| Stefan.De.Machtige said: Bold: This is (partially) true if you're talking about the 'modern' marriage. In the past marriage was not really about love. It was a almost unbreakable contract recognized by state/church/class/just important people which would bind two sexes together and see the continuation of the society. For the most part it was simple enough: A man provided resources and authority and the women provided fertility and sex. When you commited to this contract, it was a very big deal for all parties. It was one of the most important contract you could enter with far-reaching consequences for both sexes which could last untill death. Under that understanding it can build very strong relationships where business, heritage, blood and even love are mixed in a mutual beneficial contract for both. One of the best free trade deals around untill .gov got in on the game As a literal contract it means indeed nothing as all social constructs do. But in the context of the past and social cohesion, it did mean a lot. In the current times it's value is almost zero i quess. I would not marry myself at this point. As a man there is nothing to gain in marriage. |
Then I suppose the question becomes, would you argue in support of regression to that state? And that is a long regression. Even in my grandparent's time, marriage developed from love and not the other way around. People certainly fell into marriage more easily (and stayed in it more easily), but if you wish to support the merits of an almost lottery based marriage system, I don't think many people would support you on that...
