Another thread on marriage : Is marriage obsolete?

[thir]

That's like the strongest kid on the playground claiming he's the best because he's the most successful. Humans MAY be more successful than our cousins, evolutionarily speaking, but the evidence is unclear and the issue is still in doubt. Remember, modern humans have only been around for about 10,000 years, give or take. Dinosaurs were at the apex of evolution for hundreds of millions of years, yet they are gone. For all we know humanity may be nothing more than a backwater mistake in evolution which will shortly be eliminated from the equations. Just because we're the biggest and baddest on the playground does not make us the endpoint of evolution.

Well, we are so smart and succesful that we are in the process of destrying everything we are supposed to live on, as well as breeding like rats and waging now very dangerous wars on each other. We may be the endpoint of our evolution.

But as for endpoint as such, it is in the system that there isn't one. Things keep changing, life keeps adapting, or vanishing.

Overall, some interesting notes here about primate mating practices, but they are, after all, just that: mating strategies. They say nothing about the institution of marriage, which is a uniquely human condition. True, marriage generally includes mating practices, and even procreation, but neither of these is legally required for a marriage to be valid. Religious groups will disagree about this, of course, but legally (in the US, at least) there is no requirement for the married couple to engage in sexual activities or to have children. It's expected, of course, but not required.

Earlier on, one could not reasonably seperate the two. Marriage in whatever forms was, I think, a way to survive and making more people - at least as long as the nuclear family has been here. It is loosing that function and becoming something else, but what? That is what I wonder.

[Thorne]

We may be the endpoint of our evolution.

But as for endpoint as such, it is in the system that there isn't one. Things keep changing, life keeps adapting, or vanishing.

Short of actually destroying the entire planet, leaving a cloud of rubble and dust orbiting the moon, I can't foresee anything wiping out the entire human race. 90%? Sure. Even as much as 99% gone, possibly. But 100%? Hard to envision. Some will always survive, at least for a time. Long enough to continue our evolutionary branch, I would think.

Civilization, on the other hand ....

Earlier on, one could not reasonably seperate the two. Marriage in whatever forms was, I think, a way to survive and making more people - at least as long as the nuclear family has been here.

Marriage has always been used as a means of maintaining/acquiring property. Since women were always considered to BE property, marriage was a way of asserting ownership, as well as acquiring property from her family. It was also a way of legitimizing the inheritance of property, through the children brought about in the marriage. This is why, for so long, marriages were arranged by the bride's father with little or no regard for the wishes of said bride.

It is loosing that function and becoming something else, but what? That is what I wonder.

With the growing emancipation of women marriage has become more of an emotional contract, as well as retaining its legal aspects regarding property. Far less emphasis is placed on the desires of the parents, at least in Western cultures, and far more on the wishes of the bride and groom. Yet it is still a financial contract, in large part, and a legal necessity for securing inheritance, though with the advent of DNA testing I would think this is becoming less necessary.

There are still legal reasons for marrying, though, as well as religious reasons. I think it's long past time that we redefined the legal definitions of marriage to allow many different forms of creating families, and stop kowtowing to the religions which want to maintain a stranglehold on marriage. Certainly the religions have the right to define what is acceptable within their faiths. They do not have the right to require that others, not of that faith, abide by their rules.