Is the institution of marriage unnatural?

dilbert2

Marriage as an institution has been pushed for nearly 2000 years, particularly by Christianity. However, given that our species evolved gradually over hundreds of thousands of years, and from other orders of humanoids going back possibly a few million, and that it is unlikely that most of these humans remained with one partner their whole life – then is it not unnatural for us, given that we have much of our DNA still intact from our stone age ancestors?

We are the only animal to officially declare that we will love and have sex with one person for the rest of our lives, and even then our ancestors from the beginning of the evolution of humans up until relatively recently from an evolutionary perspective would have had many partners, children etc. Looking at the amount of divorces and dissatisfied marriages about, is it not safe to conclude that the institution of marriage is just not natural, and goes against our very human and animal nature?

I know that some religious propagandists (newspapers like Alive! in particular) believe marriage is the ultimate union and to be strived for, but why does a man and a woman honestly need a piece of paper to convince one another that they love each other? And if things don’t go well (which is always likely to happen with some couples), the breakup process would be a lot less hassle than divorce proceedings etc. And is it realy natural for an animal, humans in this case to stick to one sex partner for the rest of their lives, when most of our stone age/ primeval ancestors probably slept around quiet a bit, as do probably every other species on the planet.

im invisible

i think eagles and swans have one mate for life?

sensibleken

Ireland used to have polygammy until only a few centuries ago.

pragmatic1

Wouldnt be for me anyway. Every relationship has a time limit.

Genghiz Cohen

dilbert2's been gettin the shnakey roide and is looking for a counter argument for the woman.

Uriel.

You could argue that STIs are a proving point that we shouldn't be sleeping around..

You Could argue... I'm not gonna though.

Feisar

Swan and penguins choose one mate for life and swans don't choose another mate if the first dies as far as i know. Not sure if that's the case for penguins.

nicechick!

You need a poll!

Norma_Desmond

The reason that there is so much divorce and that these day is because people years ago got married very young and quickly to more than likely their first boyfriend or girlfriend. They didn't live together before they got married so therefore didn't really know if they were well matched or if they would get on well together for the rest of their lives.
But these days people who get married generally have been together much longer, know each other better and would be more aware if their marraige would work by how they feel about each other.
So these days I don't think marraige is unnatural at all. The swans have it right!

foxyboxer

If a man has sex with his wife but also spanks the monkey, then technically he's having sex with 2 people. :pac:

TheZohanS

im invisible wrote: »

i think eagles and swans have one mate for life?

Up until recently they used to think swans had one mate for life, they found that to be untrue.

Mongarra

In the millions of species on earth the human practice of marriage is uncommon, unusual and probably unique but that does not make it unnatural.

We are reputedly the only animal with intelligence, as distinct from animal instinct or cleverness, and we are the ones who invented the institution so maybe it is not only natural but an intelligent way of life.

I am not into anthropology so I may be wrong in some of my thoughts above but it seems to me that marriage has lasted the test of time. Yes there is an increase in the number of separations and divorces but I think that is mainly as a result of the lack of the perceived shame and the acceptance as normal of marriage breakdown.

There were probably as many unhappy couples in the past but peer, family and cultural pressure meant that many stayed together rather than risk scandal or, at best, gossip. Nowadays most people are accepting of marital breakdown so there is not the same pressure on married couples to stay together when things go wrong.

Saila

its ok you can swing if you want and feel unfulfilled

starlit

No I don't think the Institution of Marriage is unnatural. Its not for every one but brings out more commitment and make a relationship more grounded I suppose and its the ideal environment to bring up a family in.

Though the marriage cert is only a piece of paper a contact as you will but some people think its just that and nothing else that commitment is enough whether having children outside of marriage seems to be the norm there isn't as much pressure to get married.

It might be the case back centuries ago and before and during evolution we didn't stay with just one partner but I think as evolution continued after evolution something kicked in our brains to develop a sense of unity of just being with one partner. Christian faith might have made it more official but human nature and animal nature is slightly different similar species but we aren't the same. Like a swan and penguins only have one life long partner what ever happens.

ItsAWindUp

I believe in polygamy.

Zen65

dilbert2 wrote: »

Marriage as an institution has been pushed for nearly 2000 years, particularly by Christianity. However, given that our species evolved gradually over hundreds of thousands of years, and from other orders of humanoids going back possibly a few million, and that it is unlikely that most of these humans remained with one partner their whole life – then is it not unnatural for us, given that we have much of our DNA still intact from our stone age ancestors?

The context of the question is not clear to me: what do you mean by "natural"?

Our society is filled with rituals and technology that are patently unnatural, from wrist watches to mobile phones, and including activities such as queueing, wearing wigs, dieting, voting, investing money, and so forth. Marriage is unnatural in the same way: it is a ritual that was consciously introduced as a mechanism for achieving an end.

It's hard to say exactly why some of these rituals were introduced. There is no doubt that our ape-like ancestors discovered early on that the species would not survive nor prosper without some level of collaboration between beings in order to most effectively acquire food and clothing, and later to build suitable dwellings beyond the caves. For collaboration to work it was necessary to have various forms of understanding between the more aggressive males and in time this would require some sort of rule which ensured that battles over females did not tear communities apart. Hence was introduced the idea of denoting a special relationship between a man and a woman, which gave rise to further conventions:

• The children born into communities would belong to established parents and be raised by them.
• The woman in such a partnership was not to be preyed upon by other males looking to mate.
• Bed linen and coffee mornings

I expect that the initial partnerships were polygamous in nature, that is to say the male may have had many female partners whereas the women would each only have one (shared) male. This arrangement was very suitable for the women (home duties shared, less cleaning up after "him", and plenty of other interesting company to talk with) but was less suited to unlucky non-alpha males. Eventually the alpha males would come to fear packs of roaming nerd males who were bitter at having no partners, and after many frenzied pencil-attacks on the alpha males a new societal norm began to emerge in which the alpha male only claimed one female partner (the best looking one), leaving the nerds to sort themselves out with the left-overs.

As pagan religions increased their influence on societies, some of the most bitter nerd-male priests decreed that the God entities (there were more than one, before the Gods were amalgamated by later religions) favoured monogamy, leaving more women available for the priests (pre-Christianity male priests could have female partners). Hence many (but not all) religions imposed monogamy as a norm.

Centuries later, after the Christian church became established following the revelations of Moses, the matrimonial vow was made to have some sort of legal status. This had the advantage that the most nerdy of males who could not otherwise find females would prosper as lawyers, which in turn provided them with money with which they could afford to buy the cheapest of females.

Why did marriage catch on? Probably because societies which did not kill each other over potential mates bred more and so prospered. The very existence of the matrimonial tradition reduced in-fighting and so societies found other ways to focus their energies.... like sports. Sports gave rise to healthier populations which in turn boosted the population growth. The rapid growth of societies which practised marriage led to the idea of marriage becoming increasingly popular. It is an example of a natural evolution of an unnatural act.

You can fill in the obvious blanks and simplifications yourself by consulting Wikipedia.

So Op, why did you ask?


Z

Zen65

TheZohan wrote: »

Up until recently they used to think swans had one mate for life, they found that to be untrue.

A simple mistake for scientists to have made I guess. Those swans all look alike, don't they?


Z

ejmaztec

sensibleken wrote: »

Ireland used to have polygammy until only a few centuries ago.

A parrot with a bad leg?:(

billybudd

it is naturaly unatural.

bronte

I'll tell you what's unnatural.....the feckin price of ice sculptures :eek:

orourkeda

Marriage is for suckers and is little more than a glorified business arrangement.

Human relationships have a natural shelf life and extending this is a recipe for unhappiness

orourkeda

ejmaztec wrote: »

A parrot with a bad leg?:(

no thats gammy polly

Not exactly a scientific paper, but...
http://petsadviser.com/behaviors/a-list-of-animals-that-mate-for-life/

LisaLee

There is no such thing as a 'natural' choice with regard to marriage. Biologically, males are wired to spread the seed and to pass their DNA as much as possible. Some men do that, others don't.

What about open marriages? Are they natural or unnatural?

If people want to marry, then let them off. If you don't believe in marriage as an institution then don't get married.

Scanlas The 2nd

Marriage was invented as a result of the agricultural revolution. People then settled down in locations and the concept of property was born. Women then became treated as property. I'd say religion was largely invented or hijacke by these men who wanted a system in place where a man could work hard and fairly earn property. Many rules in religion were designed to enforce this system and to ensure women's value to men was maximised by ensuring you knew your children would be your own. So rules were invented to make sure a woman was a virgin when she was married ( purchased) by a man. So it was very important that women were made feel guilty for being slutty as that would make a woman a bad investment and a man's hard work would go to waste. A wealthy man would get a hot woman and if that hot woman turned out be slutty and promiscuous his wealth would have been wasted on a bad investment.

That seems to have been the purpose of the major religions.

bnt

If you look at the role parents play in marriage, and have played over the centuries, it makes more sense. Young people don't need any ceremony before they get down the business of making babies, do they? But parents want to control the mating habits of their offspring, and courtship and marriage has long been the means by which they do so.

For example: when two warring primitive tribes needed to seal a peace deal, one of the "sweeteners" was to make kids in the tribes intermarry and thus link their tribes together. Don't get me started on Dowries ... :mad: ... point is: it's the parents who want the big wedding first, though sometimes the kids catch the disease too.

old hippy

orourkeda wrote: »

Marriage is for suckers and is little more than a glorified business arrangement.

Human relationships have a natural shelf life and extending this is a recipe for unhappiness

I used to be a cynic, too

IcedOut

If there was no marraige
You'd be like Osama Bin Laden With about 20 kids

Millicent

doovdela wrote: »

No I don't think the Institution of Marriage is unnatural. Its not for every one but brings out more commitment and make a relationship more grounded I suppose and its the ideal environment to bring up a family in.

Just out of curiosity, why? I'm not trying to be argumentative or anything, but I don't believe in marriage (for me--everyone else can do what they want! )

My relationship is no less committed than a married couple's. My view on it is, I don't need a legal contract to tell my boyfriend that I want to be with him.

Millicent

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Marriage was invented as a result of the agricultural revolution. People then settled down in locations and the concept of property was born. Women then became treated as property. I'd say religion was largely invented or hijacke by these men who wanted a system in place where a man could work hard and fairly earn property. Many rules in religion were designed to enforce this system and to ensure women's value to men was maximised by ensuring you knew your children would be your own. So rules were invented to make sure a woman was a virgin when she was married ( purchased) by a man. So it was very important that women were made feel guilty for being slutty as that would make a woman a bad investment and a man's hard work would go to waste. A wealthy man would get a hot woman and if that hot woman turned out be slutty and promiscuous his wealth would have been wasted on a bad investment.

That seems to have been the purpose of the major religions.

For anyone that's interested in this post, The Serpent and the Goddess is a great read about the changes in Irish society throughout the course of our history. It's told from a feminist perspective though, so if that's gonna bug you, it ain't for you!

Killer Pigeon

The fact that it happens means that it's natural.

Millicent

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

The fact that it happens means that it's natural.

Not necessarily. It's a social construct. That doesn't mean it's natural or even beneficial to all who do it.

_Beau_

Marriage is unnatural in that it is a human construct like all customs. In terms of mating for life, it is my belief that serial monogamy seems more reasonable for the vast majority of people, a succession of monogamous relationships.

My question would be, is the institution of marriage necessary for society? I believe that it's not and I have yet to hear a rational argument opposing my view.

Kinship is bestowed upon a spouse by the marital contract and this could otherwise be decided. Rights and responsibilities are unnecessary and incentives to marry (tax) discriminate against unmarried couples, as does the contract as a whole as it advocates one sexuality over all others. In terms of child custody and maintenance, DNA can determine parenthood; a marital contract is not required.

orourkeda

old hippy wrote: »

I used to be a cynic, too

And then you got married

CarMe

I hope to be with my boyfriend forever, we live together and have a child but I can't understand any reason to get wed. Not because I'm afraid we won't last, I just can't see the point. Ww have everything we need for a lovely life together, what difference would a piece of paper make?

paddyandy

CarMe wrote: »

I hope to be with my boyfriend forever, we live together and have a child but I can't understand any reason to get wed. Not because I'm afraid we won't last, I just can't see the point. Ww have everything we need for a lovely life together, what difference would a piece of paper make?

As can happen the boyfriend takes off what protection do you have without that 'piece of paper' for your self and the child.?

mikemac

Hey don't flame me for saying illegitimate, just a legal term

But it's only recently that inheritance laws were reformed that unmarried partners and illegitimate children had proper inheritance rights
I think it was Charlie Haughey who sorted this, not sure

If you owned a hundred acres of prime tillage in Kilkenny :cool: then marriage had and still has a lot to do with which young person is going to inherit this

Often an uncle would swoop in and get the land and the son or daughter would get nothing as their parents were never married

This is largely cleared up nowadays

Sauve

paddyandy wrote: »

As can happen the boyfriend takes off what protection do you have without that 'piece of paper' for your self and the child.?

As much as I fully agree with your point, it saddens me to think that our society has come to a point where some get married as a way to insure ourselves against being financially screwed over by the one person that we love the most.
All's fair in love and war I guess...

LighterGuy

dilbert2 wrote: »

... but why does a man and a woman honestly need a piece of paper to convince one another that they love each other?

In fairness Dilbert. Many people op not to get married these days. Sure many do as well. But more and more are opting to not

But you mention that things can become messy... from a legal standpoint when seperating. But blame the Irish government for now allowing recently seperated partners for a long time to have such rights and legal claims (do believe its called "common law spose")

FlawedGenius

It stops STDs and means children can grow up with settled parents.

Logical Fallacy

FlawedGenius wrote: »

It stops STDs and means children can grow up with settled parents.

How does it stop STD's? Do you get some kind of immunity when you are married?

LighterGuy

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

How does it stop STD's? Do you get some kind of immunity when you are married?

:rolleyes:
you serious dude?
or are you a troll?
or ... drunk or something?

you get two clean people who just sleep with each other = no chances of catching an STD. Of course, providing both parties dont already have one.

On the flip side, you get two clean people who one or both parties sleep with other people outside allows the possibility of catching an STD. Not being rude man, but its kinda obvious.

Logical Fallacy

LighterGuy wrote: »

:rolleyes:
you serious dude?
or are you a troll?
or ... drunk or something?

you get two clean people who just sleep with each other = no chances of catching an STD. Of course, providing both parties dont already have one.

On the flip side, you get two clean people who one or both parties sleep with other people outside allows the possibility of catching an STD. Not being rude man, but its kinda obvious.

So what you are saying is that marriage is a guarantee that your partner won't cheat on you?

I'm basically pointing out that the point raised by the poster i quoted is asinine.

CarMe

paddyandy wrote: »

CarMe wrote: »

I hope to be with my boyfriend forever, we live together and have a child but I can't understand any reason to get wed. Not because I'm afraid we won't last, I just can't see the point. Ww have everything we need for a lovely life together, what difference would a piece of paper make?

As can happen the boyfriend takes off what protection do you have without that 'piece of paper' for your self and the child.?

No I still don't get it, what would this magic piece of paper do exactly?

Sid_Justice

As a married spouse you would be entitled to ~half his assets if you split up. As an unmarried spouse you would be entitled to maintenance payments for the child, probably not for your yourself.

strobe

Zen65 wrote: »

The context of the question is not clear to me: what do you mean by "natural"?

Our society is filled with rituals and technology that are patently unnatural, from wrist watches to mobile phones, and including activities such as queueing, wearing wigs, dieting, voting, investing money, and so forth. Marriage is unnatural in the same way: it is a ritual that was consciously introduced as a mechanism for achieving an end.

It's hard to say exactly why some of these rituals were introduced. There is no doubt that our ape-like ancestors discovered early on that the species would not survive nor prosper without some level of collaboration between beings in order to most effectively acquire food and clothing, and later to build suitable dwellings beyond the caves. For collaboration to work it was necessary to have various forms of understanding between the more aggressive males and in time this would require some sort of rule which ensured that battles over females did not tear communities apart. Hence was introduced the idea of denoting a special relationship between a man and a woman, which gave rise to further conventions:

• The children born into communities would belong to established parents and be raised by them.
• The woman in such a partnership was not to be preyed upon by other males looking to mate.
• Bed linen and coffee mornings

I expect that the initial partnerships were polygamous in nature, that is to say the male may have had many female partners whereas the women would each only have one (shared) male. This arrangement was very suitable for the women (home duties shared, less cleaning up after "him", and plenty of other interesting company to talk with) but was less suited to unlucky non-alpha males. Eventually the alpha males would come to fear packs of roaming nerd males who were bitter at having no partners, and after many frenzied pencil-attacks on the alpha males a new societal norm began to emerge in which the alpha male only claimed one female partner (the best looking one), leaving the nerds to sort themselves out with the left-overs.

As pagan religions increased their influence on societies, some of the most bitter nerd-male priests decreed that the God entities (there were more than one, before the Gods were amalgamated by later religions) favoured monogamy, leaving more women available for the priests (pre-Christianity male priests could have female partners). Hence many (but not all) religions imposed monogamy as a norm.

Centuries later, after the Christian church became established following the revelations of Moses, the matrimonial vow was made to have some sort of legal status. This had the advantage that the most nerdy of males who could not otherwise find females would prosper as lawyers, which in turn provided them with money with which they could afford to buy the cheapest of females.

Why did marriage catch on? Probably because societies which did not kill each other over potential mates bred more and so prospered. The very existence of the matrimonial tradition reduced in-fighting and so societies found other ways to focus their energies.... like sports. Sports gave rise to healthier populations which in turn boosted the population growth. The rapid growth of societies which practised marriage led to the idea of marriage becoming increasingly popular. It is an example of a natural evolution of an unnatural act.

You can fill in the obvious blanks and simplifications yourself by consulting Wikipedia.

So Op, why did you ask?


Z

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-M1c7itPy3Y

CarMe

So it just boils down to money? Vomit!

policarp

CarMe wrote: »

So it just boils down to money? Vomit!

Are you surprised?

Sid_Justice

CarMe wrote: »

So it just boils down to money? Vomit!

I genuinely don't believe women that say "I don't need a piece of paper to endorse my relationship with my spouse".

They are just trying to pretend it doesn't bother them.

paddyandy

Not a"Magic" piece of paper but a legal document like a €50 euro note.Your best friend when love "TURNS" sour.

LighterGuy

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

So what you are saying is that marriage is a guarantee that your partner won't cheat on you?

I'm basically pointing out that the point raised by the poster i quoted is asinine.

Ahhhh, the ol' "twisting" post (god I love it :pac: )

Ah please, you messed up and trying to recover :rolleyes:
You know what he meant ... two people, together and just them. Dont try and spin things.