responsibility; but then again, the idea of personal responsibility can be too metaphysical and subjective to even further discuss this.

 

[GodOfOrder]

And that same security and commitment cannot be achieved by a simple question, "Will you help me raise the kids and take care of me when I'm hurt?"

-Duxwing

Of course it can, but because marriage is legally binding, it ensures security. The non marital agreement is easy to get out of, as it has no legal or contractual basis. Marriage adopts the coercive power of the legal system to keep the other party tied.

Ironically, when a marriage has gone wrong, this same framework imprisons the harmed within the binding framework of the marriage.

 

[Duxwing]

This is true you can take this approach if you wish. However, if you are willing to make it work then what does it hurt to make it official.

I am not saying you have to or your should even.

That's the point that we're arguing about, so if you can't demonstrate the necessity of marriage, then concede that you can't.

-Duxwing

 

[Duxwing]

Of course it can, but because marriage is legally binding, it ensures security. The non marital agreement is easy to get out of, as it has no legal or contractual basis. Marriage adopts the coercive power of the legal system to keep the other party tied.

The party attempting to escape can always file a no-fault divorce, and palimony laws exist to prevent what you've described.

Ironically, when a marriage has gone wrong, this same framework imprisons the harmed within the binding framework of the marriage.

This is why I think that marriage ought to be abolished. It's needless bureaucracy.

-Duxwing

 

[Chad]

That's the point that we're arguing about, so if you can't demonstrate the necessity of marriage, then concede that you can't.

-Duxwing

You asked why do we get married? That was the question. I answered why we get married. You didn't ask why you should get married or if everyone should get married. Therefore you are switching the debate in an attempt to win.

This is pointless and very childish.

I would argue that everyone one should get married or you should get married.

For me personally it a religious moral commitment that goes beyond sex, children, barring and taking care of each other when we are sick.

If you are arguing for the league idea of marriage to be removed I would agree.

I still think there should be some other law maybe civil unions or something close to that, that can protect people interests if they are in a long term committed relationship. (I.E. Death rights and property rights type of things).

I think marriage is mostly a religious ceremony that celebrates the union of two people and god.

Therefore I don't see the point in it for atheist.

I mean this with complete respect and everything. If atheist wish to throw a marriage party for joining into a committed relationship that cool to it not a religious thing then.

 

[GodOfOrder]

The party attempting to escape can always file a no-fault divorce, and palimony laws exist to prevent what you've described.



This is why I think that marriage ought to be abolished. It's needless bureaucracy.

-Duxwing

I was only answering the why. Quite simply, I don't think people do things out of the kindness of their heart, but rather self interest. The advantage of marriage is thus the power of an institution to enforce contracts, whether this is a church, or the state. Societies and their laws differ.

I was speaking in a general historical context, attempting to be all encompassing, nevertheless you are correct. Aside from the coercive state power, also consider the much weaker coercive power of societal expectation. This allows public opinion to shape action, thus preventing the other individual form escaping. This expectation is much stronger with marriage then with simple romance, at least by my observation.

 

[pariahmariah]

I've been with the same guy for 18 years. We have 3 kids together. We prefer to not be married. We don't need anyone to tell us our monogomous relationship is official. I think its better this way. No one feels forced to stick around. If for any reason one of us wants to leave, we can. I also believe that our friendship is deep enough for us to settle things fairly if we do split up.

Having an "official" marriage is costly to start and costly to end. Plus its based in fear and not love if you ask me. Do you not trust your partner enough to do the right thing? I do...whether we decide to stay togethet or not.

 

[Back2Basics]

I've been with the same guy for 18 years. We have 3 kids together. We prefer to not be married. We don't need anyone to tell us our monogomous relationship is official. I think its better this way. No one feels forced to stick around. If for any reason one of us wants to leave, we can. I also believe that our friendship is deep enough for us to settle things fairly if we do split up.

Having an "official" marriage is costly to start and costly to end. Plus its based in fear and not love if you ask me. Do you not trust your partner enough to do the right thing? I do...whether we decide to stay togethet or not.

haha this is dope!

 

[Duxwing]

You asked why do we get married? That was the question. I answered why we get married. You didn't ask why you should get married or if everyone should get married. Therefore you are switching the debate in an attempt to win.

Your tone seemed positive, so I wanted to see if you were arguing "should" rather than "why". I do apologize about not having mentioned that. Now I've got egg on my face.

This is pointless and very childish.

I would argue that everyone one should get married or you should get married.

Hey, wait a minute! So you do think that it's a good idea. At least I wasn't wrong about that.

For me personally it a religious moral commitment that goes beyond sex, children, barring and taking care of each other when we are sick.

If you are arguing for the league idea of marriage to be removed I would agree.

I still think there should be some other law maybe civil unions or something close to that, that can protect people interests if they are in a long term committed relationship. (I.E. Death rights and property rights type of things).

I think marriage is mostly a religious ceremony that celebrates the union of two people and god.

Therefore I don't see the point in it for atheist.

I mean this with complete respect and everything. If atheist wish to throw a marriage party for joining into a committed relationship that cool to it not a religious thing then.

Ah, I think that I understand your idea better now.

-Duxwing

 

[PhoenixRising]

Marriage is just like anything else humans create in order to maintain their collective illusion of "society". People get married for different reasons, all of them arbitrary in respect to the objective reality of the universe. Society instills the thought that marriage is 'just how things work'. People are programmed to expect marriage as the "ultimate sign of affection". Therefore, most people don't question this and resort to marriage when they meet another human they desire to bond with in a familial sense. The government/church/educational system find ways to compartmentalize pretty much everything. Human nature is buried by countless layers of concocted formalities/traditions/rules, but it is still the driving factor in all that we do.

I would argue that monogamy is something intrinsic to some people. Some people might not know they have monogamous tendencies because they just haven't met someone compatible enough with them to desire to bond with that person exclusively. Other people may in fact be polyamorous and so a lifetime bond with one mate may not be the right thing for them.

 

[Chad]

Your tone seemed positive, so I wanted to see if you were arguing "should" rather than "why". I do apologize about not having mentioned that. Now I've got egg on my face.



Hey, wait a minute! So you do think that it's a good idea. At least I wasn't wrong about that.



Ah, I think that I understand your idea better now.

-Duxwing

Sorry, I hope you realize that was a typo. I meant to say Wouldn't not would. My brain reacts way faster then my fingers sometimes and I get ahead of myself this is the main reason for my poor grammar.

What makes it worse is that may memory for what I intended to say was also very good. Therefore when I reread my posts it looks right to me. My mind is playing tricks on me. I do generally see the errors latter on however, by this time the post has already been up and read a few times (meaning a lot).

My most common grammar errors are missing whole segments of sentence. Repeating a part of the sentence twice. Missing contractions and similar things that I just over look. My spelling mistakes are almost always using the wrong word this is because I use spell check and auto corrects my words most of the time. Spelling is also a weak point for me. My grammar in real life isn't that bad. However, when I post on hear I am normally typing fast and thinking faster. This adds up to some confusing sentences I realize.

This is not a justification just and explanation how someone who is otherwise a component write could come across so dull and dense on these forums.

 

[walfin]

Marriage is quite an efficient system really. It's one of the commonest forms of legal agreements. We could have customised marriage contracts instead, but most people would still go for a stock one even if that were the case.

Monogamy is also quite useful; it's fair and ensures that the majority of humans manage to get sexually satisfied. To allow polyandry or polygyny would naturally result in some people being deprived of a sexual partner.

 

[Hawkeye]

Marriage is quite an efficient system really. It's one of the commonest forms of legal agreements. We could have customised marriage contracts instead, but most people would still go for a stock one even if that were the case.

Monogamy is also quite useful; it's fair and ensures that the majority of humans manage to get sexually satisfied. To allow polyandry or polygyny would naturally result in some people being deprived of a sexual partner.

The weak would be deprived and the superior would flourish. ^^

Monogamy is for people who believe in the one-true-love nonsense

 

[Duxwing]

Sorry, I hope you realize that was a typo. I meant to say Wouldn't not would. My brain reacts way faster then my fingers sometimes and I get ahead of myself this is the main reason for my poor grammar.

What makes it worse is that may memory for what I intended to say was also very good. Therefore when I reread my posts it looks right to me. My mind is playing tricks on me. I do generally see the errors latter on however, by this time the post has already been up and read a few times (meaning a lot).

My most common grammar errors are missing whole segments of sentence. Repeating a part of the sentence twice. Missing contractions and similar things that I just over look. My spelling mistakes are almost always using the wrong word this is because I use spell check and auto corrects my words most of the time. Spelling is also a weak point for me. My grammar in real life isn't that bad. However, when I post on hear I am normally typing fast and thinking faster. This adds up to some confusing sentences I realize.

This is not a justification just and explanation how someone who is otherwise a component write could come across so dull and dense on these forums.

Then the solution is simple. When writing a response, read the response first, understand it, and then let your racing mind create a response. Once your mind has finished creating the response, describe it at a nice, easy pace. That way, both you and your conversation partners will be able to understand your ideas.



-Duxwing

P.S. Do I sound condescending in delivering this advice? My tone seems fine to me, but it always seems fine to me; thus, I am left groping in the dark for the holy grail of tone.

 

[Montresor]

On the contrary, I would argue that monogamy ensures the majority of humans are not sexually satisfied.

What partner puts forth a lifetime of effort to relentlessly please their mate in a sexual way for the rest of their days? Nobody.

Polygamy (esp. polygyny) is the only way to make sure that the majority of humans (i.e. almost all males and a significant portion of females) are sexually satisfied.

I'm more of the chauvinistic double-standard type "I can sleep around but you can't". But that never plays out in reality, so I keep this to myself.

 

[Montresor]

My tone seems fine to me, but it always seems fine to me; thus, I am left groping in the dark for the holy grail of tone.

If I was cool enough to keep quotes as signatures I would definitely, definitely keep this one.

 

[Nezaros]

Why do we marry?

I think tradition, mainly. And young, ill-made decisions that come in the midst of what will be a short-lived passion. And because of the legal benefits that come of it, for some reason. To marry someone carries with it the assumption that you each will have the same feelings for each other for the rest of your lives, which is almost guaranteed to be false.

 

[Hawkeye]

P.S. Do I sound condescending in delivering this advice? My tone seems fine to me, but it always seems fine to me; thus, I am left groping in the dark for the holy grail of tone.

Text has no tone and so your metaphor works perhaps better than you intended.

Naturally, what you type will seem fine to you because you are the one writing it.

In my opinion, you are focusing too much on the nitty-gritty of spelling and grammar and this is causing you to miss people's arguments.

I'd take a step back and review the text as a whole.

 

[Montresor]

Duxwing should marry an ESFP that speaks English as a second or third language.

 

[Jennywocky]

Who ees thees Duxweeng, who I shud -- how do I say eet -- mar-ree?

Ees he cute? Eees he reeeech? Mayhaps we weel make bootiful -- how do I say eet -- mooseeq togethair?

* heart heart heart squee heart heart lots of hearts and puppies and kitties and excitement oh my pitterpatteepitterpattying*

 

[scorpiomover]

Dear Forum,

Why do we marry?

Who is "we"? The posters on INTPf? INTPs? Atheists? Americans? Westerners? I don't know why anyone here got married, unless they told me, just like I don't know why anyone here signed a job contract, unless they told me. Job contracts are needless bureaucracy. So are programming development models. So is any protocol, such as TCP/IP. It's all needless bureaucracy.

GET RID OF ALL NT-BASED BUREAUCRACY! IT'S ALL NEEDLESS!

ROTFLMAO

 

[Montresor]

teh little professor has such a big mind

 

[Duxwing]

Who ees thees Duxweeng, who I shud -- how do I say eet -- mar-ree?

Ees he cute? Eees he reeeech? Mayhaps we weel make bootiful -- how do I say eet -- mooseeq togethair?

* heart heart heart squee heart heart lots of hearts and puppies and kitties and excitement oh my pitterpatteepitterpattying*

*chik, chi-chuk* *shoulders his Remington 870, lining the ESFP up in his sights*

Get off my lawn.

-Duxwing

 

[Duxwing]

If I was cool enough to keep quotes as signatures I would definitely, definitely keep this one.

Awwww, thanks!

-Duxwing

 

[BigApplePi]

Marriage is a partnership. I am married and try to make it work. I am an individual so it doesn't always work. I seek a separation when it doesn't work and a union when the partnership comes in handy.

 

[redbaron]

I would argue that monogamy is something intrinsic to some people. Some people might not know they have monogamous tendencies because they just haven't met someone compatible enough with them to desire to bond with that person exclusively. Other people may in fact be polyamorous and so a lifetime bond with one mate may not be the right thing for them.

@PhoenixRising Thanks for making one of the few decent posts in the thread, and for it being interesting also.

I agreed with the first paragraph, but this one specifically I liked. I'm glad you brought up that monogamy and polyamory may very well be inherent to certain people.

 

[walfin]

*chik, chi-chuk* *shoulders his Remington 870, lining the ESFP up in his sights*

Get off my lawn.

-Duxwing

Aww, Dux, she meant well.

 

[Vrecknidj]

During the epoch of anatomically modern humans, long after we split from earlier primate ancestors, but long, long before the Neolithic and our tendency to settle, there were advantages for offspring in being provisioned by both mother and supportive allomothers. Sometimes those supportive allomothers were sisters or other female relatives of the mother, but, when the father of the offspring would stick around, the offspring tended to have a greater chance at surviving to his/her own reproductive age than otherwise.

So, monogamy, at least, evolved as a behavior that had reproductive fitness advantages.

Over time, when people began abandoning nomadic lifestyles for agrarian ones (and every group on the planet, sooner or later, did this, but for a tiny handful that either were wiped out or otherwise absorbed by other groups), spacing between births decreased as females were better provisioned and had lower caloric loss due to physical labor (which was still intense, just less so than as a nomad). As spacing between births decreased, females tended to have perhaps 5 offspring in a lifetime, rather than 3. Over time, this led to larger communities, a need for division of labor, etc., etc. It also led to patriarchal needs that previously were easier to overlook. No male primates (and this is also true for most mammals) have an interest in raising offspring on their own. There are endocrinological means for being aware of such things, but, they're unreliable. The mother and others in the community had 100% certitude of maternity, but no such certitude of paternity.

So, since males wanted a guarantee, but neither males nor females evolved to be monogamous (except serially, to raise a single offspring, when it was advantageous to do so), so, males developed rules to guarantee paternity. (We can see similar rules in other primates, and other mammals, but, they are most developed in humans, and in settled rather than nomadic humans.)

As we're a symbolic species, we have a tendency to mythologize, rationalise, and seek meaning for things. So, we made up rules of marriage as well, and chose to force them to conform to the rules that helped establish the patriline. (Interestingly, in the US, after Bacon's Rebellion, we see a similar issue develop along lines of color instead of sex.)

Anyway, today, many people marry for reasons having to do with this ancient history, which itself was swallowed up by other meaning-seeking systems, like religion and government. People like to believe that there is meaning in life. People like to believe that things are "meant to be" or "supposed to be" one way or another. There are, of course, reasons for this as well. But, for the vast majority of people, reasons to marry are tied into all of this stuff.

For some, of course, marriage is something else. And, for many of them, what marriage is for one pair, it isn't for another.

 

[Duxwing]

During the epoch of anatomically modern humans, long after we split from earlier primate ancestors, but long, long before the Neolithic and our tendency to settle, there were advantages for offspring in being provisioned by both mother and supportive allomothers. Sometimes those supportive allomothers were sisters or other female relatives of the mother, but, when the father of the offspring would stick around, the offspring tended to have a greater chance at surviving to his/her own reproductive age than otherwise.

So, monogamy, at least, evolved as a behavior that had reproductive fitness advantages.

Over time, when people began abandoning nomadic lifestyles for agrarian ones (and every group on the planet, sooner or later, did this, but for a tiny handful that either were wiped out or otherwise absorbed by other groups), spacing between births decreased as females were better provisioned and had lower caloric loss due to physical labor (which was still intense, just less so than as a nomad). As spacing between births decreased, females tended to have perhaps 5 offspring in a lifetime, rather than 3. Over time, this led to larger communities, a need for division of labor, etc., etc. It also led to patriarchal needs that previously were easier to overlook. No male primates (and this is also true for most mammals) have an interest in raising offspring on their own. There are endocrinological means for being aware of such things, but, they're unreliable. The mother and others in the community had 100% certitude of maternity, but no such certitude of paternity.

So, since males wanted a guarantee, but neither males nor females evolved to be monogamous (except serially, to raise a single offspring, when it was advantageous to do so), so, males developed rules to guarantee paternity. (We can see similar rules in other primates, and other mammals, but, they are most developed in humans, and in settled rather than nomadic humans.)

As we're a symbolic species, we have a tendency to mythologize, rationalise, and seek meaning for things. So, we made up rules of marriage as well, and chose to force them to conform to the rules that helped establish the patriline. (Interestingly, in the US, after Bacon's Rebellion, we see a similar issue develop along lines of color instead of sex.)

Anyway, today, many people marry for reasons having to do with this ancient history, which itself was swallowed up by other meaning-seeking systems, like religion and government. People like to believe that there is meaning in life. People like to believe that things are "meant to be" or "supposed to be" one way or another. There are, of course, reasons for this as well. But, for the vast majority of people, reasons to marry are tied into all of this stuff.

For some, of course, marriage is something else. And, for many of them, what marriage is for one pair, it isn't for another.

That's a pretty good explanation!

-Duxwing

 

[Magus]

I think the answers are too broad to cover. Social convention, religion, love, economics, status, hormones etc. Basically the same reasons that humans do anything.

Perhaps the economists amongst us will find joy in this paper. http://www.csom.umn.edu/Assets/71503.pdf

The broad idea is that sex is a female resource which by males (the article only discusses heterosexual relations) for various amounts of commitment and discusses how this market, the price of sex so you will has fallen, due to various social changes, the widespread use of contraception etc and the implications this then has on human relationships.

I can't help but feel a little skeptical with respect to this theory's explanatory power, but it is fascinating nonetheless

 

[Architect]

I think the answers are too broad to cover. Social convention, religion, love, economics, status, hormones etc. Basically the same reasons that humans do anything.

Perhaps the economists amongst us will find joy in this paper. http://www.csom.umn.edu/Assets/71503.pdf

The broad idea is that sex is a female resource which by males (the article only discusses heterosexual relations) for various amounts of commitment and discusses how this market, the price of sex so you will has fallen, due to various social changes, the widespread use of contraception etc and the implications this then has on human relationships.

I can't help but feel a little skeptical with respect to this theory's explanatory power, but it is fascinating nonetheless

Interesting, caveat I didn't read the whole thing. The job of any good theory is as much in what it takes away as what it adds. The best theories tell you something new while good theories take information away to make the truth more apparent.

So for example, does this theory predict and explain divorce rates? In other words do people divorce more often than not when the sex is gone? And/or, do they stay together purely for economic reasons? Anecdotally I think that's true to a large degree.

Maybe it's a pretty good theory. It actually gets to something I've thought about for a long time but haven't been able to characterize.

I was at an event recently where they had some signage saying "Open" - or "Open for business". A cute thing a few of the women did was to put that around their necks with their hands in the air in a "ta-da" motion. The sexual implications of that fascinated me. This was a major event with the press and the people who attended were ivy league educated. It was a 'high brow' thing if you like.

Now this was an innocent picture, but I thought to myself, would a man ever do that? No, you'd never see it. Why is that? What does this say about the sexual relationship between men and women?

hmm

 

[Beat Mango]

There's so many reasons people get married. Looking at the particular reasons for marriage in particular instances is what has fueled many a gossip mag. "She married him for the x", but "he married her because y".

Per haps we should ask first why people enter relationships? Sexual exclusivity and availability would be the massive overriding factor, surely. Anyone can date, anyone can have a fuck buddy, but once you get into the late night phone calls where one asks the other, "are we exclusive?" That's when it gets serious.

Btw has anyone mentioned love yet? HAH.

 

[BigApplePi]

There's so many reasons people get married. Looking at the particular reasons for marriage in particular instances is what has fueled many a gossip mag. "She married him for the x", but "he married her because y".

All true. Still I would look for "reasons of power." Power in physics = the rate of transfer of energy. Energy = the ability to do work. These look like good defs to apply to marriage.
.
Marriage is much more than a partnership of two people. It's an announcement to the world. It's a social engagement that both the married couple and outsiders are very much aware of. One can have a private civil marriage contract and no one will know about it. But it usually doesn't work that way. Marriages usually begin with a wedding. That's a big event. Very big and traditionally moreso for the woman.

If you happen to be a loner or have found past partnerships troublesome, your position may be different. Marriage may be on the decline in the U.S. ... or so I've heard, but in general marriage is very powerful. There is a social reenforcement to keep it together. Ask any kids in a troublesome marriage whether they want to see their parents together.