nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

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.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Frowzy

Everyone to their own as they say.....

I just have a question:

Is a civil partnership not the same as a registry office wedding? I thought it was. Could be wrong though.

Unfortunately as said before some couples do have a "quickie" registry office ceremony just for financial reasons, especially if one is to stay at home as primary caregiver to the children, there's tax benefits there.

Modern and all as we are unfortunately there are still certain things that are only covered by a marriage certificate:
A relative of mine was killed in a tragic accident. He had been in a relationship with his partner for 13 years but they had never married, they had no children yet either. Had been together since their teens. They were in Ireland but away for the weekend when it happened. Unfortunately as they were not married she was not recognised as a next of kin. She was not allowed to see him until a family member had formally identified him which was about 4/5 hours after death. She sat in a hospital corridor all the time, not even taken to a relatives room, she wasn't even allowed in the ambulance with him.

While this is definitely an extreme case it does, I think, show that Ireland, modern and all as we think we are, still rely on that piece of paper when push comes to shove.

mikemac

Hah, all this talk of tax reminded me of my parents and maybe yours too

The tax year used to be April to April

So April was the biggest month of the year for weddings. There weren't called tax credits back then, tax free allowances I think but basically the same thing
Well money was tight, people weren't well off so if you were going to get married may as well suit yourself with the taxman

Wurly

LH Pathe wrote: »

I condone marriage. it's a proper bond with no space for get out / cheat without a sense of guilt clause

I agree with this. I will definitely be getting married. I believe in monogamy as well. To be fair, when you find a man like mine, you want for nothing or no-one else.:o:)

sensibleken

Millicent wrote: »

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!

hmm. just reading one of the reviews there it seems to be based on a much held but completely bogus claim that pre christian ireland was matriarchal and post christian was not. Ive reda a few works based on that premise and they tend to be a-historical in the extreme.

a very good, scholarly and very well backed up book on the same subject of women in ancient ireland is 'Land of Women' by Lisa M Bitel.

[Deleted User]

I would not call it natural or unnatural really any more than anything else we as humans do. Cooking food, using electricity or spending money are all not exactly natural either.

Marriage to me though simply is not appealing. I might be somewhat biased given marriage to me is not an option given I am in a truple rather than a couple - it is myself and two girls - but I can honestly say I do not feel like I am losing out of being denied anything by being precluded the option.

Anything we think we require from marriage we have found other ways to obtain. Anything we have not yet gotten are all things we feel we can do without anyway.

hooradiation

LH Pathe wrote: »

I condone marriage. it's a proper bond with no space for get out / cheat without a sense of guilt clause

I think you'll find both are possible.

MungBean

With women now establishing themselves as mans equal it doesnt matter. I'm sure before when men were dominant they would of had plenty of partners and justified it however they wanted.

I doubt you've heard many cases of a woman having more then one husband and most cases historically have probably only been people in a position of power having multiple partners.

Obviously its up to the couple what kind of relationship is right for them but its no more unnatural than eating with a fork. Times change as do social structures and relationships.

Millicent

Sid_Justice wrote: »

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.

Yeah, we're all marriage crazed harlots. :rolleyes:

You can believe what you want, but my boyfriend was told at the outset "no rings." My family are also told to piss off when they ask about buying new hats.

Millicent

sensibleken wrote: »

hmm. just reading one of the reviews there it seems to be based on a much held but completely bogus claim that pre christian ireland was matriarchal and post christian was not. Ive reda a few works based on that premise and they tend to be a-historical in the extreme.

a very good, scholarly and very well backed up book on the same subject of women in ancient ireland is 'Land of Women' by Lisa M Bitel.

I think some of the reviews are really disagreeing with the perspective, but then again history isn't my forte. She footnotes most of the info, so I don't know why some of the reviews say the history is wrong.

Cheers for the "Land of Women" recommendation. Will check it out. :-)

Kasabian

Millicent wrote: »

Yeah, we're all marriage crazed harlots. :rolleyes:

You can believe what you want, but my boyfriend was told at the outset "no rings." My family are also told to piss off when they ask about buying new hats.

Poor fella :pac::)

Millicent

Kasabian wrote: »

Poor fella :pac::)

Ha! Sad thing is he was into marriage when we started going out and I changed his mind. Oops.

And given how many women I've known who turned into Rent-a-wagon when they're planning a wedding, I'm doing him a favour. :pac:

ScumLord

I can see the point of marriage but I think it's become a bit redundant and corrupted in this day and age. It's become more of a status event for people and in particular women, it's just something to be done and the reasons behind it become lost in there somewhere.

I don't think I could ever get married without feeling like a hypocrite. I would enter into a legally binding contract to raise a child though, it wouldn't depend on the couples love for each other it would be based on doing what's best for raising a child. Which at the end of the day is what marriage is all about. It may sound bad but all it really does is allow for the real possibility that the couple will get board with each other.

Lord Trollington

Deleted User wrote: »

I would not call it natural or unnatural really any more than anything else we as humans do. Cooking food, using electricity or spending money are all not exactly natural either.

Marriage to me though simply is not appealing. I might be somewhat biased given marriage to me is not an option given I am in a truple rather than a couple - it is myself and two girls - but I can honestly say I do not feel like I am losing out of being denied anything by being precluded the option.

Anything we think we require from marriage we have found other ways to obtain. Anything we have not yet gotten are all things we feel we can do without anyway.

No way. Regular 3 somes.

Legend

sensibleken

Millicent wrote: »

I think some of the reviews are really disagreeing with the perspective, but then again history isn't my forte. She footnotes most of the info, so I don't know why some of the reviews say the history is wrong.

Cheers for the "Land of Women" recommendation. Will check it out. :-)

history is my main interest but i have a big interest in feminist literature too. Its just whenever something is told from a perspective, historically, it is too easily drifted into an agenda which is biased. I couldnt imagine an arguement saying that the introduction of christianity into ireland damaged womens rights (at least in the first few centuries).

Lisa M Bitel talks extensively about marriage and child raring in ireland which bared more resemblance to the communist manifesto than roman catholic ideals. every page is a revelation athough its quite academic and difficult to read in bits.

orourkeda

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

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

Extra Marital affairs anyone?

Kasabian

orourkeda wrote: »

Extra Marital affairs anyone?

Seems to be all the rage in the town I live in.

Why bother get married if you are going down this route.

orourkeda

Millicent wrote: »

Ha! Sad thing is he was into marriage when we started going out and I changed his mind. Oops.

And given how many women I've known who turned into Rent-a-wagon when they're planning a wedding, I'm doing him a favour. :pac:

It does get pretty tiresome when you hear about it 20 times a day for 6 months.
Bridezillas just annoy everyone

Storminateacup

Marriage is a band aid for a failed relationship.

orourkeda

ScumLord wrote: »

I can see the point of marriage but I think it's become a bit redundant and corrupted in this day and age. It's become more of a status event for people and in particular women, it's just something to be done and the reasons behind it become lost in there somewhere.

I don't think I could ever get married without feeling like a hypocrite. I would enter into a legally binding contract to raise a child though, it wouldn't depend on the couples love for each other it would be based on doing what's best for raising a child. Which at the end of the day is what marriage is all about. It may sound bad but all it really does is allow for the real possibility that the couple will get board with each other.

A legally binding contract wont make raising a child any easier. Besides it sint necessary

orourkeda

Kasabian wrote: »

Seems to be all the rage in the town I live in.

Why bother get married if you are going down this route.

I dare say most people are not planning affairs at the start of their marriage.

realdanbreen

Young fellas these days wouldn't be as tough as my generation.
When things get rough or rocky nowadays they're gone! out the door, off to see a therapist or a counsellor. They don't have the stomach for a long lasting relationship unfortunately.

orourkeda

realdanbreen wrote: »

Young fellas these days wouldn't be as tough as my generation.
When things get rough or rocky nowadays they're gone! out the door, off to see a therapist or a counsellor. They don't have the stomach for a long lasting relationship unfortunately.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LqJkmSxHctM

Millicent

sensibleken wrote: »

history is my main interest but i have a big interest in feminist literature too. Its just whenever something is told from a perspective, historically, it is too easily drifted into an agenda which is biased. I couldnt imagine an arguement saying that the introduction of christianity into ireland damaged womens rights (at least in the first few centuries).

Lisa M Bitel talks extensively about marriage and child raring in ireland which bared more resemblance to the communist manifesto than roman catholic ideals. every page is a revelation athough its quite academic and difficult to read in bits.

Sounds really interesting. I'll definitely check it out. The Serpent and the Goddess deals with pre-Christian Ireland too so it'd be interesting to compare and contrast.

If you ever get a chance to read it, let me know. I'd love to hear your perspective on its accuracy.

Logical Fallacy

LighterGuy wrote: »

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.

How did i mess up? The guy made a stupid point and phrased it in a stupid manner.

As such i responded with a stupid question.

In all fairness, considering you were the one who broke out the accusations of trolling or drunk posting I would have to surmise that you are the one who messed up and are trying to recover.

If the guy had said "There is a reasonable logic behind the assumption that marriage as an institution reduces partner infidelity and i imagine that the occurrence of STD's among married couples is less than that of the single population" then i would completely agree with him.

But he didn't.

old hippy

orourkeda wrote: »

And then you got married

Indeed, still cynical about many things but not the one I love

We've had our ups and downs over the years like many couples & then we decided to tie the knot.

Millicent

realdanbreen wrote: »

Young fellas these days wouldn't be as tough as my generation.
When things get rough or rocky nowadays they're gone! out the door, off to see a therapist or a counsellor. They don't have the stomach for a long lasting relationship unfortunately.

What's wrong with working through your problems with a counsellor?

realdanbreen

Millicent wrote: »

What's wrong with working through your problems with a counsellor?

Nothing at all wrong with the couple going to a counsellor. I meant that the bloke(usually) nowadays can't handle pressure like my generation did. Any hassle and he's off.

brownswiss

Norma_Desmond wrote: »

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!

...

Norma what you have said is very logical BUt I think stats show that couples who live together have a higher divorce rate than those who get married first..

I think from the woman's perspective marriage first might be best in the long run..

i am a long time out of the scene but ( women ) friends tell me that single women over thirty are very single minded in their goal to get a husband..

a lot has changed but nature stays the same and women fair out better in the long run in " marriage "

brownswiss

orourkeda wrote: »

A legally binding contract wont make raising a child any easier. Besides it sint necessary

..

For some strange reason it does actually make it easier... defies logic

stovelid

These threads a bit retarded when you think about it.