It was a quick answer, and I appreciate the consistency-check.

>Is this a universal statement? Some cultures was/are
>constructed in such a way to not marry was inconcieveable.
>Just like for some people marriage may be a cash connection
>but to others it's a way to insure the immortality of a
>community, and everybody didn't lack the autonomy to choose
>their partner.

My point wasn't that romantic 'love' was a new concept, but that marriage for non-economic reasons was a pretty new concept by historical standards, as was marrying STRICTLY for romantic reasons. One set of my grandparents married because their parents had arranged it, and thought my grandfather would make good money to take care of their daughter; the other marriage was a sort of rebellious romantic marriage.

But keep in mind, this was the whole reason why dowries existed in so many cultures. I agree, that shouldn't disqualify the exceptions, but when you brought context into the frame, I wanted to dissect it a little under an historical lens. I shouldn't have been so glib, though... apologies.