The discussion about the institution of marriage on last Friday’s Open Forum was so excellent—EA at its best—that it seems unfair to highlight a single entry in it above the rest. It began with Bad Bob’s observations about his daughter asserting that marriage was outdated and unnecessary in our wise and modern age. (I mostly avoided this debate, hard as it was for me when the sudden loss of a marriage dominated my life in 2024 and so far this year as well).
What followed was a fascinating discourse among BB, Michael West, Ryan Harkins (this topic is in his wheelhouse), Humble Talent, Old Bill and Demeter, but it was Chris Marschner’s contribution, in response to Humble Talent’s comment, that I have chosen to represent the thread. (Bad Bob nominated it for COTD in an email to me, and as the initiator of the discussion, his pointer carried weight.)
The Humble Talent comment that was predicate to the Comment of the Day (he begins with a quote from Bad Bob’s initial comment regarding his daughter’s argument):
BAD BOB: “I think that’s wrong on it’s face, but if society were to embrace that sort of thing, wouldn’t we have to do away with a few ethical concepts? Loyalty comes to mind, the Golden rule, and I’m sure quite a few others would need definitions changed?”
None of the above. I had the benefit, at 18, of being put in charge of a staff that included a 60 year old grandmother. Gina was weird; proudly Christian, and professionally raided in Guild Wars…. Which isn’t per se a contradiction in terms, but was kind of unique. I loved our conversations.
One of which I remember talking to her about how people, even back then, had sex before marriage, and how she didn’t understand how any relationship could have trust unless two virgins found themselves for the first time.
The answer, to me, was obvious: Why wouldn’t you trust them? Where’s the lie? Now… She was thoughtful enough to lean back and have a think on that, because that’s who she was, and didn’t necessarily like it, or agree with it, but she accepted the truth of it: There’s no betrayal if there’s no lie.
There are cultural differences in play here, and realities that people your age grew up with are fundamentally different now, and it’s hard to wrap your head around them.
Religious beliefs, at least pre-Lutheran, tended to evolve over time to fit the realities of life: At the times the food prohibitions were active, those foods were almost as likely to make you ill as to nourish you, and by the time Jesus told the masses they could suck back pork and shellfish without sin, sanitation improvements had made those foods relatively safe.
We aren’t living in times where humanity or the faith teeters on the brink of extinction from external existential threats. It’s not important, and in fact, it’s probably not great, for the average family to have ten kids anymore. Sex doesn’t carry the risk of pregnancy that it used to. Sexual disease is significantly less common and much more preventable and treatable. I honestly wonder if, had condoms and penicillin been discovered before the printing press, whether the teachings of Jesus wouldn’t have broadly laxed the sex laws.
Here is Chris Marschner’s response:
***
HT, It appears that your construct is predicated on the fact that as a society we no longer have to fear external existential threats because we have learned how to mitigate the damages associated with behaviors once taboo in the eyes of the church. The implication is that our scientific achievements render religious dogma unnecessary and outdated.
There is no doubt that the church has evolved over the millennia as scientific knowledge has grown. The first priests were those who made observations, formed hypothesis, tested there theories and made pronouncements based of what the gleaned from nature. Power was conferred upon the priests for being able to predict outcomes from specific events. They did not know that trichinosis was a round worm parasite in pork. They just knew eating it made you sick. My point is that all religions originated from the foundations we now call science. When theories stand the test of time they become scientific laws. The benefits of monogamy and marriage are not just religious relics they are grounded in science.
Even accounting for divorce the benefit of two parent families cannot be dismissed. Remarried monogamous couples are better for children than the alternatives. It is the exception not the rule that single parent families are successful. The rise of alternative lifestyles is correlated to the rise in mental illness and suicide in teens. Is it the cause? I don’t know. For all I know it is from additives in our food. Nonetheless, we cannot assume that no societal damage is occurring with the rise of non-monogamous relationships. The problem with our science today is that politics often dictates what we study and what we don’t.
OB takes issue with the “it takes a village” notion. He does not explicitly say why so let me. That concept fails when not everyone in the village who influences the children see things the same way. This causes confusion in children who will be easy to manipulate by adults who provide the child with immediate gratification. A child’s mind is not yet developed enough to know when they are being manipulated. At some point the children need a trusted influencer who can explain why the child should do x instead of y based on their own adult understanding of the world. More to the point, a child raised by the village absolves the members of the village any responsibility for the behavioral outcomes exhibited by the child. There is never any accountability for the village as a whole.
One of my pet peeves is when people commit to something then bow out at the last minute because an opportunity believed to yield higher satisfaction manifests itself. The person failing to follow through on the commitment ignores the costs borne by the other. The existential threat we face is our own unwillingness to follow through on long term commitments. If this trend continues, at some point in time we will stop committing to anything to minimize costs or negative personal satisfaction and will have to relearn how to work together as a society.
Ethics Alarms 
That was a good discussion. I hadn’t followed it. Thanks for bringing it up.
I particularly enjoy the members of the commentariat who are so well versed in their respective religious doctrines. Being a lapsed (marinated in it through high school and then, remarkably enough, law school) Catholic, I just find insights from those backgrounds really helpful and enjoyable to read. I’m basically very favorably inclined toward religious thought and morality, notwithstanding my contempt for Catholic hierarchy and clergy. In addition, I guess I have always enjoyed reading or listening to people talk about subjects they know. For example, I always enjoyed listening to Joseph Campbell. He knew what he was talking about, and he spoke eloquently, like any good college professor. And, as I’ve mentioned many times, the EA commentariat is analogous to the best discussion sections I had in college, except the commenters are accomplished, full-grown adults rather than college kids still wet behind the ears.
I appreciate the call out; especially in light of the other more well developed responses to the query. What struck me initially in HT’s comment, while well written and defensible, was the use of singular anecdotal personal events to defend a position that affects all of society.
I often had to deal with this when I taught Economics when one or more students would challenge a well established economic principle because they or someone they knew routinely violated that principle. When behaviors are measured millions of times over across a society even a hundred thousand exceptions don’t disprove the rule.
I myself have no use for organized religion but to suggest that religious teachings have no merit is ridiculous. Those who spent their lives observing repeated phenomena allowed for the establishment of leaders others in the group who sought out answers. When you tend to be right more often that wrong the people defer to your judgements to keep them safe.
When answers were not readily known, they made things up like the world is flat or masks prevent the transmission of Covid.
From that, religions are born. From religions come sets of rules. And, because of rules societies can form. Without guidelines, rules, guardrails or other checks on human behaviors societies break down.
From that, religions are born. From religions come sets of rules. And, because of rules societies can form. Without guidelines, rules, guardrails or other checks on human behaviors societies break down.
Can we arrive at a marital and sexual ethics similar to the one taught by the Roman Catholic church without appeals to church doctrine or the Holy Scriptures? Or may we arrive at a whole different set of ethics if we only use reason and observable facts?
Different religions also come with a different set of rules. E.g. the Islam allows for polygamy, whereas Christianity does not. Also the Islam allows for honor killings by the family if a young women dates a man not approved by the family. I personally would not call the Islamic morality on marriage and sexuality good, and reconcilable with the values of Western society.
I would also like to point out that many people in our society do no agree with the Church’s teaching on homosexuality. So does that imply that homosexuality nay be considered immoral as it contradicts religious teaching, but at the same time ethical if we cannot find arguments against it simply based on reason and facts?
I understand from what I have read on this blog that there is a difference between morals and ethics, our host Jack may point us to the right spot as I am unable to find it. Most of what I have read in the current discussion appears to be based on a particular morality, and not on ethical values that we may have in common with people who do not subscribe to a particular religion.
There’s no doubt that religions can get bastardized by the unscrupulous to amass power in order to advance an agenda or create scapegoats.
Like the prohibition against eating cloven hoove animals or shellfish the religious prohibition of adultery and man not lying with man may still have originated with outbreaks of disease associated with non monogamous relationships. Simply because we can treat the disease does not mean we should engage in behaviors that create unnecessary risk. This is especially true when we try to shift the costs to others.
Whether we are talking about Druids, Christian Bishops, Islamic Imams, any other of the known religious clerics. or our current scientific community who have become the clerics for the non-theistic, a common thread runs through all and that is human hubris and avarice. For that reason, we have been given free will to accept or reject their ideas at our own peril or benefit.
My entire point was that early scientific processes led to the creation of religions that served to answer human questions. The religions that were created interpreted what they observed and made human rules to increase desired behaviors and reduce undesired ones. When answers were unavailable they give the masses untested hypothesis to ameliorate broad concerns that threaten the social order. Appeals to the church teaching is not always necessary but pointing to the Bible as an historical document can be useful.
Addendum:
Reasons for permitting polygamy and male dominant social roles:
1 Too few males chasing too many females that must be provided for,
2 Male social dominance makes it easier to inculcate the religion among males. Without males the clerics could not rise to power.
3 Honor killings shield males from stronger males from dominating other males so killing a female prevents males from killing each other so they are available to kill external tribal adversaries.
Just some scientific observations or conjecture.
“My entire point was that early scientific processes led to the creation of religions that served to answer human questions.”
You said this before: The church used to lead science. I’m paraphrasing, but I think that’s broadly your point. It happens to be true, but that obviously stopped at some point, no? I mean, what’s the last bit of cutting edge science the church has done?
I’d argue that one of the reasons the church became less proactive and more reactive was because Martin Luther locked the Bible in stasis, and thank you for this:
“There’s no doubt that religions can get bastardized by the unscrupulous to amass power in order to advance an agenda or create scapegoats.”
Because I’ll remind the commentariat that the reason Luther translated the book into German and distributed it among the masses was his absolute disgust at the Catholic Church selling indulgences (to get their loved ones out of purgatory for a fee).
And so while, yes, there’s wisdom in the Book, and yes, there’s a lot of wisdom in generational knowledge, adherence to dogma, particularly selective adherence to a very fractured dogma, is… I’m sorry, but it’s unwise.
If you can’t articulate a secular justification for something, then it’s probably unjustifiable. Not to say that a non-secular argument for marriage is impossible, just that it’s harder.
There is so much to unpack here that I have to very brief in my response. Entire books have written about these type of subjects. E.g. Nicholas Wade “The Faith Instinct – How Religion Evolved And Why It Endures”. S I will pick out two quotes to comment on.
“Like the prohibition against eating cloven hoove animals or shellfish the religious prohibition of adultery and man not lying with man may still have originated with outbreaks of disease associated with non monogamous relationships.”
1-First, there is a different explanation of why religious food taboos exist, such as the dietary laws of Judaism. The central verse in Leviticus 18-20 is “Be Holy because I am Holy”. Therefore the Israelites had to be separate in their customs from other people, this expresses itself in dietary laws (kashrut), clothing laws, Sabbath and Jubilee.
Sociologists have pointed out that customs like these are socially costly, and thereby serves as boundary markers and a clear sign of commitment to the religious group. Other religious groups have similar customers that serves as a boundary markers such as the Amish who have a distinctive clothing style, and abstain from certain technological innovations, The Jehova’s Witnesses who refuse blood transfusion, and the Latter Day Saints who do not drink coffee.
These Jewish dietary customs should not be explained as a way to prevent diseases. If so why wouldn’t the ancient Babylonians, Phoenicians, Romans, and Greeks have the same food restrictions?
1-Second, the religious and cultural prohibitions of adultery and homosexuality can also be explained considering the social structure or fabric of the community. Middle Eastern societies (including ancient Israel during the time of the Bible) are honor-same based, tribal, agricultural, and patriarchal. Marriages in these societies are arranged. Political alliances are formed between families and clans with marriage as an instrument. Land needs to stay in the clan, and is passed on via primogeniture. Childlessness is interpreted as a curse of being cut off from God’s blessing in future generation, as this means that your name will be removed from the tribe. These are some of the reasons why honor in Middle Eastern tribal societies are so preoccupied with sexual propriety of women, including female virginity up to the wedding night. Honor killings occur as honor is seen as more important than the life of the daughter and sister. Honor is currency, much more important than wealth, as illustrated in the story of the tax collector Zacchaeus who was socially dead (Luke 19).
1-Third, prohibitions against adultery, and a preference for female virginity can also be explained based on evolution, typical human mating strategy, and knowledge about female sexuality. For those understand this more in depth I would refer to two books of David Buss, namely “The Evolution of Desire” and “When Man Behave Badly”.
A couple of points can be mentioned here:
“My entire point was that early scientific processes led to the creation of religions that served to answer human questions.”
2-First, we should start with evolution to explain human sexual behavior and attitudes. Following Nicholas Wade’s “The Faith Instinct – How Religion Evolved And Why It Endures” and other books such as Richard Dawkins “The Selfish Gene” which propose theories why humans developed phenomena such as ethics and religion. Nicolas Wade promulgates the theory that religion developed due to the perceived need of a supernatural enforcer of ethics and morality.
2-Second, I would not presume the existence of scientific processes in the ancient world. The ancient Greeks inaugurated a way of thinking that we may call fundamental to science such as the use of logic and experiment. In the premodern world people made sense of the world with the help of mythology, and using superstition and projection.
2-Third, marriage is a cultural artifact that came into being somewhere in ancient history. This is both related to the need for parental investment, as well as social and cultural reasons (alliances between families). Because of this we see a wide variety in approaches to marriage and sexuality across cultures.
Personally, I am willing to argue morals based on Holy Scriptures I see as authoritative based on divine revelation. However I am a bit hesitant to declare these as based on reason and science. Pure ethics would require that we can make arguments that are not based on religious teachings.
CVB
You may have misunderstood my point which was religion was born out of observant men who could think and analyze the natural world such that they could discern when to plant crops based on solar positions and the like. (Is it possible that their ability to understand nature top such an extent was a form of divine revelation?)
While rudimentary, it was the origin of the scientific process that that allowed for these men to provide answers to others. They did not need to be the strongest who could beat down an opponent, he was a person who others would follow. These followers became the first societies.
Imagine a world where might made right. It would be chaos. The law of the jungle was what preceded societies. Each of the points you made reinforce the idea that observant men witnessed human behavior which would undermine good social order and then created the rules which were codified as church doctrine. I never said they were good rules I just said social order was an outgrowth of religion which itself was an outgrowth of rudimentary science.
I will say this about religion. It conveys power and power corrupts those who have it and want to protect it. That too is a human characteristic. The supernatural entity be it a sun god, or a personification of man was needed to explain the unexplainable and as a byproduct to prevent the masses from challenging the growing power of the church.
Today we have prisons for those who violate social rules. The same reasoning for laws against murder, rape and theft can be attributed to secular reasoning as well as biblical law. It is just a matter who proffered it.
“What struck me initially in HT’s comment, while well written and defensible, was the use of singular anecdotal personal events to defend a position that affects all of society.”
To be fair… Gina was irrelevant to the point: Which was that as society changes, what is bad for society changes, and people who’s experiences are mostly from before that change happened are often unable to reconcile that.
It’s the same with so many things, from people who bought their homes for $10,000 and a wheel of cheese back in the 70’s, to people who grew up without computers, to people who came of age before birth control existed. The questions to which these cohorts throw up their hands like the questions are incomprehensible, strangely worded alien riddles usually have easy answers if you’re willing to take a step back and think about them.
“I myself have no use for organized religion but to suggest that religious teachings have no merit is ridiculous.”
I didn’t say that, but this was close:
“The implication is that our scientific achievements render religious dogma unnecessary and outdated.”
Often, yes. You gave the example yourself with porcine roundworm.
There was a time when the inclusion and exclusion of Biblical verse was straight-up voted on in a Roman Senate. Which is to make the point that the Book was malleable, right up until Martin Luther translated it and disseminated it among the masses, when all of a sudden, the book was locked. Gross oversimplification, I know, but reality asserts, a book that changed greatly over time would never add another testament, there would be no more convenient edits, in or out. And so… We’re left with the wisdom of men hundreds of years dead. And yes, it was wisdom, but what’s the quote about sufficiently advanced science and magic? These men couldn’t conceive of penicillin, couldn’t conceive of a computer, of being able to travel 60 miles in an hour.
People view the teachings of the bible as outdated because they are. The bible has instructions for the proper treatment of slaves, positively talks about old men marrying tweenage girls, and still… To this day…. Requires that women put on sacks and sit on the roofs of their homes while they’re on their rags, and to burn the sacks when they’re done. I’ve said it a hundred times: No one lives their lives to the letter of the book because even if it wasn’t such a cluttered, dyslexic collection of contradictions, it’s entirely unworkable in a modern setting. People can’t even find the time to actually make holy the sabbath, what’s the change that they’ll ever sacrifice a goat? Godly women can’t teach men… What’s the chance that women are going to disappear from education? Are they bad Christians? You personally, do not adhere to every line of the book. You cannot possibly.
So where, if not the norms around you, do you draw which parts of the Bible are safe to ignore? How much whistling past the graveyard do you do?
HT
Your points are well taken. When I said “I myself have no use for organized religion but to suggest that religious teachings have no merit is ridiculous.” I was referring to myself not you. More to the point I am no Biblical scholar and when I speak of religion I am speaking about current teachings of which I am aware. I am no theist but I can still believe in something more powerful than humans and I don’t know what it is, and I do not need someone to explain it to me in any book.
What I was getting at was that we should not throw out the baby for the bath water. Religion whether it is theistically based or non-theistically based can be a problem with individual pronouncements. That does not mean that we ignore that which works.
Our science has yet to create life from nothing. Yes, it can alter life forms but only if it is given life creating materials from other life. What is the secular explanation for the absolute origin of life? The question remain unanswered by today’s scientists. If the universe is claimed to be 6 billion years old because that is the distance limit at which our telescopes can measure light sources are we simply limited by our capacity to understand the magnitude of the universe or our ability to measure it. Moreover, if it has age what was in its place beforehand and what precipitated the big bang that is supposedly the origin of all things in the universe? How is faith in our scientists any different than faith in the ancient clerics. Not much. To answer your question “what’s the last bit of cutting edge science the church has done?” I suppose it depends on what religion you adhere to. The humanist church of science which put a lot of faith into Dr. Fauci seems to be little different than most other organized religions. How many people put their faith into our scientific community and how great thou art.
People who scream follow the science are little different devout followers of any church. I will take from science that which can be proven and I will take form the Bible that which makes sense.
Every nation/state has their secular bibles. In the United States, we have 27 commandments and a raft of social rules codified in the Code of Federal Regulations many of which outdated but remain on the books. Like slavery or requiring women to put on sacks and sit on roofs during menstrual cycles we ignore these edicts. Should we ignore all that works because we have laws that are outdated? Of course not.
CVB wrote “Nicolas Wade promulgates the theory that religion developed due to the perceived need of a supernatural enforcer of ethics and morality”.
I take no issue with that statement because the only reason to call on a supernatural enforcer is to give the “anointed one” power that is hard to refute by man. The “scientist clerics” of the day would need to have a stick to ensure compliance to edicts no matter how foolish we deem them to be today. It is fundamentally a risk/reward decision. Follow the rules or burn in hell. Who will take the chance and no one can come back to challenge that.
Today, the humanist religion invokes earthly punishments for failing to follow the established rules. Secular Humanism is merely a different religion in which people put their faith because it works to meet their needs. The problem with humans deciding on what is moral is that it is not etched in stone.
Yeah, this is basically right, and I largely agree. I’d said earlier:
“If you can’t articulate a secular justification for something, then it’s probably unjustifiable. Not to say that a non-secular argument for marriage is impossible, just that it’s harder.”
There’s a line, and I think we both recognize it, between doing something that’s the beneficiary of thousands of years of trial and error and has obvious and articulable benefits, and doing something we’ve been doing for thousands of years because that’s what we’ve always done and God Says So.
The good thing for Christians, is that a lot of Biblical wisdom is actually wise, and the benefits to living in line with that wisdom is obvious. The bad thing for Christians is that that obviously isn’t universally true, to the point where even the most pious of believers don’t participate.
I don’t think our line of thinking is that far apart. I am not sure I agree with the entire statement below though.
“If you can’t articulate a secular justification for something, then it’s probably unjustifiable. Not to say that a non-secular argument for marriage is impossible, just that it’s harder.”
I find it far easier to provide a non-secular argument for marriage than polygamy or polyamory.
When I married 34 years ago it was not because of some religious edict. We were married in a VA chapel because it suited us as it was non-denominational. The ceremony was for others not me.
I chose to be married because I found someone that complemented me. She has her strengths and I have mine and together we are better people.
One cannot commit totally to more than one person in a relationship. People that over commit in their professional lives tend to fail at meeting commitments and suffer from health related ailments as they try to meet them.
There is also no equality in polygamy because one member gains or is satisfied at a higher level at the expense of another.
I just believe that the ancients saw wisdom in long-term monogamous relationships, and so far their ideas are working for us. I don’t need to look to the Bible for that.
The COTD was well-deserved, Chris. I have come to appreciate your perspective on so many topics, and this was no exception.
And that entire discussion was excellent.
Just as a note, my original statements did not appeal to religious authority for marriage, just the relationship between two people as marriage is generally understood to be in the West, as well as the raising of children within that. I think the data shows the benefits to all involved when marriage is stable.
Religion is a way to tell us why the human soul is as it is, but religious or not the story of love and betrayal and the hurt therefrom goes as far back as the written word, and marriage provides a buffer to that if we avail ourselves if it.
The consensus here seems to be that however we came by it, the institution in marriage as we know it is a good thing, whether it’s evolved from knowledge and experience or comes from religion (though to Chris religion is just early scholarship of some sort – correct me if I misinterpret).
This is where (I think) the daughter and I disagree. She thinks marriage is the new way that doesn’t work, and that things were better before “modernity” intervened. I suspect she’s of the mind that as religion grew, it sent things out of balance to human nature. I tried to argue the merits as noted throughout the discussions here, not resorting to religion with her either, and while she discounted them, she didn’t offer specifics as to why I was wrong.
I had thought some here might provide insight to the specifics she didn’t, but but everyone so far draws the the same relative conclusion. No matter how much we’d like to think human beings have evolved and gotten better over the millennia, when it comes to interpersonal and intimate relationships we’re the same jerks we’ve always been. And however things developed to the point where marriage came to be seen as a stable framework, it is the best blueprint to a stable society.
As to the religious aspect of marriage, I think the Judeo/Christian heritage (Jesus is a Jew…) provides a rich framework through which to view marriage. All of Scriptures make reference to God and his bride. His forgiveness, his long suffering, the sacrifice Christ makes for his bride, etc.
It starts with the premise above that we’re just jerks in our human relationships, when we do that we’re jamming God up because we’re hurting someone He created in His image, someone He loves, and we need forgiven. When we screw up with our spouse, don’t we ask forgiveness? If we’ve been wronged, and we care about the other person, don’t we forgive them and restore the relationship?
We weren’t all that and a bag of chips when Christ died, we were complete jerks, and yet he showed up big for his bride.
I think that’s quite a powerful example, and gives a deeper context to the importance of marriage, how it lifts up couples and families.
Sadly, we fail at marriage, even as believers – and while my daughter was growing up, her parents most emphatically did NOT exhibit any of the traits of a stable marriage, to say nothing of a Godly one. I don’t wonder why she’s drawn the conclusion she has. I would like to understand the better way she hints at.
“The consensus here seems to be that however we came by it, the institution in marriage as we know it is a good thing, whether it’s evolved from knowledge and experience or comes from religion”
The problem is that marriage as it works today in Western society is not good at all. The four horsemen of the sexual apocalypse are:
About 50-56% of first marriages end in divorce. About 70% of these are initiated by women. The numbers for a second and third marriage are even worse. Source: James Sexton YouTube videos at Soft White Underbelly channel.
The four mentioned horsemen of the sexual apocalypse have cause a change in the power balance within a marriage in favor of women. Previously a man could assert authority, while nowadays there always is the potential threat of divorce even if this is unspoken.
Give this it is understandable that men are hesitant to marry, and that there is a MGTOW movement.
Also women prioritize education and career, resulting in women marrying much later or not at all.
Western as opposed to middle eastern where polygamy is accepted. Or Mormon in some cases, though they’re certainly Western, but quite the exception.
Sex being cheap was another of my original points. Nor is sex is only for procreation.
There is an emotional bond with sex that people try to ignore but is wired in to us, thus my reference to love and betrayal etc, and its very long history in literature everywhere. Sex and intimacy are foundational to relationship but seems to be, pardon the pun, divorced from most of the commentary here.
Lots of reference to alignment between this family and that for tribal security, and protection, and dominance etc, and true enough in history. My perception, and someone will surely school me shortly, but like a lot of things, we hear about how the powerful and wealthy did things, but most of the peasantry probably weren’t part of it. Like slavery in the South, most southerners did not have slaves, but history is taught as though everyone did.
In any case, I’m not convinced any of it stops the closeness resulting from sex, but what does is excessive amounts of sex outside of a one to one commitment.
It’s like a narcotic. Taken as prescribed the effects are great and lead to recovery and good health. Abused and you get all manner of issues.
We now know excessive consumption of porn leads to a lot of problems for men, depression, ED, the devaluing of women affecting the ability to build relationships etc, so don’t just blame it on the gals and their independence.
I’m not sure the ideal of marriage is the problem, I think it’s, as usual, the people involved.
In our reply here I think a lot of what we’re talking about is selfishness. Lots of other things in the mix adding pressure, but that’s a big one.
it certainly was a key factor in my divorce, along with some other baggage we both had, which, in my case, stemmed from the divorce of my parents, one of which was very selfish (the penalties for the sins of father will continue to the 3rd and 4th generation…).