Sells, my friend. Go read some theology. Or perhaps the bible. As an agnostic I find neither of these sources authoritative but your claim that marriage is constituted merely by the sexual act has no biblical basis, let alone any other.

Vis - John 4:18 where Jesus says to the adulterous woman 'the man you now have is not your husband'. The entire concept of adultery makes no sense if you automatically marry someone by having sex with them. How then can it be forbidden?

The church's rejection of pre-marital sex also makes no sense under this definition (though that prescription, too, has little biblical backing).

I think the article has merit, and prompts us to some serious thinking. Amanda has a very good point about cohabitation being tipped in favor of men. It is HEAVILY in favor of men.

Regarding someone's post above, I find the idea of marriage causing men to own their wives funny. I'm a married 30-something guy and, um, that's news to me. :P Seriously, any form of unhealthy control by one over the other has more to do with the couple than with the marriage itself. If one is abusive, it doesn't matter if they're married or not: the abuse will happen, coming from other factors, including their own family backgrounds.

Here's a pretty good read:

http://health.discovery.com/centers/loverelationships/articles/marriage%5Fmyths.html

by Prof David Popenoe, National Marriage Project at Rutgers University. Some of the sobering conclusions in the article:

- Men DO NOT benefit more from marriage than women. They do so about equally.

- "Many studies have found that those who live together before marriage have less satisfying marriages and a considerably higher chance of eventually breaking up. One reason is that people who cohabit may be more skittish of commitment and more likely to call it quits when problems arise."

See also this one:

http://www.s-t.com/projects/DomVio/livein.HTML

Amanda's point that women want dads to be around for the kids is touching. Would unmarried men be more committed to the kids than married men? Assuming that we're talking about men who deliberately decided one way or another (either to get married or not), which would logically be more committed -- to their partners/wives, to their kids, and to the relationship?

Of course, if we're talking about men who DIDN'T think about why they were getting married, or not getting married, then all bets are off. They didn't seriously think about what they were getting into, so they're logically more likely to get into a domestic mess, regardless of their married or unmarried state.

I'll say it again: the article has merit, and rather than cynically dismiss the points Amanda made, readers should commit (pun intended) to some serious thinking.

Lastly, for Catholics and Orthodox at least, marriage is not just a legal contract. It is a sacrament. We recognize that marriage is such a huge undertaking that it takes more than just the couple to do it right: we need God. At least for those groups (I belong to one of them), that's what we've been taught, and I, for one, believe it.

Jeff, commitment to children, commitment to a partner and commitment to marriage are three seperate but related issues. Personally, I expect that if I have children I will be completely commited to them and I would share that with their mother. Whether I stay in a commited relationship with her really depends on the situation, I obviously don't know what will happen in the future. I can say that precisely because I can't predict the future, it will extremely unlikely that I will ever marry.

This is not cynically dismissing anything. This is a position that I've come to (and it is a fluid position, ie: changing) after thinking about the issue for a long time and very seriously, and in conversation with people whose opinions I respect.

I think its great that Amanda is engaging in social commentary and I would love to see more young people doing that, but if you publish you have to be aware that people are going to disagree with you and they aren't going to hold back with their opinions. This is called public debate.

Final point: I don't understand why cohabitation is in favour of men. The way I see it, the state has no business in my relationship and I'm mature enough (and so would be anyone I would ever want to live with) to come to an equal, shared and mutually satisfying arrangment. I'm interested to hear why you think it would be imbalanced though.

I had to smile at the anecdote about one of her friends wanting 7 kids but the others only wanting 2-3 - since Australia's birth rate is only around 1.75 which is well below replacement level, having only 2-3 children won't help that - the one who wanted 7 is actually on a better track.