There have been interesting sociological and anthropological studies and papers written suggesting that divorce has gone up as life expectancy has gone up. Marriage till death do you part, when you are socially and economically co-dependent and probably going to die before you ever see 60 is much easier.
I think men and women are too often angry and ashamed when they cannot make a relationship last a lifetime. Decades pass, and people change - sometimes they grow together, sometimes they grow apart. It is not always a matter of failure or someone being a bad person, just change. Punishing yourself for not having a happy relationship that lasted a life time is like punishing yourself every time your lottery ticket is a loosing one. There are very few marriages that soldier on, strong, happy and bonded, till one takes their last breath.
I do despise how often men and women use divorce settlements to abuse each other in their anger and frustration over an ending relationship.
Indeed, before humans became consciously aware that the act of sex created children, marriage was not so important. Upon that realization, we have the institution of marriage form in order to guard the inheritance of the male - ensuring it continues onto this blood line. Often enough noblemen would only guard their wives until the first born male, and then afterwards they would both have their affairs and lead very separate lives.
Originally Posted by Lauren Summerhill
Hi Lauren,
I agree with all you stated! Then further comes the influence !! that cannot be underestimated as well on monogamy - the catholic church and its morals. Previously, even assured that the offspring was "of the right blood" a man was allowed (ancient rome, ancient greek and many other cultures of patriarchy) to marry more women. Most of them have the wife of the right blood with children of the right blood and then two more wives (one was usually the housekeeper ) anfd the other one some mistress whose children they fathered as well. Which was not a problem, since the men took care of all of them financially in some way or the other. Women had to be monogamous (at least the rightful ones with the right bloodline) so that it could be assured that the gods were not angry - It was believed that when the bllodline got betrayed you angered the gods and was prepared for a bad afterlife.
So catholic monogamy assured that the finances did not go into many numerous wives and many numerous offsprings but the people invested their money in the church to be at good stand.
Plus for feministic purposes it was statet that even the catholic church was a first base for feminism because it did not allow to screw men around, which invented the capitalistic idea of a split household in which women had as much to say as men.
I still do think that people marry for financial reasons most of the time. Marriage out of love is a myth that did not exist before the 20th century. Usually marriage and love was never in the same areas - as Lauren pointed out with the royals (that said - the burgeouise was LONG LONG time not even ALLOWED to marry!!! so marriage was a privilege !!! not available for everyone ) .
A marriage serves to make peace after war to overcome country boundaries. Interestingly enough one relict is the immigration possibility when you marry. Its not enough to have a partner you love from out the state, but when oyu marry you have immigration rights. That is interesting. Its also interesting that these rights do not apply to same-sex couples, only heteros. Another interesting phenomena of heteronormativity. That said, IF marriage was about love in the first place (which it isn`t, its about raising children and putting them in a safe enviroment) no one would have a problem with gay marriages in the first place, right?
But its the idea of the core family and the idea to procreate that fuels marriages. (Hell in mormon religion people have to marry in order to have sex and that sex is to get as many children as possible). I don`t think - really - that peoople with 18 are capable of making a decision of whether they love someone enought to spend the rest of their lives together. I think - personally - people should not marry unless they are really really very good together and it has shown for a long time. Interestingly enough - the first notions in literature of an emotion like LOVE in history have been taken by notations of same-sex love. That was when the pure being together for procrastination was transcended and another reason for being together came into play (verbally and in literature)
More about that in an interesting book by a very openminded judge (i think) Richard A. Posner /Sex and Reason
http://www.amazon.com/Sex-Reason-Hon...5911538&sr=8-1
