[socialismisok]

The point of marriage is because you've found a partner you want to commit to.

And in "traditional" marriages, women absolutely do work. They just do unpaid labor (and often more than the man did, working weekends and evenings as well.) Laundry, cooking, cleaning, childcare, are all work.

And having kids can be emotionally fulfilling. Watching the development of ones children and experiencing the world through their eyes is powerful.

And I agree with you, if a woman doesn't want marriage, great! She should face no stigma for that choice. But your attitude that marriage is somehow transactional or whatever ignores a lot of human emotional aspects.

[tsol]

>The point of marriage is because you've found a partner you want to commit to.

Your western centrism is showing. That's only a modern western view of marriage that commoners can get married for love. That's something that you can only do in a developed economy. Try marrying for love when you're a poor farmer and you don't know how next years harvest is going to be. For a lot of people, there are qualities besides love and attraction that are desirable in a marriage.

[Jerrrry]

Marriage exists to facilitate the nuclear family, which is crucial for healthy offspring and the continuity of our species.

We marry to have kids. State-supported monogamy is the most stable for raising the next generation.

You don't have to have kids, or be able to have kids, but that is the exception, not the rule.

Marriage is for the kids.

[socialismisok]

Fair

[cr4nberry]

> And in "traditional" marriages, women absolutely do work. They just do unpaid labor (and often more than the man did, working weekends and evenings as well.) Laundry, cooking, cleaning, childcare, are all work.

Work in that context meant a job, ie paid labor

> And having kids can be emotionally fulfilling. Watching the development of ones children and experiencing the world through their eyes is powerful.

This has nothing to do with marriage

> But your attitude that marriage is somehow transactional or whatever ignores a lot of human emotional aspects.

Because it's a legal agreement, viz transactional. The emotional aspect is love. Love does not imply marriage (a legal agreement).

You love someone so much that you decide to enter into a legally binding agreement, and because of the love alone and not other factors like tradition or conformity?

This makes no sense, loving someone and entering into a legal agreement are two entirely different concepts

[socialismisok]

No one here is going to convince you via posting. You've got strong opinions here, clearly. I should probably just disengage and downvote and move on.

... But

The legal part of marriage is important, it provides protections for partners who are likely to make a life change based on love. My marriage certificate guarantees that if my partner or I chooses to give up a career to take care of the household, we aren't left penniless if we split.

It protects us in the outside world too, we are a household. We can easily operate for one another I'm financial, contractual, or other spaces.

It's social, it's a commitment visible to others. It's a way of saying I care so much I'm willing to put aside some of my independence for the purpose of this relationship. That carries emotional weight.

Of course love and legal marriage are different. Love whomever you want, but there are emotional reasons AND legal reasons to get married. (And plenty of reasons not to as well.)