That is to say, I don't think that a man-woman team has much evolutionary support. Certainly 2 people are better than one, and there are many problems and stresses associated with single parenting but that support can also be found elsewhere. It's also an extremely different scenario when both parents are very much in the kids' lives after the divorce vs. just fucking off.
You're right that there is a very "now now" culture these days (I can't comment on the good old days before this since I wasn't around, but I believe it is more like this in the last few years/decades), which is problematic in many ways, and I'm sure that does influence attitudes about marriage. I'm not so sure that punishing that attitude in this specific area is going to be all that helpful, though. It seems more like something that would need to be addressed at a more broad level, since it really permeates everything in our lives.
If you ignore the aspect of women being bartered as property I suppose it works in some cases. There are an awful lot of unhappy arranged marriages out there though, and a lot of the studies that show they "work well" define "working well" as "not divorced" - even though in general, a culture that arranges marriage probably doesn't encourage divorce and it probably doesn't care too much about the happiness of the women in particular. Exceptions exist, I'm sure, but that is still a clear trend.2. Part of me would oppose a law restricting marriage to those 25 years or older, but the other part of me thinks it could be a great idea because I agree with you. Too many young people have no clue what they need in a partner. Neither do their parents. It's the blind leading the blind, assuming the parents are even in the picture.
3. I would not be against amending the commitment from "life-long" to "years of child-dependency" before being eligible for a no-fault divorce.
4. I agree that young humans don't have the necessary experience to choose to a proper mate. Some older (wiser) humans do, though. Arranged marriages, despite how ghastly they may sound to us "enlightened" 21st century people, actually worked pretty well compared to our system for choosing mates, which is a giant clusterfuck.
I don't know if love marriages are really that much "better", but in cases where it's not clear, I'd tend to err on the side of individual freedoms.
It's very difficult to get clear data showing a causative effect on society since real experiments are generally out of the question. It's far easier to see the effect on an individual level. If you're proposing to make changes that demonstrably affect individuals in a negative way and you're not able to show convincingly that society will benefit at all, who would agree to such a thing?This is true, there's no good way to isolate this phenomenon completely. If you have any better data, I'd love to see it. Until then, I don't find your argument convincing enough to dismiss it.
Well, you said you would need either a clear reason (again, not sure how severe a reason we're talking here) or mutual consent. If we were proposing that marriages had to last a certain number of years before allowing no-fault divorce, I'd be ok with that if the number was low enough (maybe 5 years, or 1 year). If only to reduce paperwork, or irritate celebrities! Or better yet, mandate an engagement period to force people to think about it a little. I thought we were discussing universal banning vs. allowing no-fault divorce. Instant gratification isn't really the point if we're talking about something that won't change, even with effort. Like say, sexual compatibility (to a degree).Who said anything about their entire life? I'm not asking for old-style catholic church marriage where you could never get divorced under any circumstances. You act as though my suggestion is incredibly onerous. It's not. But I guess when you're used to instant gratification, not getting everything you want the instant you want it does seem like torture. So maybe you're right.
I'm not opposed to the bolded in theory. I think there are some cases where it makes sense (arguably, universal health care, but let's please choke off that tangent right there). But I think you really have to be able to show convincingly that society benefits from the sacrifices of the individuals and so far, I'm not convinced.As I said before, I'm less concerned with any individual's happiness than I am society's, as a whole. If making it a little more difficult to get divorced helps, I'm all for it, even if people are a little less "happy", temporarily.