Please, take it apart, and show us where you are confused.
At the most basic essence, marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.
Not sure anyone can help you VV, if that is what you have racked your brain over... Especially considering you are a 'professional' social worker.<quoted text>
It's your contrived drivel... You take it apart and explain it to us. The part that throws me is "...constraint on evolutionary mating behavior."
What is it about marriage that is a constraint (restriction, prevention, limitation) on mating behavior?
From where I sit, your definition literally means that marriage is a cross-cultural restriction on evolutionary mating behavior.
See, I just don't think you've thought this thing through.
I could be wrong. Maybe you had something else in mind when you made-up your own personal definition of marriage.
Am I the only one who finds this definition puzzling? Can anyone else explain it better?
Here is a brief but thorough explanation;
This paragraph on long term mating (marriage) explains the
"The nature of human reproduction is such that paternal parental investment is not essential to offspring survival. Consequently, short term mating strategies are more favorable to males; Buss and Schmitt (1993) assert that by inseminating as many females as possible while providing as little parental investment as possible, males increase the odds of forwarding their genes. In contrast, the large amount of parental investment required by females makes long term mating strategies much more favorable for them. By attaining the commitment of their male counterparts, females can capitalize on the consequent non-genetic resources provided by the male (food, protection)."
But in all honesty VV, you understand exactly what I said. You play dumb because you have no counter for it.