R: Settle

Conservatives recognize that strong and stable families are fundamental to a rightly-ordered society. Traditional family structures and forms of marriage have tended to place greater emphasis on pragmatism than sentiment. In East and South Asia, where extended families have been the basic social unit for millennia, elders traditionally arranged marriages to ensure mutual benefit to both the bride and the groom's families. In Western Europe, where household formation norms have privileged the nuclear family over the extended family since at least 1000 AD, pragmatic concerns still dominated romantic ones until the modern era. Although newlywed couples in Western Europe could marry freely and form new households upon marriage, as opposed to being subsumed into existing extended families, their social independence also required financial independence. Men could not marry if they lacked the property and means to earn a living, and this norm was so strong that in some parts of Western Europe (mostly in Germany), it was codified into law. At the same time, arranged marriage was prevalent among the Western European aristocracy. Despite what Hollywood tells us, for most of our ancestors, marriage was not primarily a matter of romance but of transaction.

Yet at the same time, we must interrogate whether we can ennoble and refine the traditional practice of marriage. Can romance bring a couple into a more perfect union than pragmatism? Does genuine attraction help a relationship stand the test of time? Why are we so inspired by stories of star-crossed lovers and romantic conquest, in which the power of love leads heroes and heroines to bravery, sacrifice, and persistence in the face of despair? Should we not seek to cultivate in marriage that heroism which only true love can motivate? More practically, when considering one's responsibilities towards the next generation, should one not seek a spouse who will be the best mother or father that a child could ever ask for?