Atheists on marriage
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
07-08-2015, 08:39 AM
RE: Atheists on marriage
(07-08-2015 08:33 AM)π¶∆ Wrote:  
(07-08-2015 08:29 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Nobody said Japan was poor. A wealthy economy can still perform poorly, which, of course, is precisely what happened in Japan.

Which is precisely why i mentioned per capita income.

Which is irrelevant, as Japanese GDP per capita is nonetheless one of the highest in the world. As, indeed, it was in 1990.

The far more relevant data are on the rates of change, not the starting positions.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-08-2015, 08:40 AM
RE: Atheists on marriage
Pi... you're all right.

Please try to understand why your disclaimer, worded so strongly, could be taken in a wrong light. I get what you were trying to say, and I appreciate it. Just relax a bit and it will sound more like you really mean the respect you are clearly trying to give us. Again, I appreciate that.

Others here have already given answers which surpass what I believe I could write, in particular Nurse's.

All I would add is to say that scientific study of human reproductive strategies, neurochemistry, and romantic patterns seems to indicate that 50% of humans use the monogamous mate-pairing brain systems, while the other 50% are not suited to this. Typically, there are three systems, as I understand it: the primary system is what we call "lust/passion", driven by testosterone in both sexes; then may come a secondary-attachment system, which we call "romance/infatuation", which appears to last roughly 4-5 years, long enough to produce an offspring that has a good chance of survival. Finally, for some, there's a tertiary "longterm bonding" system, which re-triggers the romance/lust subsystems. From my view, only people in that category should marry, though system #2 can produce children effectively.

The unfortunate element of our culture is that we teach that all "should be" under system A, long-term bonding, while half of us are biochemically/neurologically unsuited to it, causing much misery. I am an A-type, with strong bonding neurochemistry, but I know that few are.

I'm about to get on the road for a trip up past St. Louis for a meeting, but will be back this evening, if anyone would like citations or further discussion of this point (I'm currently killing time until my travel companion is ready to leave... we're already 30 minutes behind schedule, so won't be stopping for lunch prior to the meeting... yay).

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes RocketSurgeon76's post
07-08-2015, 08:48 AM
RE: Atheists on marriage
(07-08-2015 08:40 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  Pi... you're all right.

Please try to understand why your disclaimer, worded so strongly, could be taken in a wrong light. I get what you were trying to say, and I appreciate it. Just relax a bit and it will sound more like you really mean the respect you are clearly trying to give us. Again, I appreciate that.

Others here have already given answers which surpass what I believe I could write, in particular Nurse's.

All I would add is to say that scientific study of human reproductive strategies, neurochemistry, and romantic patterns seems to indicate that 50% of humans use the monogamous mate-pairing brain systems, while the other 50% are not suited to this. Typically, there are three systems, as I understand it: the primary system is what we call "lust/passion", driven by testosterone in both sexes; then may come a secondary-attachment system, which we call "romance/infatuation", which appears to last roughly 4-5 years, long enough to produce an offspring that has a good chance of survival. Finally, for some, there's a tertiary "longterm bonding" system, which re-triggers the romance/lust subsystems. From my view, only people in that category should marry, though system #2 can produce children effectively.

The unfortunate element of our culture is that we teach that all "should be" under system A, long-term bonding, while half of us are biochemically/neurologically unsuited to it, causing much misery. I am an A-type, with strong bonding neurochemistry, but I know that few are.

I'm about to get on the road for a trip up past St. Louis for a meeting, but will be back this evening, if anyone would like citations or further discussion of this point (I'm currently killing time until my travel companion is ready to leave... we're already 30 minutes behind schedule, so won't be stopping for lunch prior to the meeting... yay).

Of course citations will be lovely. I do not like to discuss something without having something to back it up. But what you are stating does make sense because I came across a study that marriages are more likely to end around the 6-7 year mark which corresponds with the 4-5 year so-called "infatuation" period you have mentioned. And if they survive this period, then they enter into the third phase you mentioned.

Although i disagree with your statement that only those who have reached this third stage should marry. Instead i suggest that all couples should get married and try to reach the third stage through honesty, commitment and companionship.

(07-08-2015 08:39 AM)cjlr Wrote:  
(07-08-2015 08:33 AM)π¶∆ Wrote:  Which is precisely why i mentioned per capita income.

Which is irrelevant, as Japanese GDP per capita is nonetheless one of the highest in the world. As, indeed, it was in 1990.

The far more relevant data are on the rates of change, not the starting positions.

I do not want to get into a debate on economics of Japan, neither do i claim to be expert in it.
Can you simplify what point you are trying to make? Because what it's coming across as is that the average Japanese couple cannot support raising a child. Is that what you are saying?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-08-2015, 08:52 AM
RE: Atheists on marriage
(07-08-2015 05:18 AM)π¶∆ Wrote:  My question is, what do you think of marriage as an institution? Do you believe in it? Do you believe marriage is an important part of human society? As studies show, fewer and fewer people are getting married. What effect do you think it will have on the modern concept of family? What effect do you think it will have on our population?

I'd like to present Japan as a case study. Fewer and fewer marriages are taking place there and fewer couples are having kids. Their population is rapidly decreasing. Over time a very small population of young people will have to support a very large population of old people who live longer and longer. They will have to bear their healthcare costs, pension, etc. Do you feel encouraging more people to marry at a younger age will help provide some relief to the situation?

What do I think about marriage? As stated by others, it's a contract two individuals enter into, they do so in 'dedication' to their 'better half'. Do I believe in it? About as much as I believe in any other contract. I don't think marriage itself is an important part of human societies; what is important is what it represents, a formalised commitment. I don't think fewer people getting married with impact the modern concept of family. I do not think declining marriage rates will have any considerable effects on birth rates.

(07-08-2015 08:30 AM)π¶∆ Wrote:  
(07-08-2015 08:26 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Don't get whiny and resentful just because a native speaker has a better vocabulary, mate. It's not becoming.

I did not "force" any words into my post. I chose ones that seemed most apt in expressing the ideas I wished to.


I literally just explained this to you. One cannot explicitly address "atheists" and simultaneously maintain one is not addressing the presence and role of religion. The category of atheism is inseparable from the existence of religion. Do you understand this?

Woe to me for arguing with the village idiot. ...

[Image: 5343025+_1c5a23bc87c886867a1bc745cb9abc5f.jpg]

The people closely associated with the namesake of female canines are suffering from a nondescript form of lunacy.
"Anti-environmentalism is like standing in front of a forest and going 'quick kill them they're coming right for us!'" - Jake Farr-Wharton, The Imaginary Friend Show.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Free Thought's post
07-08-2015, 08:53 AM
RE: Atheists on marriage
(07-08-2015 08:48 AM)π¶∆ Wrote:  Instead i suggest that all couples should get married and try to reach the third stage through honesty, commitment and companionship.

Let's make it a legal requirement! And stone adulterers to death! And any woman who has less than four honest men willing to certify that they were witnesses to her rape Smile

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 8 users Like morondog's post
07-08-2015, 08:59 AM
RE: Atheists on marriage
(07-08-2015 08:48 AM)π¶∆ Wrote:  I do not want to get into a debate on economics of Japan, neither do i claim to be expert in it.
Can you simplify what point you are trying to make? Because what it's coming across as is that the average Japanese couple cannot support raising a child. Is that what you are saying?

No. Japan was and still is one of the wealthiest societies on the planet. My point is that personal wealth and income are not good proxies for predicting population growth via fertility rate.

As counterpoint, consider that the countries with the highest birth rates are invariably the poorest and least developed.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-08-2015, 09:07 AM
RE: Atheists on marriage
(07-08-2015 08:59 AM)cjlr Wrote:  
(07-08-2015 08:48 AM)π¶∆ Wrote:  I do not want to get into a debate on economics of Japan, neither do i claim to be expert in it.
Can you simplify what point you are trying to make? Because what it's coming across as is that the average Japanese couple cannot support raising a child. Is that what you are saying?

No. Japan was and still is one of the wealthiest societies on the planet. My point is that personal wealth and income are not good proxies for predicting population growth via fertility rate.

As counterpoint, consider that the countries with the highest birth rates are invariably the poorest and least developed.
You are right. But you missed the context of my original statement. I was responding to a member saying that people in japan shouldn't have kids if they can't support them. That's why i brought up per capita income, to point out that yes they afford having a kid and i quote ( and you should check it) "they just don't want to have them" which fits in with your statement that its a poor indicator for population growth.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-08-2015, 09:20 AM
RE: Atheists on marriage
(07-08-2015 06:59 AM)Nurse Wrote:  Marriage is a contract between two people.

I see it as protective for a long term relationship and each partner. A promise to uphold your vows and not walk out when things get tough - and there will be times of difficulty. The contract makes it more difficult to dissolve the union, as well as establishes rights for each party.

Well...a contract between two people and the state. That's the first problem I have with marriage. If possible, I prefer to leave the government out of my relationships.

The other problem is with calling it a contract. Is there any other contract that either party can get out of for any or no reason and possibly even be rewarded with cash and prizes for doing so? I can't think of any. It's basically relationship insurance for the spouse with lower earnings. I didn't feel like I had any rights, but my ex's choice not work apparently gave her the right to my future income.

I have no problem with long term pair bonding, but the way I see it modern marriage only comes with downside. It's expensive to get into (rings, wedding, honeymoon...) and expensive to get out of (lawyers, spousal support, emotional damage due to the legal process artificially extending the breakup...). It also creates an illusion of security that doesn't exist which leads people to make decisions they otherwise might not. The vows say "'til death do us part," but the fine print that nobody reads says "for as long as you feel like it." Undecided

(07-08-2015 06:59 AM)Nurse Wrote:  Fewer people getting married - Can't say I blame them. The dissolution of mine has been more painful than the death of any of my family members.

Yeah, mine too. And looking back, no amount of wedded bliss made the pain of divorce worthwhile. I don't regret the relationship, but I do regret getting married.

"I feel as though the camera is almost a kind of voyeur in Mr. Beans life, and you just watch this bizarre man going about his life in the way that he wants to."

-Rowan Atkinson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Can_of_Beans's post
07-08-2015, 10:13 AM
RE: Atheists on marriage
cjlr,
are you Russian?

English is my second language.
I AM DEPLORABLE AND IRREDEEMABLE
SHE PERSISTED WE RESISTED
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-08-2015, 10:20 AM
RE: Atheists on marriage
(07-08-2015 07:40 AM)π¶∆ Wrote:  The point? Population reversals in the way mentioned are catastrophic.

Tell it to the Chinese.

There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like GirlyMan's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: