[thrden]

Even if we set aside any potential spiritual, or child-rearing value. Marriage is a very important institution in helping people achieve economic mobility, it increases your household income significantly, as well as seriously reducing your cost of living. Anecdotally, my cost of living was drastically reduced when my girlfriend and I moved in together (thereby splitting a 1BR), however given that we aren't married we individually have to save a good amount of money in cash accounts in case of a breakup. If we were married, we could reduce our cash savings by 50% and instead invest that money into the open market. Moreover, we would be far more likely to take care of the other financially if one went to school if we were married. Marriage, and the commitment it entails changes the attitudes of individuals towards each other by ensuring that we can plan for a combined future. all that exists outside of societally constructed benefits like joint taxation and healthcare.

[bluedevil2k]

But all your examples of "planning for the future as a married couple" could immediately be for naught if one of you decides to divorce. No different than if your girlfriend decides to move out. Economic mobility could be achieved with an official document saying "You're Married" or without it. It's about the commitment to each other, a commitment that can be as strong or as weak as the two people are willing to make it.

[mellosouls]

But all your examples of "planning for the future as a married couple" could immediately be for naught if one of you decides to divorce. No different than if your girlfriend decides to move out.

Marriage is not girlfriend/boyfriend.

It's far more serious, and making it a commitment to be contemplated deeply before entering - and not easily breakable - is the whole point of highlighting the problem of trivialising it.

[bluedevil2k]

> It's far more serious, and making it a commitment to be contemplated deeply before entering - and not easily breakable

Marriage is rooted in religion, for better or worse, and these thoughts about making marriage some unbreakable for-life bond are based on religious beliefs hundreds of years old. Catholics couldn't divorce, ever! We live in a more enlightened age, one where religious thoughts have less to do with forging our societal beliefs. Can't we progress with our thoughts on marriage as well? Marriage for life would mean for many an unhappy and unfulfilling life. Perhaps a life of violence or depression. Is that we want to force people into? A life without choice, a life without happiness?

[nobodyandproud]

I think this is a shallow analysis. In the past and in many societies it’s fair to say that religion and social order were one and the same.

So it’s not wrong to say marriage has its roots in religion, but the cause to create marriage hasn’t gone away even if religion isn’t a factor: Can you imagine how difficult it was for a single parent (especially women) to raise a child alone, a few millenia ago? I think it’s fair to say that it caused major problems.

Even today raising children is still extremely difficult. Raising a productive citizen is another order of magnitude of difficulty.

[com2kid]

> Marriage is rooted in religion, for better or worse,

Around a billion people, give or take, in China would disagree with you.

Heck Japan isn't exactly a religious country.

With a few exceptions, the concept of marriage coincides with agricultural societies.

[bluedevil2k]

What's the Chinese view on divorce? (Genuine question, I have no idea)

[com2kid]

Not 100% sure, just know through a few friends that it seems very shameful for both parties involves.

Also, parents invest a lot in their child's marriage, e.g. downpayment for a house, car, etc, for their child (singular!), so that adds even more pressure to "make things work".

[User23]

Catholics still can't divorce, ever. Obviously the secular power can cease to recognize the marriage, but they are just men, and what God has joined man can't sunder.

Ecclesiastical annulments are grossly misunderstood by most Catholics and non-Catholics alike[1]. They are not "Catholic divorce." And yes, the tribunal system can be gamed, but if you actually believe you should realize that God isn't going to be fooled. And if you don't believe then why do you even care what the Church thinks?

[1] See below reply

[vkou]

> And if you don't believe then why do you even care what the Church thinks?

Because your friends/neighbours/relatives may be Catholics, and you may care about your appearances.

In my experience with religious folks, keeping God happy is not the sole driving force behind most of their lives to the exclusion of all else. It's a framework around their lives, but not always priority #1.

Given that, annulments are essentially a catholic divorce, with a little bit of magic added.

[sukilot]

"religion" is a legal system f government that isn't grounded in a geographically-defined military. It can do good or bad just like a political system.

[balfirevic]

You can't legislate away the fact that people stop wanting to have anything to do with each other, in spite of being 100% convinced that it's not going to happen to them.

[op03]

Well intentioned comment, but that works when people share the same optimizing view towards life.

Think about how many people within your own extended family do this? Take a guess, deliver this talk to them and track through life how many follow the path.

We chimps display a wide spectrum of Personality traits and an even wider spectrum of Needs, which are constantly changing through life and the events that effect it. Dangerous to assume whatever system you have accepted will be accepted by all.

Its easy to come up with all kinds of theories about "what works" and "how things should be" but that is usually based on our limited awareness of the spectrum.

[balfirevic]

> If we were married, we could reduce our cash savings by 50% and instead invest that money into the open market.

How come you suddenly need 50% less emergency cash per person just because you're married?

[waterhouse]

I'm guessing they want enough emergency cash to last them for N months if all income disappeared, and that their expenses are dominated by rent and other things whose costs don't increase with a second person.

[balfirevic]

The original comment was comparing cash savings in situation where the couple lives together but is not married vs. when they marry. It specifically mentioned the possibility of breakup before marriage, but people divorce all the time and if you get into that situation you'll need those savings.

[yencabulator]

You're not describing marriage, you're describing a dedicated long-term relationship. Marriage is some religious nonsense on top of that.

[sukilot]

Marriage is a contract with dozens to hundreds of legal implications.

[yencabulator]

Sure, and a prenup is a contract that nullifies the bits you don't want.