Do you think Legal Marriage remain the relationship between a Man's wallet and a Woman's offspring?

Are you asking if Legal Marriage "should remain" or "remains"....?

I'm not playing semantics, from my perspective the two questions call for very different responses. I do however agree withe the basic assertion which the two questions share.

The social and legal commitment which the contract of marriage represents, that of a fathers responsibility to support offspring resulting from his relationship with a mother benefits all involved.

His support allows the mother to devote more energy toward nurturing the children. This benefits society due to the increased likelihood of healthy well adjusted children and more productive future members of society. He accepts and acknowledges the burden of support which might otherwise fall upon society.

In addition to the self evident benefits of healthy offspring to both mother and father from a genetic and emotional perspective, another added benefit to society occurs due to the ever increasing life expectancy of its members. Well adjusted children from healthy family's tend to be more likely to take care of their parents when they are too old to take care of themselves. This again lightens the load on society and is of immeasurable benefit to mother and father alike.

No, and I never thought of it just that way even if some do.

Marriage is to me a permanent bond of union between man and woman, that they might be mutually helpful to each other. Living together in love ,helpful to each other, and makes life more joyful.

Marriage does usually brings into it the family unit, where children hopeful can be nurtured by both parents. Financial is only one of many parts of marriage. I think often the men take on that financial part and the women the other because each sex has it's stronger and weaker points and that has worked out better for many over time, if they both respect how their roles and strengths and weaknesses are used. But it doesn't have to be one way for one and not the other. Could be just the opposite

The money is the man's property? The children are the woman's property? I think marriage should be viewed as two people combining energy to create life and it takes a lot more than money to create a life that is healthy and self sustaining. I think we live in a pretty ****** up world and that people place value on things of little to no importance and let what was important die a slow agonizing death. It's true that this does seem to be the way we view the legal paradigm of marriage. Men and women often war with each other while the children are used as weapons and bartering tools. I think legal marriage is an outdated concept designed to protect children. So far, it seems to be doing poorly in protecting children from their parents flaws, insecurities and hatefulness. The fact that it seems to perpetuate a hateful gender war, versus making the lives of mutually conceived life healthier leads me to believe that legal marriage isn't the answer. I believe the answer would be for the parents to learn to love themselves beyond what they own so they can love other people. Can't create court orders for that kind of thing.

pretty much. At least nowadays.

Even if a woman makes as much as a man or more she will usually try to get alimony (which is different from child support). That's pretty unfair. Alimony made more sense back in the old days when most women did not work outside the home.

Some people are just selfish.

No women are contributing to the family expenses sometimes more than men and some men do stay with the mother of their children and actually take care of their offspring instead of abandoning them.

Yes, that's the traditional reality and much of the attempts these days to alter that or reverse the roles has not really met with great success.