Relatively ancient and inactive
I believe that society is something that should focus foremost on sustained human happiness rather than striving for biological perfection. So, yeah, marriage > evolution.
None.
This is actually one of the most intriguing things while reading Darwin's origin of species. I did a paper about how modern medicine could be getting in the way of the whole "survival of the fittest" concept. Marriage also does this in the same way. By nature, the strongest men should plant their seed in as many women as possible, and will. Marriage and general human emotion, as well as diseases, prevent that. I always just thought it was funny, and how, it kind of is an outdated and counter-evolutionary concept in a scientific way.
Marriage is most definitely
pro-evolution, in a very scientific way. For species like mammals who do not produce thousands of offspring, the survival rate for offspring increases dramatically when there are parents around dedicated to the survival of the offspring. Birds do this as well, though I don't know of any species who forms nuclear families in the same way as humans. "The strong spreading his seed" argument does not work because of both the dedicated parent issue, and because dedication to a single partner dramatically reduces the spread of sexually transmitted diseases and genetic defects. The benefits of the social structure of marriage far outweigh any "lack of reproduction" disadvantages since each woman can still produce multiple offspring with the same partner.
None.
Relatively ancient and inactive
Ah. I suppose Vrael's right. Were we to assume that a woman could care for any amount of children by herself, then marriage would be anti-evolution, but the security provided by marriage leads to increased young survival rates.
None.
Marriage is most definitely pro-evolution, in a very scientific way. For species like mammals who do not produce thousands of offspring, the survival rate for offspring increases dramatically when there are parents around dedicated to the survival of the offspring. Birds do this as well, though I don't know of any species who forms nuclear families in the same way as humans. "The strong spreading his seed" argument does not work because of both the dedicated parent issue, and because dedication to a single partner dramatically reduces the spread of sexually transmitted diseases and genetic defects. The benefits of the social structure of marriage far outweigh any "lack of reproduction" disadvantages since each woman can still produce multiple offspring with the same partner.
Yeah, I really never thought of this... Although i would say it as that
monogamy is pro-evolution, as marriage can technically, while not legally, happen between a man and any number of wives. Just look at ancient judeo-christian times, where a widow would marry her brother in law.
None.
I meant marriage between a single man and a single woman for life.
None.