With all the debate about same-sex marriages, perhaps it is time to discuss the institution of marriage itself. Webster's dictionary defines marriage as the institution whereby men and women are joined in a special kind of social and legal dependence for the purpose of founding and maintaining a family. Some would argue that the family is a microcosm of society and further that as the family goes so will the society go. Hence, the breakup of the family may cause the breakup of society. The question that remains, however, is if marriage is still necessarily the best institution to found a family. We are constantly reminded that the divorce rate is approximately fifty percent in the United States or that one of every two couples get divorced or you have a fifty-fifty chance of staying in the same marriage. Of the remaining fifty percent of couples who are married, only ten percent admit to being happy with the relationship. Any statistician in the world would say that numbers of these kind would indicate that something is seriously wrong with the institution of marriage. Countless children experience the fallout of a bad marriage but at the same time use that experience as their only guide. People in our society receive the same amount of training about human relationships as they do about child rearing. Therefore it is little wonder that even though most people enter into a relationship with the best of intentions they flounder at communication and understanding. It is not good enough to expect that one can only learn about relationships from their family, friends and co-workers; one must be willing to educate themselves in philosophy, psychology, sociology, spirituality and economics. Another institution in our society, education, is supposed to help foster the growth and development of the individual and family but yet the current public school curriculum does not serve this end. Marriage in the United States today has become an institutional burden to relationships much like religion has become an institutional burden to spirituality. Too much focus is given to adhering to rules and regulations and not enough to fostering loving relationships. Consequently, cohabitating appears to be the natural evolutionary result of the breakdown of the marriage institution. Still, as with marriage, the legally binding requirement is that the children must be provided for. If we are not careful to begin again the conscious effort to cultivate a more serious approach to human relationships, marriage as an institution will cease to be taken seriously and ultimately fade away.

Is it the best institution in which to found a family? Yes. Is it the only one? No.

It's interesting to me how many people with serious long-term committed relationships refuse to get married and how many people are willing to get married and divorced at the drop of a hat. In other words, it's not the institution of marriage that's screwed up - it's the people.

Just to know : is cohabitation without marriage something common in the USA ? In France (and many other European countries) it is extremely common.
I am always amazed in TV shows like Friends to see the characters speak about marriage like the only option if one wants to have a stable relationship. Is it reflecting the actual american society ?

In a way, yes. The societal pressures of marriage in the U.S. are atrocious. My girlfriend and I have been together for 4 years and living together for 2. Anyone from the U.S. will understand how difficult this is on me. It seems like every time there is any kind of group function (work outing, family get together etc.), I am bombarded with "So, when are you guys going to get married?" I can't take it! I am not a religious person, so the idea of marriage in the spiritual aspect is not appealing to me in the least. If it were up to me, I would never get married. Unfortunately, the pressures I recieve have forced me to start looking at it as an option.

Oh, and my extended family is very pious. So every time I am forced to get together with them, I recieve the "evil-eye" upon admitting that we are not engaged and living together. As if to say "You will burn in hell, you immoral SWINGER!"

heh heh... that felt kinda nice to get off my chest...

Originally posted by astrapol2
Just to know : is cohabitation without marriage something common in the USA ? In France (and many other European countries) it is extremely common.
I am always amazed in TV shows like Friends to see the characters speak about marriage like the only option if one wants to have a stable relationship. Is it reflecting the actual american society ?

It's quite common, but generally it either leads to marriage or ends with a breakup.

In many ways the US is still quite puritanical. "Living in sin" is the typical phrase attached to co-habitation.

I have a theory about why marriage has evolved and why it's necessary over cohabitation....

Marriage is a contract, yes we all know. On its face, it appears to be a contract to be loyal to one another for eternity. But more candidly, I would say marriage is a contract where a woman exchanges her youthful years to a man for the man's maturer years. Or more simply, males reap the benefits of the early years of marriage while females reap the benefits of the later years of marriage.

Thus, a marriage is necessary so that a woman is not screwed by a policy of cohabitation, forgive the terminology. That is in cohabitation, a woman is investing her youth and looks in the relationship while the man is making no commitment to give up his most productive, mature years.

So you might say many people have a puritanical view of marriage, but I think that the roots of those puritanical views are quite rationally-based. That is the reason the institution of marriage and the importance that is placed on it has evolved into what it is today, at least in American society.

Interesting view that. Men are in it for the guaranteed sex while women are in it for the guaranteed money... probably not to far off there, but I think that marriage as devolved not evolved. I mean it's not much of a guarantee anymore... Except for the men. They still get the sex for a while. The women must be getting screwed here. errr... I didn't mean it like that...

Nice analysis Leper. Very interesting. I never quite thought of marriage like that, and I'm sure many would disagree with you, but I think that you're on the right track. Now I wonder why women in Europe don't insist on marriage, or maybe Astrapol exagerrated a bit about most of them simply cohabitating. Seriously, if the couple in Europe simply cohabitate without actually forming a legal marriage, how are women protected from just getting dumped by men as sexual attraction diminishes? Astrapal, I'd be interested in hearing your response to that.

Hey ! I never said that cohabitation is the most common case in Europe.
First, I was talking about France. I guess cohabitation is quite common in other countries from northern Europe, but probably less in very religious countries like Italy, Poland or Greece.

Second, even in France, cohabitation is common but less than marriage. It usually admitted that people cohabit 1-5 years before marrying, and many people prefer never to marry, especially in lower and middle class.
I guess they do so because they feel freer that way, or because they do not like the idea of religious marriage (my case).
Anyway, even if it is much lower than in the USA, there is still a social pressure towards marriage. I think 30 years ago cohabitaion still was very rare and badly considered.

Nox, about Leper's theory about marriage, i do not agree. In some cases it may be true but I guess in most cases marriage is only a way to fit into a social role. Social pressure is according to me the most important factor that makes people marry.
Leper's theory implicate that :
1- men like sex but women don't.
2- elder people do not have sex.
3- women are financially dependent from men.
Three things that are true in somes cases but, hopefully, not in the majority, at least in today's western societies.

Anyway, even if it is much lower than in the USA, there is still a social pressure towards marriage. I think 30 years ago cohabitaion still was very rare and badly considered.


Well, this sounds identical to America now. You have me thinking that your view is distorted, especially since you are cohabitating rather than legally wed. I can't help but wonder how your wife truly feels about that. She's basically taking a huge chance on you, Astra. She's gambling that you will never leave her, because if you do, I'll be that she's entitled to nothing. If you had married her, on the other hand, she would be entitled to half of your possessions probably, right?

Social pressure is according to me the most important factor that makes people marry.

Yes, Astra, so why is there social pressure? Look at your own situation, and compare it to Leper's theory.

I'm assuming that your wife makes less than you, but that is usually the case in heterosexual marriages. And that's part of why, too, that Leper's theory has some truth to it.

Originally posted by Karankawa
You have me thinking that your view is distorted, especially since you are cohabitating rather than legally wed. I can't help but wonder how your wife truly feels about that. She's basically taking a huge chance on you, Astra. She's gambling that you will never leave her, because if you do, I'll be that she's entitled to nothing. If you had married her, on the other hand, she would be entitled to half of your possessions probably, right?

LOL ! if you knew my "wife" !
She's the one who's the most opposed to getting married. The only idea of marriage makes her puke.
I'm still laughing :p :p :p

To makes things clear I have made a quick search and found these statistics :
there were about 400 000 non married couples in France in 1960, now they are 2 millions, which represent 1 couple out of six. 4 kids out of 10 are born in non married couples.

Yes, Astra, so why is there social pressure? Look at your own situation, and compare it to Leper's theory.

We decided to live with each other 14 years ago because we were in love (and still are). We do not want to marry because we feel we do not need that kind of ceremony or contract to be happier, and that in fact we both felt if we had married it would have been to make our parents happy rather than for personal reasons.
We are now the parents of two nice little girls and have not changed our minds.
We juste had a PACS concluded - it is a civil contract for couples giving them some of the advantages of married couple, mostly for taxes. It has been designed mostly for homosexual couples but is also increasngly popular among heterosexual couples.

Note that I have nothing against marriage. It is perfect for many people and I respect their choice. It just isn't ours.


I'm assuming that your wife makes less than you, but that is usually the case in heterosexual marriages. And that's part of why, too, that Leper's theory has some truth to it.

On that point I have to agree. But still the sexual part of Leper's theory is very doubtful.

But in fact the biggest flaw in Leper's theory is IMO on a totally different level. Leper (not only on that topic) views the world as a rational place where people make rational decisions and where material interest is the ultimate criteria. I strongly oppose this view. Not that I am an idealistic or some kind of poet, but I just know from experience that people are everything but rational and that emotions, social and psychological constraints are much more important in their decisions, especially on this kind of decision where sex, emotions, religion, social status and family are mixed.

I have no problem with people living together, if they are both happy with that arrangement. I am a little old fashioned though, and I think you should get married before you have children.

I married, and have been divorced for 10 years. I don't think marriage is the right thing for everyone, but I can't really understand the difference between being married or living with someone. You still share a bed, a house, meals and many have mortgages. It all comes down to choice.

Lionel can't help thinking the way he does...that JD he worked so hard for gets in the way.

Let us not forget that in most countries marriage is not an option. In all traditional cultures, you just have to get married unless you are a religious.

I just know from experience that people are everything but rational and that emotions, social and psychological constraints are much more important in their decisions, especially on this kind of decision where sex, emotions, religion, social status and family are mixed.

I think Leper's Theory is simply an effort to help identify the roots of why marriage was ever adopted by humanity. I don't think he meant to try to blanket every marriage with his statement. I guess it would be better if Leper answered that for himself though.

In any case, I think the subject is very interesting. Perhaps you, Astra, have a better reason why people have tended towards using marriage.

An even better question than any of those may be trying to figure out why people aren't bigamous or polygamous. Why do we tend to mate with one person for life? How does that serve in the continuation of our species?

Polygamy?? Bigamy?? Boy, you guys are dumb. Most of us can barely handle the needs, wants, desires & upkeep of 1 spouse, let alone 2, or ....5!
Without doing a whole lot of research into the whys of marriage as the joining of 1 man & 1 woman, I woulld venture a guess that it has biblical origins. When it was time to board the Ark, Noah was told, 2 of each (or words to that effect), not 7. Further, only 1 of each sex is required for propogation of the species, whatever species we're talking about. Now, unless someone comes up with a third sex that is required for reproduction....

Further, only 1 of each sex is required for propogation of the species, whatever species we're talking about.

You're calling me dumb for wondering why humans are monogamous and you use this as your justification? And for your other guess you think that humans have always listened to the bible? You do realize that there are many, many instances in nature where animals are not monogamous, don't you? Take the simple household dog for example. Do they mate for life? Do they have more than two sexes? K, thanks for playing.

The first statement was meant to be funny, not insulting. Don't be so thin skinned.
For the rest of it, I was only venturing a few thoughts.

Originally posted by astrapol2

But in fact the biggest flaw in Leper's theory is IMO on a totally different level. Leper (not only on that topic) views the world as a rational place where people make rational decisions and where material interest is the ultimate criteria. I strongly oppose this view. Not that I am an idealistic or some kind of poet, but I just know from experience that people are everything but rational and that emotions, social and psychological constraints are much more important in their decisions, especially on this kind of decision where sex, emotions, religion, social status and family are mixed.

Don't leap to the conclusion that I believe people in general are rational creatures and that marriage is a rational decision made based on the reasons I described. Karan is quite correct in that I'm only providing reasons why the institution of marriage exists. Many customs develop for very rational reasons but are only followed because of tradition. That's what I believe is the case in marriage.

The fact that marriage is an institution that has sprung up independently in several distinct cultures only reinforces the rational basis for getting married. That is, when you have separate societies arriving at the same conclusion, that is a good sign that there is a logical basis for that behavior.

As for ex247's biblical foundation of marriage, I make the same point. Marriage in some form has sprung up in other socieities without Christian influence.

Leper's theory implicate that :
1- men like sex but women don't.
2- elder people do not have sex.
3- women are financially dependent from men.
Three things that are true in somes cases but, hopefully, not in the majority, at least in today's western societies.


Those three things are not necessarily true and are worded in a too "black-and-white" fashion to suit me. I would reword your points to read as following before they'd garner my support:

1 - young men like sex more than young women.
2 - elder people have sex less than young people
3 - men have higher income than women

Of course, there will be exceptions to each of these items, but as generalizations, I believe they are true and would defend them.

And before risking it becoming a focus of discussion, Point 2 is not a necessary axiom for my theory. However, I would say the fact that I believe older couples focus more on raising children rather than reproducing (i.e. sex) plays a role in my theory, so astra's not completely off there.

I would also admit that the institution of marriage is being challenged as female productivity approaches the level of male productivity outside the home.

I would also admit that the institution of marriage is being challenged as female productivity approaches the level of male productivity outside the home.

Right, that's why we are seeing divorces at a higher rate than ever. This almost single-handedly supports one of the pillars of your theory, since most will agree that the reason that divorce is higher is because women are less dependent on men. Therefore that factor for marriage being a "necessity" is erased.

OK Leper, I have to admit all your points are (unfortunately) rather true, especially in traditional societies.

IMO, marriage primarily is a social and family event, more than a religious one. There are many kinds of marriage in theworld (and polygamy or polyandry exist) but basically their function is to organize the transmission of patrimony and the social status of people. In western societies where the individual tends to be more important than the group, I would say it is still a question of social status (one of the passage rites to the adult age). The patrimonial or financial aspects are still present but in my opinion they are not as important. The sexual aspect is coming last, since now most people have their first sexual experience before getting married.

Of course in other societies it is totally different. I remeber sawing a TV doculmentary about Saudi Arabia, where young men and women have absolutely NO occasion of meeting. Only (arranged) marriage eventually gives them the possibility of having sex.
A pretty grim society (not only because of that aspect. They do not even have the right to go to the movies).

Objectively speaking, I would point out that marriage as a tradition and institution is fast disappearing. In this world where social norms change with the seasons and where almost anything goes, many people are finding the "socially restictive" concept of marriage dispensible.

Also, Karankawa accounted the high divorce rates to the fact that women are less dependent on men today. Why should they be? In this age of sexual independence, why would anyone be tied down with a husband/wife and children when they could have all the sex they want without commitment? True, relationships are not all about sex, and not necessarily all committed relationships are marriages. The fact is that there are many more options today other than marriage in which people could find fulfilment with another person.

I believe that in 20-30 years or sooner, marriage as a social institution would be almost completely erased from this world. People will see that marriage only places a name on what people have been doing for years, civil unions or something even less formal. They will see that living with someone (male or female) in a committed relationship does not require a ceremony or license.

Lets all get together and just have a big orgy, all are kids can be raised as ba****ds. When we name the kids we'll just call them by there possible parents name's all fortytwo of them. Why show togetherness(family) when we can teach free for all living and sex. Makes sense why commit to anything, plus when your sick of junior you could take him to one of his 42 other parents. At one time marriage ment something, a commitment that people would take, now it is just another think to do. People commit to there cars longer then they do to there marriage. Seems to be the growing fad if something gets hard or a relation ship gets alittle rocky, get a divorce. Divorce in alot of cases should just be labeled COP OUT. I'm not saying all divorces are wrong but there are quite a few that are bull. Just look at the sh** they put on the TV Joe dumbass millionaire, or how about all these dumbsh**'s going off to an island. It is a no wonder marriage is becoming a thing of the past we are teaching our young that instead of stand up and fight for things it is alright to wimp out. Maybe before people get married they should stop and use just alittle bit of brain matter.