Although religion is all based on belief having no basis in fact and has been responsible for terrible injustice and suffering (like ideologies, but earlier) the one productive result of the Judeo - Christian tradition has been the institutionalised monogamy i.e. the nuclear family.
The common commencement of the ceremony used to be:-
"Marriage is an institution established for the nurture and education of children "
The inventions, innovations and progress in science which have multiplied the productivity of the human race a thousand times have all come from cultures which have the nuclear family as the basic building block- either Judeo- Christian or those which have adopted the nuclear family as the basic building block.

Can you name any other culture which has given the world, steam engines, powered spinning jennies, powered looms, locomotives, steamboats, steam ships, steel hulled ships, internal combustion engines, telegraph, telephone, aviation, assembly lines, sky scrapers, radio, television, computers or internet?

Without these inventions 90% of the present world's population would not exist for lack of the ability to produce, transport and distribute the food clothing and shelter for their existence.

The only conclusion you can make is that the nuclear family is the only means of bringing children to the maximum of their potential which produces these leaps in science.

We undermine the nuclear family at our peril. The relationship which gives rise to procreation, nurture and education of children is special.

It is the probability of procreation which makes it so vital that the financial positions of the male and female are merged to give the female the security to bear children and make a career a second priority while she nurtures them.

Should widow's pensions ( e.g. war and judges ) be available to anyone who has not had to put a career in priority 2 for the benefit of children?

What comes after gay marriage, polygamy, polyandry?

How does a married homosexual deny the right of a Muslim to marry wife 2 or 3 or 4? and at six years old as the Mohammed did?
Where do you draw the line?

I feel rather sorry for the author of this article, which I am sure would enrage him. "How dare that old bat feel sorry for me?" And he'll know I'm an old bat when I say that I've been participating in what he pleases to define as a neurotic relationship for 49 years and 10 months. While he does make a couple of good points, I feel he's missed the main point. I can't speak for others, but I got married and stayed married because the other neurotic and I decided we preferred each other's company to all others, and we felt a legal union would be sensible given the various ramifications of just living together. For one thing, we only had to have one collection of Bach and Vivaldi--a considerable savings, as any music collector would know. We could pool our personal libraries, another savings. We'd have somebody on site to discuss the music or text with. Legal marriage seemed nicer for the children--while one might occasionally refer to them as little bastards, one wouldn't want the term to be genuinely applicable. And when the grim reaper comes knocking, as surely he must one year soon, it's good to know that somebody's got your back, legally speaking. "The old bat said DNR, and that's what I'm demanding--get away with your heroic measures!" It's my wish that the author some day soon finds someone with whom marriage will suddenly make sense. When he does, let's promise not to say "We told you so!"

Reasons for marriage:

1. Tradition (parental and grandparental expectations)

2. Economic value - economies of scale of 2 adults + Xchildren under 1 roof.

3. To provide greater relationship security while bringing up kids. Mother less likely to work when kids are young so dependence on a stable male income

4. More in the direction of the author's message: 20 year old girls love the idea of getting married (love of the groom is secondary) and

"all my friends are getting married."

As the years go by and kids fly the coup marriage is less essential and desirable.

Pete

Taking into account the fact that all of the "individual" members of every human culture, including ours is not that much different to a bee-hive or ant colony, in which all of the members of the hive/colony unconsciously play out their (chemically) pre-pattened function in supporting the survival of the hive-mind.

We are all unconsciously "living out" pre-patterned functions. Nobody has any real clue as to why we do what we do in every aspect of our lives. Everything seems so "natural", even, according to some, a part of " 'God's' plan" for humankind

Therefore, it seems to me that this essay is describing some very down-home truths about the unconscious neurotic motives that pattern the emotional-sexual couplings of human beings.

That having been said please find a unique Illuminated Understanding of the all-important emotional-sexual dimensions of our existence-being via a set of essays available via this reference (including the Epilogue -The Deer In The Garden)

http://www.dabase.org/2armP1.htm#ch3a

Also listen to the recitation of what was a originally a spontaneously given talk The Mummery-cult of Pairs Set Free

I agree with all the arguments presented against getting married, but the important ones left out are that in the USA, [and to a much lesser extent in Australia} inheritance rights are not guaranteed unless the testatee is married to the testator. And if there are children, the partner is not legally able to take care of them in case of accident. The partners do not have visiting rights in hospital, can not make decisions regarding funerals, cannot receive the usual insurance benefits, and other spousal rights, despite having shared their lives for fifty years...the list of things an unmarried partner cannot do is very long and very wrong. The sole solution in those countries is marriage

I find myself agreeing with Louisa and can only add if folks feel their property is the name of the game they remain free to demand a prenuptial agreement and then protect the partner's interests via a legal will, that would automatically terminate if the partnership founded in the divorce courts.

Which all too often is the result not taking enough time to work on the relationship, or by just taking the partner for granted?

Not far from where I live is a family dissolving before someone's disbelieving eyes?

She has responded by trespassing on his new partner's property late at night to hurl obscenities and (awaken the entire neighborhood) abuse; that has allowed him to see all the ugly reasons he walked out in the first place.

There's an old truism in marriage that goes, if the laundry isn't done at home it needs to be taken out; and people aren't property!
Judging on what she shouts like a load loco screaming in the night, she doesn't want him or his happiness; but doesn't want anybody else to have him either?

Now that's what I call neurotic?
Rhrosty.