[aes256]

The argument goes that internet dating has made commitment less attractive, and divorce more common.

That's not necessarily a bad thing. In the future we will have fewer people clinging to abusive partners and putting up with destructive relationships. Online dating provides more options.

On the other hand, a lot more children are going to grow up without both their biological parents. Is that such a bad thing? I'm not convinced it is, but I've never really bought into the concept of family.

[mr_luc]

Counterpoint: I'm young, but I still measure my core friendships in decades ...

I'm not going to settle for a life where 'romantic partner' is not a core friendship, one which I can rely on in the same way as my lifelong friends and close family.

I think that a lot of people feel the same way.

To me, that's more persuasive even than the 'think of the children argument', and much less likely to change.

The 'think of the children' argument is pretty strong here. We all know the stats: kids from single-parent families tend to grow up in more negative environments, tend towards worse outcomes.

But maybe society can solve that problem! For instance, if a kid's parents are divorced, but are constantly in caring relationships, maybe society can evolve to a point where those kids aren't disadvantaged, and where they have a relatively stable upbringing.

But that won't change my mind about 'romantic partner' belonging in the category of 'secure, long-term friendships.'

[aes256]

People change; they come and go.

To me, the notion of marriage flies in the face of this basic observation. How can you possibly commit to spending the rest of your life with someone when you know so little about how they will change, intentionally or not?

> The 'think of the children' argument is pretty strong here. We all know the stats: kids from single-parent families tend to grow up in more negative environments, tend towards worse outcomes.

This sounds like selection bias to me.

At present, in Western society at least, members of certain socioeconomic classes are significantly more likely to become single parents, and it is likely the socioeconomic conditions their children grow up in that have the most significant effect on their outcomes.

Conversely, abusive relationships and unhappy marriages also provide negative environments for children to grow up in. A future in which relationships are more fluid could reduce the number of children growing up in these environments.

[mattchew]

> Conversely, abusive relationships and unhappy marriages also provide negative environments for children to grow up in. A future in which relationships are more fluid could reduce the number of children growing up in these environments.

Maybe in the completely imaginary world where the parents who have stable long term relationships are the ones most likely to be abused and unhappy.

In the real world, parents who have "fluid" romantic attachments with people who "come and go" are the ones more likely to be raising their children in negative and abusive environments.

[Evbn]

People don't change totally randomly. Relationships take work, like any other hobby or vocation

[dusing]

People don't change as much as they'd like to think too. Especially after a certain age, 26-30? They are more predictable than not

[jacquesm]

Now you have to really hope that your romantic partner sees things just the way you do.

[GuiA]

That's a primary concern in pretty much every single romantic relationship.

[mr_luc]

Well, I haven't solved that part!

Nor do I think the permanence-of-marriage problem is any more or less solvable than the disadvantaged-single-parent-children problem.

But the permanence-of-marriage problem interests me, at least in my case.

And it seems like a problem that can be addressed in ways that improve outcomes, even granting that it has random/unknowable components.

[arjunnarayan]

> But maybe society can solve that problem! For instance, if a kid's parents are divorced, but are constantly in caring relationships, maybe society can evolve to a point where those kids aren't disadvantaged, and where they have a relatively stable upbringing.

See Sweden: where there are a lot of single parents but (unlike the US) children do not suffer from worse outcomes.

[DanBC]

> On the other hand, a lot more children are going to grow up without both their biological parents. Is that such a bad thing? I'm not convinced it is, but I've never really bought into the concept of family.

May I ask: Do you have children? What would you feel if your partner left the country with those children? Would you still feel the same way if you did not have the money for law to get some kind of custody of those children?

[ZoFreX]

Yes, I thought that most of what the article stated was well supported, but they made a leap from "people are more likely to leave relationships that aren't that great" to social values suffering. I'd rather be single than trapped in a marriage I don't really enjoy.

[furyg3]

It's tough, though. If you ask very happily married 60+ old couples, I think most will tell you that there was a patch or two they didn't really enjoy, and that they are happy they rode it out.

The trick is knowing when to make that call. Having a list of a thousand compatible singles a click away probably lowers the "walk away" threshold quite a bit.

[Evbn]

Affairs have existed as long as marriage. There is a "walk back" threshold as well. People are practical by nature, if shortsighted.