-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Evolution and Marriage....
- Thread starter Hockeycowboy
- Start date
So do you feel committed relationships (between parents), generally aren’t necessary for helping children to grow up well-grounded, to be stable themselves, and to lead productive lives?
BTW, thanks for your reply.
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
Do you have any idea how promiscuous people have been throughout history?
Don't be silly. It's directly linked with availability and quality of birth control, sexual healthcare and the lessening of ingrained, repressive social stigmas.
Because it's a highly effective way to socially pair off couples and, in many cases historically, subjugate women.
See above.
Not inherently. Has been used as a bad thing in some cultures? Yes.
What does evolution have to do with marriage?
Electra
Active Member
I think that a child should have many mentors, that may or may not be their parents, sure, the parents are matched with a particular lesson in mind and that relationship is valuable. In most cases the child, if allowed to, will bond with a mentor outside of the nucular family.
I think parents should be committed to their children, not necessarily to each other. As long as the child is around 'healthy' adults it doesn't matter if the two parents are 'committed' to each other. I am not condoning fighting/ a hostile environment around children, that of cause would be detrimental.
I believe that in times to come, there will be less focus on who the 'father' is. Following natural feeding cycles, the 'mother' role will be less concrete too. In this I mean that the 'parents' will not put their ideals on the child as much as we do today, the child will have more freedom to decide what they think life is, ect..
This gives the children more freedom to grow, the children will be children of the tribe...
I see houses with many 'familys' so involvement around other children, of all ages, will be good also for the child.
Even older children will fall into 'parenting' roles not as a duty but out of love.
Servant Of Oddox
Adams original sign from the Dispilio Tablet
It´s really always been like that. In earlier times, belivers may have for instance sold apples, to indicate faith, (and really egolessness / detachment from the world). Like muslims do still.
Zeusian gods are really the whole "star" cult of media, and not related at all. Which really also is a regression of monotheism, a "lost atlantis" in a way. Drowned out in .. beer.. maybe.
Peaceful Salutations.
Zeusian gods are really the whole "star" cult of media, and not related at all. Which really also is a regression of monotheism, a "lost atlantis" in a way. Drowned out in .. beer.. maybe.
Peaceful Salutations.
Committed relationships between parents and marriage are not the same thing.
Ultimately, what a child needs to grow up to be stable is that there be enough responsible, caring adults so that they don't have to worry about whether they will be able to eat or whether there is someone there in case of an emergency. Having 2 parents that are never around because of jobs isn't enough. But having 2 or 3 responsible adults that are around continually is plenty.
One bad thing about a 2 parent situation is that there are frequently times when both parents need to take care of things other than the kids simultaneously. In that case, a trusted third adult is essential. And yes, it should be one the child is familiar with. So it is much better to raise a child in a *community* of many responsible adults that are all known to the children and looking out for them. That way, emergencies, which will always happen, won't be as traumatic.
How much sex the adults have is irrelevant to how committed they are to the children. What the children need is stable adults committed to their upbringing. Those adults don't have to be sexual with each other. They don't have to be monogamous with each other. What they need to be is *present* for the child. While sex produces children, how much sex the adults have and with whom is irrelevant to the child.
What? Where did you get this idea from?
What growing disrespect? I'd say more people are more aware of what the Bible is about, and in many cases people become disillusioned by its contents when actually read. But understanding something as a cultural artifact rather than a book of magic is not a sign of disrespect, but rather a sign of education.
You really think social customs are because of the Bible? It's actually the other way around. The Bible is because of cultural norms being mythologized as coming from God.
Even if the institution of marriage is less popular, that doesn't mean people don't seek partners to spend their lives with. That is marriage, even if there is no piece of paper down at the courthouse that says it is. Think of it like the Wizard of OZ giving the Tin Man a big heart necklace, telling him he now has a heart. Obviously, he already had a heart and the token was only a symbol. Same thing with marriage. A true marriage doesn't have to have a piece of paper that says "You're Official!".
The act of spending your life with the same person, is marriage.whirlingmerc
Well-Known Member
People do 'need it' couples need the commitment and security for the oneness marriage brings.
Children flourish best in an atmosphere of stability and love and not guessing who the adults in their lives might be
But let's face it, modern marriage doesn't provide that. if both parents are at jobs and NOT taking care of the kids, that is no better than having only one adult. And there has *always* been the possibility that a child will be orphaned. Marriage does nothing to eliminate that possibility.
The fact of the matter is that the nuclear family consisting of only two married adults is a very recent phenomenon and is a product of the disruption of the extended family. Much more common historically is to have aunts, uncles, grandparents, cousins, etc ALL living either together or very close by. The child has not traditionally been raised by only two adults, but by many. The nuclear family was formed when the extended family structure was overthrown when people became more apt to move away from their home towns.
As such, the nuclear family is a deterioration of the support structure that children have traditionally had.
Having 2 working parents is advantageous.
Child care emergencies do come up, & often it will
be far more convenient for one parent to ditch work.
And of course, when everyone is at home, 2 parents
function better than one IMO. One reins in the worst
traits of the other. Complementary strengths help.
That's the way it is where I live. About 5-10 people may live in one home and just as many relatives next door and down the street. Front doors are open. The old folks like to sit outside and talk to one another while watching the children playing ball in the street along with the women, who are at home working.
It wouldn't matter to the child-rearing effort if none of them were married.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
That depends on how it's set up. For example, my wife and I both worked through most of our years bringing up our kids, but we never used a baby-sitter or day care for that. However, I certainly do not blame parents who may have had to use either, such as with our oldest daughter whereas her children were taken care of by us even after they started school. Our oldest granddaughter, who's a sophomore at a local university, still comes over and stays with us one day each week because she's so relaxed here. Is that because we're boring? Hmmmmmm?
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber
The history of our species shows that a stable and supportive unit is what is important. Sometimes children were raised by the women of the family, sometimes the girls were raised by the women and the boys raised by the men, but often enough child rearing has been more of a communal effort.
We were never promiscuous in the past it's totally modern
Se
2. Modern promiscuity is Christianity established fault 100% it decided that it was improper stoning women to death for being that. Why it's an appalling truth!!! If Mary had been stoned to death Theists would be thrilled then again no Christianity maybe they would just be depressed. And Christians wouldn't thane all this promiscuity to deal with. Then again they wouldn't exist as Christians!!!
whirlingmerc
Well-Known Member
perhaps we might agree in part. The family may be stressed various ways.
The fictional 60's song 'in the year 2525' also wrote off marriage
But in the ideal, there is one-ness and promiscuity doesn't provide that type of 'knowing each other' and kids don't thrive as well in less secure environments. People also aren't economically prosperous in the long run, so hong onto those piggy banks they might break.
And a word form the 60's song 'in the year 2525
"...In the year 6565
You won't need no husband, won't need no wife
You'll pick your son, pick your daughter too
From the bottom of a long glass tube..."
Last edited:
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber
I forget the culture, but basically marriage was very loosely defined and rather "open" by our standards, and all a man had to do was claim a child was his, even if it couldn't be established who the biological father is. But the children were still raised in a stable, supportive environment.
Basically, to so many cultures--excluding those that revolve around the concept of a nuclear "family"--have had child-rearing practices where it didn't so heavily upon the parents, and the issue of the "primary caretaker(s)" not being present not so much of an issue because grandparents, aunts/uncles, cousins, other extended family and even the community helped to raise a child.
The "Nuclear Family" is about the least family-oriented family model our species has ever practiced. The obsession with monogamy is needless. Children need a stable and supportive environment first and foremost. Beyond that, we've done well under dozens, hundreds perhaps, of different models and concepts of family.
whirlingmerc
Well-Known Member
It does help having a model of a man and a model of a woman close at hand for a child in a non threatening way that ill help them navigate life and relate to the world eventually as it grows