Marriage - really the 'best fit'? (1 Viewer)

[yoddle]

First up, I think this belongs in the NP&CA thread, because it's to do with sociology and greater philosophical questions, as opposed to living arrangements.

The other weekend, I may or may not have been divulging in some illicit substances. Anyway so it was an intimate group of close friends were very forthcoming with things that they have never told anyone before, especially about their families.

Like one girl was saying how her Dad had depression, and he turned alcoholic and used to just sit on the couch crying every night. And she never used to want to come home from school when she knew he would be home, because she didn't know what she was going to find hanging from the ceiling. And how once they got a call from him saying that he was going to drive headfirst into the next car that ran around the corner. He had an affair and she hasn't talked to him for months, even though he's heaps better now.

Another friend said how her Dad is also an alcoholic, and put her Mum's boyfriend's head through the wall (her mum also had an affair).

Most of my friends' parents have split up, including mine, and i know of some other pretty fucked up situations with the families.

We came to the conclusion that the concept of the merrily happy middle-class family is the biggest load of shit ever and that just as much dysfunction and unhappiness takes place in wealthy families as it does in lower SES families, sometimes on a much more hush-hush, psychologically damaging level.

So this got me thinking about marriage, and the social construct that it is. Why do we, usually (although less so now) at a very young age, decide to choose to spend the rest of our lives with the one person. We do this even though we know that a huge amount of marriages end in divorce and general unpleasantness, and many of the ones that don't are the home of two very unhappy people, who may only stay together "for the good of the kids" or out of sheer habit.

But is marriage really the best fit for kids and the adults? Does the perceived negative emotional effect on children only exist because they are conditioned from birth to accept that they have a mum and a dad and that that these two roles will never change. Of course there can only ever be the two biological parents, but in some ways biology is a lot more simple and unforgiving than human emotions.

I believe that a family can be a great place for the socialisation of children, but I also think that I would embrace a situation where adults could change their partners when they fell in and out of love or a relationship was not working no matter how much effort was put in. If children knew this to be the case as they were growing up, surely the effect would be much much less.

Discussion please.

 

[HumanDichotomy]

We came to the conclusion that the concept of the merrily happy middle-class family is the biggest load of shit ever and that just as much dysfunction and unhappiness takes place in wealthy families as it does in lower SES families, sometimes on a much more hush-hush, psychologically damaging level.

Yeah my parents are split up too. And now I find myself wishing they'd never been together in the first place...just to save my brothers and I all the shit...

But maybe it's not marriage that's the problem? Maybe it's more the stigma that surrounds divorce?

 

[Iron]

We are monogamous by nature. This is the law inscribed on our hearts and it is as pure and good as the instinct to put our trust in One true God. We long to put this monogamous faith into worldly practice, through faithfullness to one partner. The fruits of this worldly faith are life.

9/10 marriages break-down because one/both partners lack the necessary self-discipline to stay faithful and commited and will be tempted by the first new thing that floats past. They are weak and spend a life-time hating this weakness which locks them in a cycle of life fail.

Children are always best served by the unity of their biological mother and father

 

[banco55]

Because despite its flaws there's no real replacement for it as an institution? Anyway if we want to stick to anecdotes I know a lot of married couples that are happy and have been together for 25 + years. Not everyone is a dysfunctional emotionally stunted fuck up with alcohol/and or mental problems. Incidentally if you want to have a marriage that will last don't marry someone whose parents are divorced.

 

[HumanDichotomy]

9/10 marriages break-down because one/both partners lack the necessary self-discipline to stay faithful and commited and will be tempted by the first new thing that floats past. They are weak and spend a life-time hating this weakness which locks them in a cycle of life fail.

Children are always best served by the unity of their biological mother and father

I think there'd be *a lot* of people willing to disagree with you there, Iron. If you've ever been in any sort of situation where a marriage has broken down, you wouldn't say anything as ridiculous as that.

 

[Iron]

shut up you limp wristed fop

Also, divorce makes kids like Dic gay

 

[HumanDichotomy]

Yeah...totally.

 

[ComingUpForAir]

We are monogamous by nature. This is the law inscribed on our hearts and it is as pure and good as the instinct to put our trust in One true God. We long to put this monogamous faith into worldly practice, through faithfullness to one partner. The fruits of this worldly faith are life.

9/10 marriages break-down because one/both partners lack the necessary self-discipline to stay faithful and commited and will be tempted by the first new thing that floats past. They are weak and spend a life-time hating this weakness which locks them in a cycle of life fail.

Children are always best served by the unity of their biological mother and father

This 'Iron' guy is a troll yes..?
If not, and his fatuous non-sequiturs are actually sincere, well then..yuk
His first sentence is completely wrong, there's overwhelming eidence that, like all other primates, we are not monogamous..

 

[HumanDichotomy]

This 'Iron' guy is a troll yes..?
If not, and his fatuous non-sequiturs are actually sincere, well then..yuk
His first sentence is completely wrong, there's overwhelming eidence that, like all other primates, we are not monogamous..

No. He's for real. Hard to believe hey?

 

[yoddle]

Those temptations are human nature at its most raw sexual energy.

The notion of life-long marital commitment for everyone is very much like everything else religious - shitty shit.

Fuck god, embrace life.

 

[Iron]

Lol God is life. Your path is deeaathhhhhhhhh, heathen

 

[Cookie182]

We are monogamous by nature. This is the law inscribed on our hearts and it is as pure and good as the instinct to put our trust in One true God. We long to put this monogamous faith into worldly practice, through faithfullness to one partner. The fruits of this worldly faith are life.

9/10 marriages break-down because one/both partners lack the necessary self-discipline to stay faithful and commited and will be tempted by the first new thing that floats past. They are weak and spend a life-time hating this weakness which locks them in a cycle of life fail.

Children are always best served by the unity of their biological mother and father

TBH man, you are going to have to reconcile your views there. Whats your source (your making a scientific claim here!)?

Neo-Darwinian theory tells us that men are naturally polygamous in the sense that when we first developed our attraction circuitry over a hundred thousand years ago in small tribal communities on the African planes, the overall mating strategies for males was to "spread the seed".

The optimum strategy for selecting mates goes something like this: For the male, the optimum strategy is to impregnate as many females as he can. For the female, the optimum strategy is to select a strong male for food and protection, and to cheat a little on the side, in case her choice is sterile. Dawkins makes a compelling case in the Selfish Gene (1976).

Research the work of Prof. David Buss from the University of Texas if your interested. Matt Ridely "The Red Queen" is also fantastic, as is Robert Baker's "Sperm Wars". In essence, from an evolutionary perspective, marriage is an epic failure. I know this conflicts your Catholic view, but truth can't get in the way. I want you to present some hard science otherwise. If the Church is going to accept evolution, it must accept the facts the theory derives in fields such as evolutionary psychology.

I would agree that females are naturally more monagomous. The ideal strategy for them is selection of a strong male with a high level of survival value (given that she couldn't hunt etc, it also protected her against other suitors). However, as I said above, the probability of an infertile male can lead to them pursuing other options or "hedging their risk".

* Note, sociologically speaking, polygamy has been practiced since ancient times. Polygamy was accepted by the Jews until 1000 CE when, under pressure from the Christians, it was prohibited for a thousand years. The Catholic church didn’t prohibit polygamy until the Council of Trent in 1563. In the Muslim world, polygamy is still very much an option (for males, which is roughly in line with evolutionary theory anyway).

The Mormons (Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints) practiced polygamy until it was disavowed in 1890. There are an estimated 20,000 to 40,000 Fundamentalist Mormons (FLDS) still practicing polygamy. When the pilgrims arrived in America, they mingled with the richly polygamous American Indians. Many took additional Indian wives, bit of history if you care...

 

[HumanDichotomy]

Lol God is life. Your path is deeaathhhhhhhhh, heathen

Hmm. No. I'm pretty sure *everyone* dies, Iron. Or don't they teach you that at Bible school?

 

[Iron]

Christians live forever, gayboy

 

[HumanDichotomy]

Oh no. You've caught me out. I want you sooooo much.

 

[yoddle]

Can you guys either start an Iron vs HD bicker thread or keep discussing marriage please.

But incidentally, gays rock.

 

[Cookie182]

Christians live forever, gayboy

Dude, with respect your more mature then that...

Also, I consistently ask. Since you use to at least be agnostic, can't you reach back in and remember your old skepticism? I'm not saying drop your belief, but in areas like this, where you make blatant conservative claims (which are simply a sociological indoctrination) against the overwhelming weight of evidence, then you can expect little else then ridicule.

If you can't reconcile your faith with the fact that yes, we are primates, we have lived for anywhere from 100 000-250 000 yrs, we developed our behavioural intutitions primarily in a small-tribe network and still hold these innately today, then you must accept that your arrogantly blinding yourself from reality. Many Christians I know fully accept that biologically, evolutionary psychology explains much and consequently accept the fact that we are not monagmous creatures.

I really have no idea why some Christians are so afraid of scientific truths...what has sociological structures like marriage (a legal institution) got to do with having a personal faith in Jesus Christ (your way to heaven). In fact, all the small time "rules" on homosexuality, adultery etc make little sense. If you believe, primarily based on some pseudo-logically induced creedance towards an intelligent designer, then these things should do little to deter yourself from this fact.

 

[Iron]

TBH man, you are going to have to reconcile your views there. Whats your source (your making a scientific claim here!)?

Neo-Darwinian theory tells us that men are naturally polygamous in the sense that when we first developed our attraction circuitry over a hundred thousand years ago in small tribal communities on the African planes, the overall mating strategies for males was to "spread the seed".

The optimum strategy for selecting mates goes something like this: For the male, the optimum strategy is to impregnate as many females as he can. For the female, the optimum strategy is to select a strong male for food and protection, and to cheat a little on the side, in case her choice is sterile. Dawkins makes a compelling case in the Selfish Gene (1976).

Research the work of Prof. David Buss from the University of Texas if your interested. Matt Ridely "The Red Queen" is also fantastic, as is Robert Baker's "Sperm Wars". In essence, from an evolutionary perspective, marriage is an epic failure. I know this conflicts your Catholic view, but truth can't get in the way. I want you to present some hard science otherwise. If the Church is going to accept evolution, it must accept the facts the theory derives in fields such as evolutionary psychology.

I would agree that females are naturally more monagomous. The ideal strategy for them is selection of a strong male with a high level of survival value (given that she couldn't hunt etc, it also protected her against other suitors). However, as I said above, the probability of an infertile male can lead to them pursuing other options or "hedging their risk".

* Note, sociologically speaking, polygamy has been practiced since ancient times. Polygamy was accepted by the Jews until 1000 CE when, under pressure from the Christians, it was prohibited for a thousand years. The Catholic church didn’t prohibit polygamy until the Council of Trent in 1563. In the Muslim world, polygamy is still very much an option (for males, which is roughly in line with evolutionary theory anyway).

The Mormons (Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints) practiced polygamy until it was disavowed in 1890. There are an estimated 20,000 to 40,000 Fundamentalist Mormons (FLDS) still practicing polygamy. When the pilgrims arrived in America, they mingled with the richly polygamous American Indians. Many took additional Indian wives, bit of history if you care...

Hold up, you want evidence that the right thing to do is also the scientifically observed thing that is done?


"other post

 

[Cookie182]

Hold up, you want evidence that the right thing to do is also the scientifically observed thing that is done?


"other post

This is not a philosophical question- I don't think that human behaviour in the mating realm poses an ethical dilemma?

The question was not, what is the right way to mate, the question is are humans monagomous? The answer is no.

Whether this is objectively correct in a meta-ethical sense is another question.

Go to the "atheism" thread, we been discussing science v ethics all night (reached little conclusions)

 

[Silver Persian]

We are monogamous by nature. This is the law inscribed on our hearts and it is as pure and good as the instinct to put our trust in One true God. We long to put this monogamous faith into worldly practice, through faithfullness to one partner. The fruits of this worldly faith are life.

9/10 marriages break-down because one/both partners lack the necessary self-discipline to stay faithful and commited and will be tempted by the first new thing that floats past. They are weak and spend a life-time hating this weakness which locks them in a cycle of life fail.

Children are always best served by the unity of their biological mother and father

Oh. So we're naturally inclined towards monogamy (first paragraph). Except that most people aren't (second paragraph).