Anyway, thanks for sharing, and I'd agree that a frivolous marriage sounds like a pointless exercise.
I think most people can accept this belief while still thinking that there ought to be an out for two people who find themselves deeply unhappy together for a long period of time. Committing to something should very rarely be an absolute thing, and most people (even those who accept and respect marriage as a social institution) don't think that marriage should be one of those things. That's compatible with thinking (as you say in your OP) that most romantic relationships are shallow and not ultimately very meaningful, and wanting something more.
I don't care if they love each other. I care that they're not making me pick sides and often causing me to deal with people I like moving away or quitting common hobbies so they can avoid someone they've gone from loving to loathing.
There are also selfish reasons, including boredom, finding more excitement - but not more depth - with someone else, and festering undiscussed resentment that financial and/or sexual expectations aren't being met.
If one person goes down one of those paths and refuses to even discuss it, there's not much the other person can do.
It's immature to expect a perfect glowing zero-conflict happy ever after. But it's equally immature to stay committed to something that is clearly dead and may be actively harmful to either or both partners - and perhaps the kids too, if there are any.
As you suggest at the end, this is very much your personal view.
My wife and I have been together for almost 20 years, but we've only been married for 2. Our commitment didn't change due to marriage. The only thing that changed was that things got easier from a legal perspective. We no longer need to worry about wills in the case that one of us dies, and we can make medical decisions on behalf of each other if necessary.
I suspect that for many people who don't have a religious desire to marry, marriage won't affect their level of commitment. I think this is supported by how often people get divorced.
This is the way.
When a relationship has been proven for a decade or more, then marriage can be contemplated more realistically.
This sounds good but the data seem to contradict you[0]. It's been known for a long time that people living together are more likely to get a divorce. This study is about re-evaluating if it's still true. All in all, the person you are responding to (and maybe you?) are more likely the exception rather than the norm. But to what extent the exception? 2 years is a pretty short time frame, only time will tell.
0: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/jomf.12530?a...
What I enjoy most is a more faithful & trusting relationship than most marriages anyway.
Also depends on how much you like having a third party(s) involved in your relationship, for some people that's all they know or prefer, others not so much. Institutions can be so much bigger than any two people so the influence can still be outsized even without marriage.
"We don't need no piece of paper from the city hall . . ."
--Joni Mitchell
A negotiated commitment takes a specific form (the terms of the negotiation) but a marriage defines a commitment to be committed. I've heard some folks of my generation say things like "we got divorced because we fell out of love", which sharply contrasts with my view of marriage and falls more in line with a standard committed relationship.
To me, a marriage is a commitment to consistently try to fall back in love and work through things, even at those points you might otherwise quit.
Granted, I'm a religious guy and my view on marriage is flavored from that perspective, but making the marriage official was certainly key to the commitment for me personally.