I'm not saying we should get rid of it, change it, or that it's a bad thing. I'm sorry you took it that way.
I hope that you can see that it no longer matters that it was meant for a specific purpose, it has changed society's views of marriage and how much meaning or strength they hold. That's my only point, and I would be interested in a discussion as to whether marriage strength and meaning has increased over the decades if my assertion isn't true.
I would posit that Women's Lib has played a far more significant role in our societies' views on marriage than any other factor.
Women now have the fully capable of supporting themselves financially, so there's not the same need for them to be shackled to a man, and society doesn't need to pressure a man into staying with his wife to ensure that she has support. And along with financial freedom, women have asserted more control over their bodies and sexuality. They don't need to dangle the lure of "moral sex" in order to hook a husband/wallet.
Whatever sentimental feelings you have about your marriage - and they're real and good, I don't mean to say otherwise - I think the fundamental core of marriage is a societal tool used to keep women supported in a community where women rely on someone else for food and shelter.
As women gain equality, marriage is bound to change dramatically.
Also, Socialism. The more we rely on government to take care of us, the less inclined we'll be to bind ourselves to some other individual.[DOUBLEPOST=1498580555,1498580463][/DOUBLEPOST]
EDIT: Nevermind. I can see how this is going to play out already, and I don't feel like getting into a debate that's doomed to endless disagreement from the start.
I should be so wise.
But I'm not looking for an argument. I'm just talking.