Marriage (+Poll)

[Red]

So, since the science girl is gonna get married and she started a thread, I think it's better to debate here. What say you?
Personally, I'm not planning on getting married, since I don't want to create that "permanent" bond with someone, because first of all, I'm pretty sure I'll fail at keeping the relationship steady, and I don't think I'll be able to live with another human being for the rest of my days. So, long story short, I'm not going to get married , although I am planning on having a relationship when I'm older, so I'm not a fan of marriage, but if people do it of they wanna be happy, even with some potential downsides, go for it, who am I to judge?
Sorry if this post is a bit short. I got schedules..

[inator]

Im pretty interested myself in what value an atheist can draw from marriage, apart from some tax benefits, or if they're really fond of that particular tradition for some reason.

There are a few topics that atheists can be as defensive about as religious folk are about god; romantic "love" is one of them.

Ntz...you know very well many people wouldn't argue for some sort of different "magical" nature of romantic love

[brimstoneSalad]

I have no problem with marriage if it's not done for "love", but as a practical endeavor. That wasn't an option.

There are a few topics that atheists can be as defensive about as religious folk are about god; romantic "love" is one of them.

Ntz...you know very well many people wouldn't argue for some sort of different "magical" nature of romantic love

That's not what I'm saying, I mean the use of it to defend irrational behavior; it's just a dogma of another kind.

It's not that they believe it's supernatural, but that they treat it like something supernatural.

1. They ascribe to it a sanctity and immunity from criticism that can only be found paralleled in the way religious people feel about their faiths (as seen in that thread where NSG demanded an end to debate and outright refused to participate in any discussion on the subject); they get offended, outraged, or even violent if you criticize it.

2. They assume it's a good thing without evidence -- as religious people do to the "virtue" of faith -- essentially because it feels good (the naturalistic fallacy), and do so blindly in spite of mountains of evidence to the contrary.

3. Show them a clear example of love causing problems, and they deny it anyway. Any case that clearly has bad outcomes is a "corruption" of love/religion (you've probably seen that argument from theists), and not the real thing. No true Scotsman fallacy.

4. Even people who recognize that 'real' love can go bad will refuse to admit it could happen to them; they fail to consider that their cases may be some of the bad ones, that they aren't so special or immune to the same bias others are subject to. E.g. "other people's revelations from god are false, but mine are true, I feel it in my heart" (just applied to love instead).


Romantic love -- Mania proper -- can be fine in some cases, despite compromising the ability to be rational, if you recognize those points and have some kind of oversight. Kind of how it can be safe to trip on acid if you have a responsible sober party to look after you and make sure you don't hurt yourself. Still can't recommend it, since it's a bad habit. And definitely not without supervision.

[inator]

Ok, I agree with 1,3 and 4. About 2 - yes, many do make assumptions about it being good without question, and that's wrong. Though I'd have to see those 'mountains of evidence' before I can make a decision about the the real overall effects... I'd hate to just assume it's bad.
But it's difficult to quantify. Most people rely on their immediate experience, or that of anecdotal stories from others to draw their conclusions.

[Insert name here]

I really do not care about marriage, if there were no practical benefits from it I would not even bother, but even as it is I still find myself not caring. I must say that I agree with brimstoneSalad here, but that is all I have to say about this subject.

[Jebus]

I've married twice. First time to get my residence permit in Canada and second time to get my residence permit in Mauritius. I never had a wedding party, never gave rings, never went on a honeymoon. I also get a bit of tax relief but other than that I don't see the point except that I prefer saying "my wife" than "my girlfriend".

[Cirion Spellbinder]

I have a few questions:
What defines a practical relationship?
Can you avoid compromising your ability to reason while still being attached to your spouse- as a friend who you have sex with?

[brimstoneSalad]

About 2 - yes, many do make assumptions about it being good without question, and that's wrong. Though I'd have to see those 'mountains of evidence' before I can make a decision about the the real overall effects... I'd hate to just assume it's bad.

Well, first we need to remember it's romantic "love" (i.e. infatuation/mania) that we're talking about; the hormonal stuff. Not friendship love, which is totally different and I think does have many very important and good effects.

Looking at hormonal "love", we have to consider the evolutionary purpose: to make a strong pair bond. It comes with obsession, possessiveness, jealousy, and codependency by nature. It creates unreasonably strong bonds as its only real benefit (beyond the drug-like effects of euphoria for the individuals experiencing it), and that's a benefit I question the value of.

These are qualities that may have been very useful in ancient times -- much like the dogmatic/religious tendencies of people to follow mindlessly -- but that are not necessarily beneficial anymore in modern times with social support networks.
Why do we need this form of pair bonding?
The children will have support from the father by law, and if not there are social systems in place to take care of them and help single parents on limited income. The woman and child no longer need the protection of a man, because we have modern social infrastructure, doors, locks, security, and police.

I see no benefit to the forced pair bonding whatsoever (it doesn't decrease violence in relationships, but rather it locks people into violent relationships).
In terms of the benefits to the pair, or the individuals, I see none.

Friendship and pragmatism are adequate to keep a healthy and functional relationship together. And as for relationships that are not healthy and functional, they are better off falling apart for lack of irrational hormonal manic "love", rather than be kept together despite the problems.

Its one ancient benefit has become its largest modern problem.

As for the euphoria, I see no real value in that. Probably better off doing weed if you want to addle your brain with excessive feel good hormones (also not something I recommend at all, but probably fewer damaging personal consequences, at least if you eat it rather than smoke it).

[brimstoneSalad]

Can you avoid compromising your ability to reason while still being attached to your spouse- as a friend who you have sex with?

Yes, as long as it's friendship love.

Sexplanations has a pretty good video on love attitudes:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Al1rQKIllk4
(Shame she's all about the homeopathy.)

Once you understand the different ways people approach love, you can start to see problems with a lot of them.

You want to aim for pragmatism and friendship.

Never enter into a romantic relationship with somebody you would not be good friends with were he or she not your preferred gender/somebody you're attracted to (or if he/she were already entangled).

Never be more than friends unless it makes pragmatic sense: citizenship, cohabitation, having/raising children, saving on taxes/insurance, etc. It should be easier to live your life the way you live it WITH this person than without him or her; he or she should be enabling you to live a better life, realize your personal and career goals, and vice versa.

Pragmatism should keep you together, and legitimate friendship (sexual relationship aside) should be the thing keeping you happy in that pairing.

[inator]

Well, first we need to remember it's romantic "love" (i.e. infatuation/mania) that we're talking about; the hormonal stuff.

Maybe this is just a semantic disagreement?

I think the hormonal stuff results in lust.
Add this to genuine admiration, which leads to a strong desire for partnership/friendship.
This combination is what I would call infatuation.
Add attachment into the mix and you get romantic love.

You can get those elements separately from multiple sources, it might just be more effective to get them from one.

Possesiveness, jealousy etc. may be in part effects of the social constructs surrounding romantic love.
A requirement for exclusivity/monogamy may result in posessiveness on both sides.
If traditional poligamy is the social norm, the husband will be possesive, while the wives will accept to share him.
It seems that poliamory is also possible for people who reject social norms.

Euforia and strong bonding stem from neurotransmitters, and indeed, they probably had an evolutionary role as incentives for succesful procreation.
But I'm not so sure they have to have such bad effects, in spite of being irrational. They're just nature's 'carrots'.