On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 8:43 AM, Srini RamaKrishnan <che...@gmail.com> wrote: > Ancient > Rome at the peak of its affluence saw a decline in marriages because > people saw no reason to marry. This led to the introduction of the tax > sop for married couples that most modern states continue to this day.
Someone should tell the USian government: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_penalty > Ancient love stories notwithstanding, marrying for love is a > relatively recent phenomenon worldwide, less than 100 years old. It > remains to be seen if marrying for love is a sustainable idea, afaik > there is very little evidence either way at the moment. I find the entire social construct of marriage (arranged or find your own) quaint. Of course, there are important financial implications (inheritance, benefits, taxation, etc.) of formalized cohabitation. > On a related note, the human gene is inherently polygamous - obviously > therefore modern social conditioning of monogamy runs contrary to > genetic traits, and is in a somewhat risk prone position. Are these traits *in homo sapiens* uniformly distributed between the males and the females of the species? > Marriages in > ancient Rome or India carried no such rider of monogamy for example. But didn't the riders apply to the female population (rare instances like Draupati notwithstanding)? Thaths -- "You'll have to speak up, I'm wearing a towel." -- Homer J. Simpson
