5 ms·

> I think marriage is fundamentally an economic institution. I don't like that reduction of marriage. Having known several couples who've made it for over 50 y

by selmnoo 12y ago

> I think marriage is fundamentally an economic institution. I don't like that reduction of marriage. Having known several couples who've made it for over 50 years and above, it really makes things clear to me -- they let themselves be totally truthful and vulnerable to each other, they rely on each other in the other's time of need, they find joy in doing things as one. Like most things, marriage is what you make of it, if all you want out of it is economic benefits, it can be just that.

imaginenore 12y ago
Nothing stops you from being truthful and vulnerable without getting married. There are tons of marriages with lies and mistrust.
- selmnoo 12y ago
  Of course, you can have that without getting married. But you see, more than anything, marriage is really a cultural institution. It has a strong symbolic power. It's an excuse for a big party, a signaling of commitment, etc. We humans do a lot of things based on tradition and culture. Marriage is one of those things. Because come on, if we don't have culture, what do we have?
  - nishonia 12y ago
    > Because come on, if we don't have culture, what do we have? Well reasoned and logical action?
    - dragonwriter 12y ago
      There is no such thing as logical action independent of values, which are cultural. Logic can help with determining how to serve values, but it can't tell you what your base values should be.
      - nishonia 12y ago
        > values, which are cultural. It only takes one exception to disprove a rule, and in the interest of not inviting debate - I'll pick an obvious example: biological imperatives have nothing to do with culture. Everytime I hear somebody excuse silly behaviour with "culture" it reminds me of the Louis CK bit: http://youtu.be/CQSRPMFDTSs http://youtu.be/CQSRPMFDTSs
  - imaginenore 12y ago
    Marriage is a tradition, but I don't see what's so cultural about it.
baddox 12y ago
You might not like a further reduction which I suspect is true, which is that monogamy (punctuated or otherwise) itself is an economic (or if you prefer, game theoretical) institution dating back to when females traded reproduction for food and protection. There was no easy way for a male to determine the paternity of the child of a female with which he has mated, other than securing an ostensibly exclusive relationship and monitoring the female's fidelity as best as possible. Of course, I don't think that takes anything away from the couples you know.
- maratd 12y ago
  > There's no easy way for a male to determine the paternity of the child of a female with which he has mated, other than securing an ostensibly exclusive relationship and monitoring the female's fidelity as best as possible. I disagree. http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B005Y34OKA http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B005Y34OKA
  - baddox 12y ago
    I meant a long time ago, when these institutions first developed among humans. The fact that paternity tests exist now probably only corroborates my point. I'll edit the comment for clarity.
    - maratd 12y ago
      It's an important distinction. The desire for fidelity is clearly genetic. I agree with you, it probably entered the gene pool because of those reasons. With those reasons now gone, it can and probably will exit the gene pool. This will drastically change the nature of human relationships.
      - baddox 12y ago
        Yes, I think we agree fully. I would add that the persistence of norms does not have to be directly genetic in the way most people would interpret that. It could be indirectly genetic, in the sense that we have a strong genetic propensity to adopt the norms of our social surroundings and attempt to spread those norms to the next generation. That propensity probably applies even for norms that have far outlived their original purpose.
waps 12y ago
Also, allowing yourself to depend on the other, being truthful and the other things you say will quickly translate into economic benefits. Stability, emotional/financial/..., a safety net, a second opinion, a distraction when needed, I don't know how I'd do without.
sgnelson 12y ago
Do you have to be married to be in a loving relationship with someone for 50 years?

by selmnoo 12y ago

imaginenore 12y ago

Nothing stops you from being truthful and vulnerable without getting married. There are tons of marriages with lies and mistrust.

selmnoo 12y ago
Of course, you can have that without getting married. But you see, more than anything, marriage is really a cultural institution. It has a strong symbolic power. It's an excuse for a big party, a signaling of commitment, etc. We humans do a lot of things based on tradition and culture. Marriage is one of those things. Because come on, if we don't have culture, what do we have?
- nishonia 12y ago
  > Because come on, if we don't have culture, what do we have? Well reasoned and logical action?
  - dragonwriter 12y ago
    There is no such thing as logical action independent of values, which are cultural. Logic can help with determining how to serve values, but it can't tell you what your base values should be.
    - nishonia 12y ago
      > values, which are cultural. It only takes one exception to disprove a rule, and in the interest of not inviting debate - I'll pick an obvious example: biological imperatives have nothing to do with culture. Everytime I hear somebody excuse silly behaviour with "culture" it reminds me of the Louis CK bit: http://youtu.be/CQSRPMFDTSs http://youtu.be/CQSRPMFDTSs
- imaginenore 12y ago
  Marriage is a tradition, but I don't see what's so cultural about it.

baddox 12y ago

You might not like a further reduction which I suspect is true, which is that monogamy (punctuated or otherwise) itself is an economic (or if you prefer, game theoretical) institution dating back to when females traded reproduction for food and protection. There was no easy way for a male to determine the paternity of the child of a female with which he has mated, other than securing an ostensibly exclusive relationship and monitoring the female's fidelity as best as possible. Of course, I don't think that takes anything away from the couples you know.

maratd 12y ago
> There's no easy way for a male to determine the paternity of the child of a female with which he has mated, other than securing an ostensibly exclusive relationship and monitoring the female's fidelity as best as possible. I disagree. http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B005Y34OKA http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B005Y34OKA
- baddox 12y ago
  I meant a long time ago, when these institutions first developed among humans. The fact that paternity tests exist now probably only corroborates my point. I'll edit the comment for clarity.
  - maratd 12y ago
    It's an important distinction. The desire for fidelity is clearly genetic. I agree with you, it probably entered the gene pool because of those reasons. With those reasons now gone, it can and probably will exit the gene pool. This will drastically change the nature of human relationships.
    - baddox 12y ago
      Yes, I think we agree fully. I would add that the persistence of norms does not have to be directly genetic in the way most people would interpret that. It could be indirectly genetic, in the sense that we have a strong genetic propensity to adopt the norms of our social surroundings and attempt to spread those norms to the next generation. That propensity probably applies even for norms that have far outlived their original purpose.

waps 12y ago

Also, allowing yourself to depend on the other, being truthful and the other things you say will quickly translate into economic benefits. Stability, emotional/financial/..., a safety net, a second opinion, a distraction when needed, I don't know how I'd do without.

sgnelson 12y ago

Do you have to be married to be in a loving relationship with someone for 50 years?