Konkvistador comments on Open Thread, February 15-29, 2012 - Less Wrong

3 Post author: OpenThreadGuy 15 February 2012 06:00AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (194)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: [deleted] 16 February 2012 08:27:50PM *  0 points [-]

It's an interesting question why marriage is able to create that first effect, and I don't have a good answer.

I can think this is because it is an act that is supposed to entail the following:

  • shared reproductive interests
  • shared financial interests
  • at least some pair bonding (Oxytocin makes you love your kdis and love your romantic partner, in extreme cases enough to be willing to sacrifice yourself)
Comment author: TimS 16 February 2012 10:17:57PM 2 points [-]

To me, those things are implied by the "non-betrayal" stance. Agreement on childbearing, shared financial interest, and pair bonding (i.e. shared emotional interest) are consequences of the fundamental agreement not to betray. As you note, each of those could be achieved without marriage - but most people act as if this were not possible. I'm just as confused as you.

That is different from noting the incidental benefits of legal marriage - if I die without a will, my wife gets my property. To achieve the same effect without marriage, I'd have to actually create a will. And so on for all the legal rights I want my wife to have (e.g. de facto legal guardian if I am incapacitated). But I want my wife to have those rights because of the non-betrayal stance, and if that wasn't our relationship, I wouldn't want her to have those rights.