Hacker News Reader

Comment by cr4nberry | Hacker News Reader

What exactly is the rationale for this push for marriage? If both men and women have the same working opportunities?

Wasn't the point of marriage because women weren't supposed to work? And now they are, so what exactly is the point? "Taxes" or something?

Just look at the title of the article, it's implying that no marriage is associated with being "aimless", as if the meaning of life is marriage -> kids -> more cannon fodder and tax base. No higher purpose. Just more baby making

The entire attitude here (which is especially prevalent in US media) seems highly reactionary in tone. If (wo)men don't want marriage, then more power to them. Life is finite

edit: if you downvote, reply

View on HN

The point of marriage is because you've found a partner you want to commit to.

And in "traditional" marriages, women absolutely do work. They just do unpaid labor (and often more than the man did, working weekends and evenings as well.) Laundry, cooking, cleaning, childcare, are all work.

And having kids can be emotionally fulfilling. Watching the development of ones children and experiencing the world through their eyes is powerful.

And I agree with you, if a woman doesn't want marriage, great! She should face no stigma for that choice. But your attitude that marriage is somehow transactional or whatever ignores a lot of human emotional aspects.

> And in "traditional" marriages, women absolutely do work. They just do unpaid labor (and often more than the man did, working weekends and evenings as well.) Laundry, cooking, cleaning, childcare, are all work.

Work in that context meant a job, ie paid labor

> And having kids can be emotionally fulfilling. Watching the development of ones children and experiencing the world through their eyes is powerful.

This has nothing to do with marriage

> But your attitude that marriage is somehow transactional or whatever ignores a lot of human emotional aspects.

Because it's a legal agreement, viz transactional. The emotional aspect is love. Love does not imply marriage (a legal agreement).

You love someone so much that you decide to enter into a legally binding agreement, and because of the love alone and not other factors like tradition or conformity?

This makes no sense, loving someone and entering into a legal agreement are two entirely different concepts

No one here is going to convince you via posting. You've got strong opinions here, clearly. I should probably just disengage and downvote and move on.

... But

The legal part of marriage is important, it provides protections for partners who are likely to make a life change based on love. My marriage certificate guarantees that if my partner or I chooses to give up a career to take care of the household, we aren't left penniless if we split.

It protects us in the outside world too, we are a household. We can easily operate for one another I'm financial, contractual, or other spaces.

It's social, it's a commitment visible to others. It's a way of saying I care so much I'm willing to put aside some of my independence for the purpose of this relationship. That carries emotional weight.

Of course love and legal marriage are different. Love whomever you want, but there are emotional reasons AND legal reasons to get married. (And plenty of reasons not to as well.)

>The point of marriage is because you've found a partner you want to commit to.

Your western centrism is showing. That's only a modern western view of marriage that commoners can get married for love. That's something that you can only do in a developed economy. Try marrying for love when you're a poor farmer and you don't know how next years harvest is going to be. For a lot of people, there are qualities besides love and attraction that are desirable in a marriage.

Fair

Marriage exists to facilitate the nuclear family, which is crucial for healthy offspring and the continuity of our species.

We marry to have kids. State-supported monogamy is the most stable for raising the next generation.

You don't have to have kids, or be able to have kids, but that is the exception, not the rule.

Marriage is for the kids.

There's a difference between "not wanting to marry" and "not having the ability to marry". Very few people own private jets, but that's not a choice, and saying "if all these people don't want to own private jets, more power to them" is weird.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com