On Marriage

[Malamis]

I'll be good

I appear to have pissed off Glenski , so point by point deconstruction is no longer necessary.

I'd argue however that pair bonding is not the imperative, and is simply a derivative of the reproductive cycle.

To use those abominable bonobo monkeys as a non-human example, monogamy isn't exactly a universal imperative, and the alternative certainly isn't afforded the same rights and privileges,

 

[Mars Man]

I appreciate the come back, there, Malamis san. I'll take your word on being good, then. . . hee, hee, hee...

Well, as it appears to be, actually, the more secure understanding would be that pair bonding is both a derivative and an imperative of the reproductive cycle. That would include, of course, the chronological order of events; however I'd venture to posit that such would not be pertinent to the more focused scope of the theme 'marriage,' and thus not in need of being expounded on.

It is also true, at the same time, that pair bonding does not equate monogyny nor monandry on a permanent time scale in by far most animals. It is much more natural, even for the Homo sapien, to have multiply partners (by nature, not including extra copulation here . . . copulation in and of itself does not always mean a pair-bonding event, but can also be a way to earn favor and food).

So, where marriage, as it has developed in the 'Western' world in the past, say 3000 years or so, comes into the picture, it is clearly that social construct--the civil union. It also clearly displaced other forms; in the minds of the populace (especially after Judeo-Christian influence gained a stronghold). That, I feel, is too bad.

 

[Kinsao]

Okay, my thoughts...

Marriage in the sense of 'the piece of paper' is about keeping records, which is useful to know which families are connected and how; this also helps to avoid 'serious relationships' between blood relatives, which although not necessarily taboo is in our human instinct to avoid since it narrows the gene pool and weakens the species if it happens too much. That is a purely practical reason for humanity's record-keeping on this matter, and it seems quite sound to me.

The above is my main reason for continuing to favour the 'institution' of marriage (in the legal sense - I'm not discussing the religious sense here which I believe is something different).

The other main reason is about wanting to state your commitment to someone publicly and with a bit of a ceremony; a natural human instinct (well it seems to have been around a long time in various forms) and again not something negative in my opinion.

As far as I am concerned... that is it!

When it comes to practical matters, I think there is nothing else that cannot be 'taken care of' simply by living together, and/or having some other kind(s) of legal provision/protection.

In my case (of getting married) it was only a question of my first two points - financial matters didn't enter into it at all (since neither of us have any money to speak of).

 

[Mars Man]

Greetings there Kinsao chan; you have touched on some important areas there, and have made good points. I am of the position that more detail should be weighed in to reach that more balanced and fair to nature state.

One important point is that pair bonding drive, in the immediate range, (perhaps not going beyond first cousin level?) is something that is strikingly found among the great apes. While this factor may not always come into effect for mounting attempts, it has been found quite strong in the long-term relationship state. The degree to which is natural in humans I have not come across, but would tend to think that it would be there, as you have mentioned.

That said, however, if it were something that obviously strong and active a natural state, there probably would never have been any need to write up a law to prevent such. (Of course in some places, first cousins can marry, it seems.)

In Christendom, the 'institution' of marriage was very much based on Judeo-Christian doctrine--which is why there have been efforts to strongly define that marriage is a state only entered into by one man and one woman in the US. That is unnatural, which is one more reason why the 'institution' of marriage needs very much to be overhauled.

Marriage ceremony is more evidently and more often directly tied in with religious belief-system ceremony; only becoming an act of state from some later point in more developed government states. Societies of old, bound by the religious belief-systems which helped them adhere, 'pushed' the ceremony into a norm.

Unless the law has changed, divorce was illegal in Peru--was that not perhaps due to an overly strict view of 'until death do you part?' The Christian religious belief-system basically did not allow for remarriage (other than due to the death of a spouse). Because Allowing an unnatural design① to overstep a more natural trait will more often surely create more problems than it solves--one more reason why the 'institution' of marriage needs to retro-evolve, is found.

I absolutely agree--when it comes to the more natural practical matters, simply living together should do the trick completely. Legal and financial matters should be designed to take care of that state too. For all who express any desire to marry, I always strongly urge a year or two of simply living together first. (just be sure to keep the sex safe, and not create any new people)




① From a certain point of view, we could admit to this being natural--in the same sense that we could admit to any and all human activity and products as being the workings of nature. From a more pragmatic point of understanding, it would have to held to be that that which is against what the spieces is by nature, is unnatural, and thus the demand made by the basic Christian doctrine is unnatural.

 

[kukuruu]

Ahhh it's so refreshing to have an intellectual, serious discussion on here. Thanks for waking my brain up, everyone Much appreciated.

 

[Kinsao]

I'm inclined to think that the religious aspect of marriage ceremony is linked with the desire to make a public commitment of the relationship (underwriting the long-term monogamous pair-bonding which is 'natural' in terms of humans as a type of animal). The public commitment would naturally have taken place in the 'church' or whatever 'religious community' is prevalent because in the 'old days' worship would have been one of the main communal activities of the 'tribe' and therefore provide the perfect arena for such a ceremony to be carried out.

Added to that, of course, is the desire for other/spiritual 'being(s)' to look kindly on the union and send blessings or luck or good fortune or however you want to phrase it, to the couple in their future life together. Which looks ridiculous if you don't believe in such 'being(s)', but on the other hand is quite understandable if you take the perspective of those who do believe in such things (even if you disagree with their belief).

So the public ceremony in a 'religious' context fulfils those functions... however, there is no reason why this has to be linked these days with legal stuff.

 

[Mars Man]

First of all please allow me to make a correction on my #29 above--since it is now past editability. In the second paragraph, line two, I missed the negative 'not' (even in the proof-reading). I guess that just goes to show how strong 'covering' in visual perception can go--my mind read it in both times. That line should read:

...is something that is strikingly not found among the great apes​

While mounting attempts may be spotted here and there, to some degree, you just don't find siblings going into pair-bonds--and seemingly in a lesser strength, first cousins.



I would agree, Kinsao chan, that in the general age (say late 18th century to now) the ceremony is used as a tool for public recognition. In the same breath I would also argue that social structure has pushed that (a socializing, or social conditioning factor) to become what it has; thus the tendency for the vast majority to almost automatically take the concept for granted.

What is it with the state of being married, as laid out by secular (or religious belief-system) law, that naturally fuels a need to publicly publish a promise to do something which is by simple nature, not yet so natural at all; if not the prior social constructed concept that this state called marriage is to be a non-nullifyable matter?

And what might it be that would have historically, more understandably given rise to the notion (especially in the Western World) that a male and female (physcially speaking) once having taking up sexual interaction are automatically bound by a sort of contract, if you will, to remain together in sexual union with each other alone, until one of them dies? Most surely, the doctrine of the Christian belief-system, is the answer I'd offer.

Even though we can see that religious ceremony was a prior phenomenon--looking back towards the earliest of recognizable times--I am not convinced that that, then, was due to any emotional need to publicize the event except in 'royal' or 'tribal pacts'-like situations.

However, it is still most evident that even the Homo sapien, like most animals (and especially the great apes--in that they are our closet kin species--is not a permanent pair bonding species. I am only pointing this out due to how I have interpreted your second to third line embedded clause. If I have misread you there, I apologize. It appears as though you had been suggesting that permanent pair bonding was a natural element of the H. sapien.

In Japan (as probably elsewhere in the world too) it is slowing becoming fashionable to have what is called a 'jinzen' ceremony--which means a simple ceremony before a small group of members of both families, and a few friends. This style ceremony is totally non-religious belief-system based.

Again, however, to strengthen a point made in my #29, the 'institution of marriage' is in great need of an overhaul. The connecting emotions with religious belief-system doctrine which are beyond natural factors (such as altruism) should be fully disconnected from the jurisdiction of the state, so that (holding other things equal) those with natural homosexual orientations can marry.

 

[badeth]

Communication is always the key to successful marriage. Trough proper communication, the two of you can talk to understand the other person's side better. Most of all---never take your spouse for granted. You have to make effort to look for things or hobbies that make your partner happy and contented.

 

[Putrefaction]

Well, I think Mars Man's use of "natural push for pair bonding" is degrading in this society, at least in the US. People take vows, and then cheat. What used to be considered sacred is being taken lightly as we move towards more and more sexual freedom and perverseness. Take this message how you like, but the term marriage is getting less meaningful (and I don't mean the gay marriage sense) and more of a burden to avoid.

Unless the law has changed, divorce was illegal in Peru--was that not perhaps due to an overly strict view of 'until death do you part?' The Christian religious belief-system basically did not allow for remarriage (other than due to the death of a spouse). Because Allowing an unnatural design① to overstep a more natural trait will more often surely create more problems than it solves--one more reason why the 'institution' of marriage needs to retro-evolve, is found.

That's what I mean by degradation. Religious followers have some weird asinine way of following some parts of a religious book, and ignoring others, on top of the religion itself "evolving" and trying to keep up with the current society.