>>> For most of human history, and without having to get into more specific details, a man and woman living together for more than a short time usually resulted in children. The institution was enacted to encourage such couples to avoid getting into such a situation unless they agreed to stay together, ensuring the likely offspring would be raised by their own parents (generally the best possible conditions).
Ridiculous concept. Most of human history was based on a gift economy, in small groups not couples, partly because it was unlikely to know for certain that one specific kid was yours. It's only later on that humans lived in smaller and smaller groups. The concept of a nuclear family is relatively new, in fact many societies still have the entire first degree family living together (India).
And besides, we're all tired of the argument, marriage today has little resemblance to its old form.
You know why you ask the girl's father's permission when asking her hand in marriage? Because traditionally, girls were the property of their fathers and it was literally a transfer of goods. So I don't really care what happened for "millions of years".
>>> There's no point in formal social recognition of a union if there's no chance of reproductive consequences thereof.
I beg to differ. There are many many many legal reasons one would want to get married to your loved one, I won't bother explaining them to you, as I'm sure you know them.
You can redefine the purpose of marriage however you want, but at the end of the day, legally there is no mention of procreation when you sign a marriage certificate. Unless you are seriously suggesting we should verify the fertility of couples before they get married?
The real reason for official recognition of unions is that, as a married man/woman, you are less likely to create damage to society, you are seen more stable, it has nothing to do with your ability to procreate.
Ridiculous concept. Most of human history was based on a gift economy, in small groups not couples, partly because it was unlikely to know for certain that one specific kid was yours. It's only later on that humans lived in smaller and smaller groups. The concept of a nuclear family is relatively new, in fact many societies still have the entire first degree family living together (India).
And besides, we're all tired of the argument, marriage today has little resemblance to its old form.
You know why you ask the girl's father's permission when asking her hand in marriage? Because traditionally, girls were the property of their fathers and it was literally a transfer of goods. So I don't really care what happened for "millions of years".
>>> There's no point in formal social recognition of a union if there's no chance of reproductive consequences thereof.
I beg to differ. There are many many many legal reasons one would want to get married to your loved one, I won't bother explaining them to you, as I'm sure you know them.
You can redefine the purpose of marriage however you want, but at the end of the day, legally there is no mention of procreation when you sign a marriage certificate. Unless you are seriously suggesting we should verify the fertility of couples before they get married?
The real reason for official recognition of unions is that, as a married man/woman, you are less likely to create damage to society, you are seen more stable, it has nothing to do with your ability to procreate.