6 tweets · February 2024 · 27 likes · 2 retweets · read on Twitter
fascinating argument. institutions evolve, marriage already in 2004 was doing many things it didn't use to. I do think western society has made a bit of a muddle of marriage & dating & family over the past century or so, and conceptual muddiness is surely part of that.
I went and found the 1h debate. around 18mins in, Keyes makes an adjacent great point but undermines his own take a bit by framing it as "moral" in a way that Obama could reject as "lecturing". he's making a point about incentives! (which Obama ignores) youtube.com/watch?v=tQG5hI…
here's a thread about how birth control has already dramatically changed our species expression of sexual characteristics (and thus the relevance of marriage)
I read years ago (but have been unable to track it down) a fascinating article about how some social welfare programs in the 60s shifted incentives in favor of eg single moms & how this was problematic (even tho supporting single moms is good!) please share if you know a source!
a related muddle is the rise in "dating indefinitely". (straight) people couldn't do this before birth control. you were either: - courting (answering the Q of whether to commit) - having kids together (at which point society definitely prefers you married, for stability reasons)
re the social welfare programs article above I talked to friends yesterday who have a 1yo kid together and are engaged but have been putting off getting married because the social benefits are so much better while she looks like a single mom! 🤦♀️🙃🤡