What relevance does marriage have in the 21st century?

[Night FM]

My thoughts are as follows. Marriage generally consists of both a legal institution and a private ceremony. A private ceremony and whatever non-legally binding vows they take is purely in the domain of the individuals getting married, their loved ones, their church, and so forth. (e.x. Some churches would hold gay weddings even prior to same-sex marriage being officially recognized by their state).

Marriage in the legal sense obviously can't and does not obligate people to live together, or even have a formal ceremony (e.x. in most states that I'm aware of, people who decide to live together as a couple can file for common law marriage if they meet the legal requirements) and in addition to providing certain legal benefits to couples (e.x. hospital visitation rights) primarily exists to provide a legal remedy to property and child custody disputes in the event of a separation (or legal divorce / annulment). Some aspects of legal marriage may be outdated, for example some states are considered "community property" states, meaning that all property acquired during the marriage is considered jointly owned.

(To me, the above is a holdover from past times where husbands were generally assumed to be the main income provider, and the wife primarily dependent on the husband's resources. Though I'm aware that women have always done "work", both including work done if they were a homemaker and supplementary work even if the husband was the main income provider. Similarly, some people erroneously blame "feminism" for the perception that courts tend to favor women in child custody disputes, however, if anything, this is also a holdover from past times where women were presumed to generally be the more naturally-fit caretakers).

Some issues I have with marriage in the 21st century are as follows:

Obviously, people will naturally from couples and have offspring whether marriage is legally recognized or not. (e.x. Some cultures have no legal institution of marriage, and couples are considered "married" simply by agreeing to live together as a couple). However, since there is no way of determining whether or not a couple is fit to be married or have children (e.x. many cases of unhappy or abusive marriage and parenting exist, and in some cases, it may be functionally easier to perpetuate unhappy marriages, particularly if there is outside social pressure to remain together even in the event that it would be better dissolved, which is why markers such as longevity by itself aren't markers of high quality marriage or relationship), Therefore, I don't see the social benefit in promoting it as an institution, and whatever aspects of it as a whole are seen as "sacred" ideals obviously aren't actually present in many actual marriage. Essentially, even without legal recognition of marriage, people would still come together as couples and procreate for obvious biological reasons, and unless there was some way of testing people for high levels of competency to be legally married or have offspring, then I don't see it as providing a social benefit, beyond providing the legal remedies for setting child custody or divorce issues, and reducing the social chaos that might result if those matters were left solely in the private domain.

Edited September 16 by Night FM

[exchemist]

9 minutes ago, Night FM said:

My thoughts are as follows. Marriage generally consists of both a legal institution and a private ceremony. A private ceremony and whatever non-legally binding vows they take is purely in the domain of the individuals getting married, their loved ones, their church, and so forth. (e.x. Some churches would hold gay weddings even prior to same-sex marriage being officially recognized by their state).

Marriage in the legal sense obviously can't and does not obligate people to live together, or even have a formal ceremony (e.x. in most states that I'm aware of, people who decide to live together as a couple can file for common law marriage if they meet the legal requirements) and in addition to providing certain legal benefits to couples (e.x. hospital visitation rights) primarily exists to provide a legal remedy to property and child custody disputes in the event of a separation (or legal divorce / annulment). Some aspects of legal marriage may be outdated, for example some states are considered "community property" states, meaning that all property acquired during the marriage is considered jointly owned.

(To me, the above is a holdover from past times where husbands were generally assumed to be the main income provider, and the wife primarily dependent on the husband's resources. Though I'm aware that women have always done "work", both including work done if they were a homemaker and supplementary work even if the husband was the main income provider. Similarly, some people erroneously blame "feminism" for the perception that courts tend to favor women in child custody disputes, however, if anything, this is also a holdover from past times where women were presumed to generally be the more naturally-fit caretakers).

Some issues I have with marriage in the 21st century are as follows:

Obviously, people will naturally from couples and have offspring whether marriage is legally recognized or not. (e.x. Some cultures have no legal institution of marriage, and couples are considered "married" simply by agreeing to live together as a couple). However, since there is no way of determining whether or not a couple is fit to be married or have children (e.x. many cases of unhappy or abusive marriage and parenting exist, and in some cases, it may be functionally easier to perpetuate unhappy marriages, particularly if there is outside social pressure to remain together even in the event that it would be better dissolved, which is why markers such as longevity by itself aren't markers of high quality marriage or relationship), Therefore, I don't see the social benefit in promoting it as an institution, and whatever aspects of it as a whole are seen as "sacred" ideals obviously aren't actually present in many actual marriage. Essentially, even without legal recognition of marriage, people would still come together as couples and procreate for obvious biological reasons, and unless there was some way of testing people for high levels of competency to be legally married or have offspring, then I don't see it as providing a social benefit, beyond providing the legal remedies for setting child custody or divorce issues, and reducing the social chaos that might result if those matters were left solely in the private domain.

Why do you think fidelity between sexual partners is valued? 

[Night FM]

18 minutes ago, exchemist said:

Why do you think fidelity between sexual partners is valued? 

Provided the marriage or relationship is of high quality or involves high quality parenting, I think it's viewed as socially beneficial. I'm aware that marriage is associated with "love", though, especially historically (when issues such as heirs and inherence were more socially significant, or even in the case of "transactional relationships" which exist to day), not all marriages necessarily contain love.

However, I see little benefit to the couple or to the offspring in the event that it is unhappy or abusive, beyond anything that potentially leads to procreation being viewed as better than none at all (and, obviously, society only needs to maintain procreation to a certain degree and to as much as it has the resources to properly support).

In essence, I'm not sure what the purpose in recognizing marriage "for the masses" is, since even unhappy or abusive cases of it can be legally recognized or recognized in a private ceremony. If it was only recognized in cases which demonstrate a high quality union or high quality parenting (while the rest were simply left to "do their own thing" without any legal recognition), I think it would have more social benefit as an ideal for society to strive for.

I'd be interested in learning more about the history of marriage in the Western World prior to the Catholic Church denoting it as a sacrament, such as how often the state played an active role in recognizing it, as opposed to it being left a matter to families or the private domain.

Edited September 16 by Night FM