I can't understand why most opponents of the marriage think that it is just in interests of the state. But what about people themselves?
婚姻是责任。在政府和上帝眼里都不是。但首先在你丈夫/妻子的眼中。这个义务告诉我，我的意图是非常强烈的——我不愿意只和你住一段时间，直到我遇到对我更感兴趣的人。我还会一次又一次地这么做。在我生命的尽头，我将拥有什么?
我认为人们需要牢固而持久的关系——这是他们的血液。社区、社会甚至国家应该尽一切努力促进/激发所有社会工具或机制，迫使人们建立牢固的关系——因为有时他们拒绝相信这一点，但这是真的!

I WANT TO MARRY MY CHICKEN
婚姻有两个属性。
第一种是契约性的:国家有一个模式——分手和照顾?在没有协议的情况下，任何两个人(受国家关于合同能力的法律的约束)可以同意或受约束，或者协议可以被双方起草的协议所替代。如果立法机构赢了呢?确定合同，让法院(在合同管辖权的平等保护和执行下)创造一个合同，或者让人民在主动过程中选择一个合同，并让法院检验它对少数群体的保护。
第二点是精神层面的:国家无权介入，无权执行、干预，甚至无权确认。国家吗?唯一正确的是:如果有人说他们在精神上结婚了(让他们和他们的狗、猫、鸡或孙子孙女在精神上结婚吧)，国家可以允许他们利用国家?根据上述所有合同条款。
离婚率是制度失败的证明。同时也证明了普遍的社会需求。因为结婚仪式存在于每个人类社会(可能每个动物社会也有类似的仪式)。我们可以说，结婚是一种本能。
The philosophical question is: why would any rational person want to marry without a contract between them fixing what will happen when they split up? In this regard, it is philosophically interesting that some of those gay couples that got married in San Francisco during the first period when it was legalized, were just getting their ?divorces? by the time the second approval period went into effect. All the issues around property and debt division, and child custody and support, were just coming up.

p.s. such critic on marriage institution I tend to explain in conflict of generation. Critics tend to say that marriage is "old-fashion" and is not suitable to modern times mostly. Children try to find their way all the time. It's classic.
But destruction is much more easy action than creation.
OK, critics, if you are eager to ruint the marriage, what is your proposal? What should be in it's place? Only being together? Is it enough talking from long-term perspective? Talking about psychology of the children, who grow without dad or mother?

我不知道婚姻是否与生俱来;还是出于本能。然而，我们的基因大概和乌龟、蟾蜍或黑猩猩的基因一样自私。它们“希望”自我传播，并确保随着时间的推移进行复制。它不是有意识的，这种自私，说基因想要做任何事情只是一种比喻——一种谈论进化生物学产生过程的“方式”。
Au contraire,people (and by association)governments are selfish. They think in such terms because they have self-awareness---consciousness, we have called it. And, as Mr. Savinar has illustrated, there are all of these terms of property, possessions and ownership which enter the equation. We all have our 'stuff' before and after we are married---or if we marry. And most of us want to keep our stuff, should something other than death cause us to part. Alluding to Tim's discussion about contracts, this is why people who have a lot of stuff and attractive incomes resort to pre-nuptial agreements: they are righteously selfish. And who can blame them? There are a lot of golddiggers out there---just waiting to get their paws on your stuff.
政府在婚姻制度中有既得利益，教会也是如此。社会和经济稳定是他们的朋友，美国梦建立在社会和经济稳定的基础上。在任何领域或努力中，进步都需要它。但是政府(通常还有教堂)希望婚姻在可接受的范围内。离间和放荡的观念导致了对混乱和不稳定的恐惧:如果一个人娶了自己的鸡，我们是否必须为鸡提供保健服务;授予公民身份和投票权?它是复杂的。
I imagine much of this and more will be discussed on your show, so I'll go have coffee now.

为什么会有人想要用任何一种有约束力的协议来限制他们的爱?爱不应该是无限的、最美丽的自由的吗?
=
MJA

有趣的问题。例如，马克思就是一个婚姻蔑视者。根据他(和恩格斯)的说法，婚姻是一种布尔格特制度，是资本家为了保存财产而设立的……我绝对同意……

Bless you Kestutis and Dave, you remind us of the limitations and the shortcomings of philosophical analysis, namely that a methodology founded on rationalism can fail to take into account wonderful human impulses like love and un-selfishness. Your advocacy of considering these motivations and thereby moderating the coldness of rationality, reminds us, as I have said here before, that philosophy and poetry have the same goals, but philosophy only takes you as far as rationality can go; poetry can go further, and is more "acurate," because it depends on metaphor, and a methodology using metaphor better represents the impulses you remind us of, love and un-selfish-ness. Thanks again for the lovely reminder.

没有婚姻的社会在很多情况下都是科幻小说的内容。它已经被编织成乌托邦的愿景和平等主义的场景。但是，正如其他评论人士指出的那样，稳定是人类进步的基础，旧的习惯很难改掉——尤其是当它们取得了可接受的成功时。
Government and its close associate, religion,are heavily invested in stability and progress, and yes, I am only repeating some of the notions already offered.
As Kestutis astutely suggested: if someone has a better idea, let him proffer it with sufficient (or at least arguable) proofs. If anyone would like to examine some fictional ramifications, revisit the books of the late sixties, written by Robert Rimmer: The Harrad Experiment and The Rebellion of Yale Marratt. These books were controversial, even for the tumultuous times in which they appeared. Your mothers and fathers did not like them and neither did your clergy and governmental leadership.
It is ironic (or perhaps paradoxical)that we feign to teach our children generosity over selfishness. We want them to be able to 'play well with others.' But, as they are growing up, they must learn an inconvenient truth: generosity is often rewarded with disdain and doormat status. Competition for position, power and prestige transforms selfishness into a virtue. If you want to make it in the world, you can't always be nice.
And if someone wants to take your 'stuff', steal your trophy wife or otherwise disrespect you, you are expected to get mad---and to get even. We talk the talk about utopia and egalitarianism. But we are taught to be ruthless when necessary. The Historionic Effect. Keep that phrase in mind.

我觉得我们需要结婚，因为上帝希望我们结婚。既然上帝创造了我们，我们需要听从他，而不是依靠我们自己的逻辑。不结婚就生孩子是不好的(即使圣经中的大卫王通过妃嫔生孩子。大卫所作的，并非都蒙耶和华喜悦。当人们认真对待婚礼当天在全能的上帝面前许下的誓言时，离婚是可以避免的。如果我的老板是个疯子，我可以换一份工作;但如果我的妻子很难相处，我就不能换她。

废除婚姻。嗯。唱反调:我们会做什么来取代婚姻?之前对这篇文章的评论已经恰当地说明了这个昔日机构的社会、经济、政治和神智基础。我们应该改变几千年的习俗和传统吗?我并不是说这是站不住脚的、不受欢迎的或不可能的。我只是想知道我们为什么要这样做，而且，如果我们能够这样做，会发生什么。反正看起来也没什么意义。有传言说世界将在太平洋时间2011年5月21日下午6点结束。如果这种情况没有发生，我们可以重新讨论。
Live long enough; prosper if you find it meaningful.

婚姻不同于长久的友谊等，可能是因为这种承诺。它有不同的意义，即使没有人能解释。也许对婚姻的需求在人类本性中有遗传根源。sorry about week english

I disagree. Marriage is the foundation of family life. Families are the building blocks of our communities. Communities are the building blocks of nations. The abolishment of marriage will lead to social decay.

To Issaic Neutron:
Why would do we need to replace it? Why not allow people to associate with who they want and leave when the relationship has run it course. There is no emotional, financial or pyschological security that a person can gain from marriage or a relationship, therefore, the challenge is can a person live this life knowing that with gain, comes lost. That although life feel enjoyable and bearing with someone, this may not always be the case in my life. That my wife or husband may comfort me now but there may be some time in the future where they may not. To me, there is no need for replace, just free association with people. We are not here to be owned by culture and tradition to act in a certain way.

To gift
有些人可能会说，尽管人们仍然参与结婚的传统，我们的社会衰退了。如果婚姻是一个创造社区和国家的家庭的基础，那么你如何解释社会的衰退?你如何解释种族、阶级、政治和经济两极分化的人们，他们都互相争斗，以获得大多数人的公正或利用大多数人的优势。社会的衰败并不是因为没有家庭，而是因为我们没有培养出能够在这个世界上和平生活的人。它确实表明，家庭不是一个稳定国家的先决条件。事实上，我倾向于认为大多数告诉我的重要的事情只是分散了我对更重要的事情的注意力。对我来说，婚姻就是其中之一。国家、社区和家庭都是一个人在生活中获得财富和稳定的途径。如果你是富人，婚姻可能很重要，但如果你是穷人，为什么婚姻要这么重要?