Athiests and Marriage

Ruskie4Rent

Since i've given up on believing in a god, i found my self questioning love/monogomy/marriage and all that lark.
I just want to know what everyone elses position is on marriage?
Are they Married?
Can they see themselves ever getting married?
Does concept of monogomy stem from religious prudishness over sex, and if so can the same be said for 'love' ect.?

Beruthiel

I really don't see why being an atheist means you wouldn't believe in marriage. One has nothing to do with the other.

Ruskie4Rent

Beruthiel wrote: »

I really don't see why being an atheist means you wouldn't believe in marriage. One has nothing to do with the other.

What makes you say that?

Ruskie4Rent

Ruskie4Rent wrote: »

What makes you say that?

It's true...?

why do you think they are connected

stevejazzx

I'm married, was an athiest long before I was married...still am today..it was more about creating an envoiroment for our son to grow up in, not that it was essential but it just helped...it also gives our own relationship some gravitas..it's something to have and be proud of - in my humble opinion!

Scofflaw

Also married, to another atheist. Marriage is a ceremony/ritual of commitment by one individual to another - gods are usually only invoked as witnesses, to reinforce the solemnity of the oaths taken. We invoked our friends instead.

cordially,
Scofflaw

pH

Ruskie4Rent wrote: »

Does concept of monogomy stem from religious prudishness over sex, and if so can the same be said for 'love' ect.?

If your partner's being faithful to you is not an issue then I'm sure you'll have no problem finding someone who'll play around on you.

2Scoops

Ruskie4Rent wrote: »

Since i've given up on believing in a god, i found my self questioning love/monogomy/marriage and all that lark....
Does concept of monogomy stem from religious prudishness over sex, and if so can the same be said for 'love' ect.?

I hate to sound trite, but I take it you have never been in love?

Anyway, marriage has little or nothing to do with religion; it's just become tied up in it, culturally speaking.

The real reason to get married is because the wimminz like it!

cavedave

Has anyone been on a premarriage course that is not just a celibate person talking about their imaginary friend? If so where was it? Thanks

Dades

Ruskie4Rent wrote: »

Does concept of monogomy stem from religious prudishness over sex, and if so can the same be said for 'love' ect.?

As per the above posts, marriage has nothing to do with religion. You could get married in every religious institution in the country, but if you don't sign the civil register you're not married in the eyes of the law.

Patently, for society, monogamy is a good thing. How many men don't support their own offspring already, without sowing their spawn everywhere they go - leaving the cost to fall to the state. It makes sense to encourage a family unit, rather than a demographs of single mothers and roving alpha males.

Sure, evolution has left us (men) with the urge to procreate frequently, but it 's also given us (or most of us) the brain-power to see how acting on this isn't the smartest thing to do.

cavedave wrote: »

Has anyone been on a premarriage course that is not just a celibate person talking about their imaginary friend? If so where was it? Thanks

I was supposed to go on one but 'never got around to it'. In the end I knew the wizard that was doing our church ceremony so he didn't enquire and I didn't bring it up!

Ruskie4Rent

While I agree it is good for society and vital at this time to maintain equal rights between men and women, I cant see how people can say it has nothing to do with religion. If you contrast the various cultures around the world, you can see that polygamy is common in some areas. To have only one partner is the standard in the west because of our christian history.

Now I'm not a polygamist or looking for an excuse to be one, but if we are only looking at marriage as a practice to maintain a healthy society, and not a religious tradition, does that mean that we only get married out of convenience (legal benifits, easier to raise kids in families ect). or is something else genuinely between two people that makes them want to stay together for the rest of their life? I would like to believe in that.

pH

Ruskie4Rent wrote: »

Now I'm not a polygamist or looking for an excuse to be one, but if we are only looking at marriage as a practice to maintain a healthy society, and not a religious tradition, does that mean that we only get married out of convenience (legal benifits, easier to raise kids in families ect).

Answer me this question (I'm presuming you're a man)

Would you be happy in a long term relationship with a woman who regularly had sex with other men?

If no then the thread is over, unless you think that she should be faithful to you but not you to her? in that case you're just a hypocrite - thread over.

If yes then I suggest you try it with someone who also shares this view, my guess is that it doesn't lead to a very happy life, rather one full of jealousy, suspicion and probably not a few STDs.

I don't think this has anything to do with religion or what's good for society. *Most* people feel happier in relationship where they believe the partner is faithful to them.

As for your polygamy, why does this have to be about men? How do you feel being some woman's third husband?

cavedave

While I agree it is good for society and vital at this time to maintain equal rights between men and women, I cant see how people can say it has nothing to do with religion. If you contrast the various cultures around the world, you can see that polygamy is common in some areas. To have only one partner is the standard in the west because of our christian history.

Polygamy is common everywhere. Look at a French presidents funeral for a collective noun of mistresses.
You can judge how monogomous a species is by the relative size of the genders. So in species where females mate with a lot of males they are much bigger (angler fish, spiders). In species where the males mate with a lot of females they are bigger (walrus, gorilla). The proportional difference is roughly how monogomous a species in.

Male humans are about 20% bigger then females (and this is similar in most cultures) so we are probably for every five guys you will probably have one with two women and one with none on average. The difference in sizes makes women hating small men and looking for tall men ironic because it essentially means they are looking for men who will have sex with other women.

Ruskie4Rent

pH wrote: »

Answer me this question (I'm presuming you're a man)

Would you be happy in a long term relationship with a woman who regularly had sex with other men?

If no then the thread is over, unless you think that she should be faithful to you but not you to her? in that case you're just a hypocrite - thread over.

If yes then I suggest you try it with someone who also shares this view, my guess is that it doesn't lead to a very happy life, rather one full of jealousy, suspicion and probably not a few STDs.

I don't think this has anything to do with religion or what's good for society. *Most* people feel happier in relationship where they believe the partner is faithful to them.

As for your polygamy, why does this have to be about men? How do you feel being some woman's third husband?

Woah there. I never stated an opinion so no need to assume i think its ok for men to cheat on their girlfriends/wives. Why should you say the discussion is over when you're not fully reading the posts?

If you're an athiest like me, you are probably inclined to assume that evolution is true. If what cavedave says is true, then does that mean humans are not naturally monogomous?

I wanted a discussion on what attracts people to each other, and what might lead an athiest, scepticle as they are, to readily believe insomething called 'love'.

As I said, it would be nice to be able to believe that such a thing exists, but then again, it would also be nice to believe that a god created everything.

Scofflaw

Ruskie4Rent wrote: »

If you're an athiest like me, you are probably inclined to assume that evolution is true.

Or we might have studied it at school/college.

Ruskie4Rent wrote: »

If what cavedave says is true, then does that mean humans are not naturally monogomous?

Humans aren't obligatorily monogamous - cavedave is right. There are aspects of human reproduction that also make sense only in the light of that, although they suggest polyandry rather than polygyny [EDIT: thanks, pH].

We're actually very flexible as a species - and in any case, evolution does not dictate what must be.

cordially,
Scofflaw

pH

Ruskie4Rent wrote: »

Woah there. I never stated an opinion so no need to assume i think its ok for men to cheat on their girlfriends/wives. Why should you say the discussion is over when you're not fully reading the posts?

If you're an athiest like me, you are probably inclined to assume that evolution is true. If what cavedave says is true, then does that mean humans are not naturally monogomous?

Who cares what's natural or not? why does it matter? I know that deep down I would be very unhappy with a partner that regularly had sex with others. That's not religion, that's not society - that's just how I (and I dare say most others) feel. I also believe that me not remaining faithful to them would cause them the same pain and hurt, and therefore it would be greatly hypocritical of me to expect something from them (faithfulness) that I was not prepared to do for them.

The comparative size of the male and female of our species would indicate that we're been very close to monogamous for a lot of our history, while accepting that the very richest and more powerful men have probably always had access to more than one woman, this says nothing about 'ought', morals or how we should behave in general.

The evolution argument is one of the most efficient method for survival and procreation, you cannot take any moral values from it. Evolution would seem to imply that children are ready for sex once they reach puberty - obviously if the better survival technique was to delay the onset of puberty to 18 evolution would most likely have found it? Does this mean that we should 'naturally' start breeding and having children at 14, after all it's 'natural' and what evolution 'intended'?

So is evolution an argument for paedophilia? Of course not. Stop trying to take any moral lessons from natural processes, evolution has no more to teach you about morals or how to live your life than the theory of gravity and Boyle's law.

pH

Scofflaw wrote: »

Humans aren't obligatorily monogamous - cavedave is right. There are aspects of human reproduction that also make sense only in the light of that, although they suggest polyandry rather than polygyny.

fixed?

Scofflaw

pH wrote: »

Scofflaw wrote:

Humans aren't obligatorily monogamous - cavedave is right. There are aspects of human reproduction that also make sense only in the light of that, although they suggest polyandry rather than polygyny.

fixed?

Quite true! Should be polygyny rather than polygamy. Amended my original post.

cheers,
Scofflaw

Ruskie4Rent

pH wrote: »

Who cares what's natural or not? why does it matter? I know that deep down I would be very unhappy with a partner that regularly had sex with others. That's not religion, that's not society - that's just how I (and I dare say most others) feel. I also believe that me not remaining faithful to them would cause them the same pain and hurt, and therefore it would be greatly hypocritical of me to expect something from them (faithfulness) that I was not prepared to do for them.

The comparative size of the male and female of our species would indicate that we're been very close to monogamous for a lot of our history, while accepting that the very richest and more powerful men have probably always had access to more than one woman, this says nothing about 'ought', morals or how we should behave in general.

The evolution argument is one of the most efficient method for survival and procreation, you cannot take any moral values from it. Evolution would seem to imply that children are ready for sex once they reach puberty - obviously if the better survival technique was to delay the onset of puberty to 18 evolution would most likely have found it? Does this mean that we should 'naturally' start breeding and having children at 14, after all it's 'natural' and what evolution 'intended'?

So is evolution an argument for paedophilia? Of course not. Stop trying to take any moral lessons from natural processes, evolution has no more to teach you about morals or how to live your life than the theory of gravity and Boyle's law.

Well i never stated that evolution should be used as some sort of outline on what is moral. I think the nazis are a good example why that is an awful idea.

Is it your position that why two people stay together exclusively is down to our moral values, that we have a responsibility to remain faithful to each other? But surely what people consider to be moral varies from person to person and changes over time. Look at Ireland and how our society is developing. Divorce has only been introduced 13 years ago, and we are certainly alot less prudish about sex than our parents may have been.
I'll guarentee you that divorce rates will increase, and the age of people getting married will increase in the future.
Is it a coincindence that this will probably happen as people become less and less religious?

cavedave

If what cavedave says is true, then does that mean humans are not naturally monogomous?

All evolutionary tales have a certain "just so" basis to them. I would not take my story on faith. There are probably other explanations for human gender size differences.

We're actually very flexible as a species - and in any case, evolution does not dictate what must be

We are culture seems to be very important. But Christianity does not always lead to monogamy. Polyandry happens in some places in Nepal where all the brothers of a family marry one woman. What other arrangements have been tried?

JCB

Ruskie4Rent wrote: »

But surely what people consider to be moral varies from person to person and changes over time. Look at Ireland and how our society is developing. Divorce has only been introduced 13 years ago, and we are certainly alot less prudish about sex than our parents may have been.
I'll guarentee you that divorce rates will increase, and the age of people getting married will increase in the future.
Is it a coincindence that this will probably happen as people become less and less religious?

Personally I think you are leaving out the vital link between prosperity and (i) religious trends and (ii) marriage trends.

Say, Ireland became a lot less prosperous in 30 years time, people (and knowing our culture:rolleyes:, probably women) would have less opportunity and probably get married younger. And commit to marriage too, since the alternative mightn't be so hot.
Generally, remember it has been noted that people become more religious in times of need, so there is your link.

Since this is an atheist forum, I think I should add, that whether more or less people become religious, it is no relation to the existance or non-existance of God.

legspin

JCB wrote: »

Personally I think you are leaving out the vital link between prosperity and (i) religious trends and (ii) marriage trends.

Say, Ireland became a lot less prosperous in 30 years time, people (and knowing our culture:rolleyes:, probably women) would have less opportunity and probably get married younger. And commit to marriage too, since the alternative mightn't be so hot.
Generally, remember it has been noted that people become more religious in times of need, so there is your link.

Since this is an atheist forum, I think I should add, that whether more or less people become religious, it is no relation to the existance or non-existance of God.

I would have thought education would be much more important in relation to these trends. They have been increasing since the seventies and you can't say we were prosperous at the time.

JCB

legspin wrote: »

I would have thought education would be much more important in relation to these trends. They have been increasing since the seventies and you can't say we were prosperous at the time.

I agree, I think education is a relation too.
But what is the impact of education without opportunity?
Education combined with opportunity, I think creates prosperity.

lostexpectation

marriage is about affording a house,

ps my sis is not getting married in a church but a hotel. yeah!

Allison91

Its all a load of crap 1oo% concentrated crap! god..love..peace...aww cmon..we only do anything because we have to