Search forums

Forums

Export thread

I guess religion doesn't really teach good "marriage" ;)

Aug 25, 2011#1

Chibibar

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap...SgSHjA?docId=582af83f71fd4c11af3d04a8e3c0d542

I put it in quotes on purpose. We all know that religion always touting "the sanctity of marriage" but so far according to the article, we are all time high on marriage AND divorce (so basically it just doesn't stick)

Of course the article has nothing to do with religion. I just toss it in there myself since I'm an advocate for equal rights across the board

Aug 25, 2011#2

Chad Sexington

Maybe what you should have put in quotes is "Religion" then? I'm not religious but, as you say, the article has nothing to do with religion so it seems kind of like an arbitrary attack. In fact it would be interesting to see data on couples who identify themselves as religious and see what their divorce rate is like. If it's high, then you'd have a case.

The article specifically discusses age as being the most relevant factor in determining likelihood of divorce in the studies cited.

Aug 25, 2011#3

Espy

I guess religion doesn't really teach good "marriage"

...Of course the article has nothing to do with religion...

wat

Aug 25, 2011#4

Tress

Espy said:
wat

You've been Chibi'd. My condolences.

Aug 25, 2011#5

Dave

Statistics on divorce in the US based on religion.

Compare this to the statistics that the divorce rate is ~40% for all marriages and you have a stat that actually proves that religion is good for marriage.

Bad, sensationalistic title is bad and sensationalistic.
Added at: 12:03
Of course, it also shows atheists are better at marriage than the religious...

Aug 25, 2011#6

Chibibar

Dave said:
Statistics on divorce in the US based on religion.

Compare this to the statistics that the divorce rate is ~40% for all marriages and you have a stat that actually proves that religion is good for marriage.

Bad, sensationalistic title is bad and sensationalistic.
Added at: 12:03
Of course, it also shows atheists are better at marriage than the religious...

Hehe

Aug 25, 2011#7

@Li3n

Dave said:
Statistics on divorce in the US based on religion.
Added at: 12:03
Of course, it also shows atheists are better at marriage than the religious...

Looks about the same to me: :devil:

Catholics 21%
Lutherans 21%

Atheists, Agnostics 21%

And how are Lutherans not mainline protestants?! Luther invented the damn thing...

Aug 25, 2011#8

Chibibar

That is what I get posting before lunch (I was hungry)

I wonder why is it important to worry about marriage? (at least today) I know back in the "days" being single parents was consider a no-no. having kids out of wedlock would get you stoned BUT today, society in America is more "liberal" in that area.

Aug 25, 2011#9

@Li3n

Chibibar said:
I wonder why is it important to worry about marriage? (at least today) I know back in the "days" being single parents was consider a no-no. having kids out of wedlock would get you stoned BUT today, society in America is more "liberal" in that area.

So they can have a bitch slap fight about it... even the atheists got in on it...

Aug 25, 2011#10

Chibibar

@Li3n said:
So they can have a bitch slap fight about it... even the atheists got in on it...

I guess. The tax break is not even that good

(at least for my wife and I since combine income we are on the next tax bracket and pay MORE taxes than before)
More are taken out of check and less refund

(until we have a kid)

Aug 25, 2011#11

Frankie Williamson

Birth control is to blame.

Aug 25, 2011#12

GasBandit

Chibibar said:
That is what I get posting before lunch (I was hungry)

I wonder why is it important to worry about marriage? (at least today) I know back in the "days" being single parents was consider a no-no. having kids out of wedlock would get you stoned BUT today, society in America is more "liberal" in that area.

As I think I said way back in the Tiger Woods thread, the institution continues to perpetuate itself through tradition, maladjusted sentiment, and evolutionary desperation. Enforcing a 1-to-1 breeding ratio gives the less than optimum specimens a better chance at passing on their DNA, rather than Tiger Woods just hoggin' all the wimmins openly. There is absolutely no rational reason for the continued enforcement of monogamous marriage other than to coddle weak genes.

And to beat it to the punch, yes, I believe love exists and is a very real and nice thing. It just doesn't have much to do with making a marriage work. For everyone "trapped in a loveless marriage" there's another person chained by love to a person who is absolutely toxic. Much the same goes for offspring - two people might not be able to have a healthy child no matter how strong their love for each other is, whereas passing acquaintances are amusingly impregnated with staggering regularity.

Aug 25, 2011#13

Chibibar

GasBandit said:
As I think I said way back in the Tiger Woods thread, the institution continues to perpetuate itself through tradition, maladjusted sentiment, and evolutionary desperation. Enforcing a 1-to-1 breeding ratio gives the less than optimum specimens a better chance at passing on their DNA, rather than Tiger Woods just hoggin' all the wimmins openly. There is absolutely no rational reason for the continued enforcement of monogamous marriage other than to coddle weak genes.

And to beat it to the punch, yes, I believe love exists and is a very real and nice thing. It just doesn't have much to do with making a marriage work. For everyone "trapped in a loveless marriage" there's another person chained by love to a person who is absolutely toxic. Much the same goes for offspring - two people might not be able to have a healthy child no matter how strong their love for each other is, whereas passing acquaintances are amusingly impregnated with staggering regularity.

Regardless of institution, I don't think anyone would "hoggin' all the women" I am not saying abolish 1 to 1 marriage, I am just saying why keep promoting them?
If people are incline to cheat or have multiple relationship (and not married) there is no stopping them anyways.
If a single person want to have unprotected sex with a bunch of other single person and get them pregnate, nothing stopping them either (in current form)

Aug 25, 2011#14

Hailey Knight

Frankie Williamson said:
Birth control is to blame.

First read as "bitch control."
Added at: 18:05

Dave said:
Statistics on divorce in the US based on religion.

I like how one conservative Christian's response to the same divorce rates occurring between Christians and other faiths/non-faiths was "that doesn't make sense because our families are Bible-based so they're stronger." Complete rejection of reality...

Aug 25, 2011#15

GasBandit

Chibibar said:
Regardless of institution, I don't think anyone would "hoggin' all the women"

There are a great many wealthy/powerful/influential men who have "sown their seed in several fields" going back as far as you care to look, despite the rule being enforced monogamy. Even Ben Franklin basically sperminated every living frenchwoman in his 70s.

I am not saying abolish 1 to 1 marriage, I am just saying why keep promoting them?

You're contradicting yourself, you just might not know it - to stop promoting (or rather, enforcing) monogamous marriage is tantamount to abolishing it.

If people are incline to cheat or have multiple relationship (and not married) there is no stopping them anyways.

It's considered a sin in most religions and the partners of such unions have no legal standing. That's the societal punishment.

If a single person want to have unprotected sex with a bunch of other single person and get them pregnate, nothing stopping them either (in current form)

Not physically, no, but there's still societal disdain for it - from both genders who have been brainwashed from birth to romanticize an evolutionarily stupid system. It all comes from that somewhere along the line, the idea of marriage got corrupted away from its original intended purpose - to promote intertribal stability by creating a union between two groups that otherwise might have been antagonists. Love didn't enter into it. Marriages were arranged, often before those to be wed even had any idea what the commitment meant. Somewhere along the line the message and purpose got garbled to "if you love someone you have to marry them and THAT'S IT FOR EITHER OF YOU FOREVER BECAUSE LOVE IS FOREVER AND EVER AND EVER AND OH YEAH YOU CAN ONLY LOVE ONE PERSON."

It doesn't work out. Love isn't forever, and even when it is in effect, it has little bearing on the success of a relationship. The singer who sang "love will keep us together" was either an idiot or was idealizing codependency... which would also be idiotic. Historically, there have been plenty of successful marriages where love was minimally present (or grew into existence over years afterward), and contemporaneously, plenty of marriages where all the love in the world couldn't make it work out. Saying a marriage is based on love is like saying a car runs on upholstery. It doesn't, it just makes it comfier.

But we're still force fed fairy tales from cradle to grave about twue wuv and how the normal reproductive cycle of the human is uncompromising monogamy, even though 90 percent of us are living proof that this is a false assertion.

"I'm trying to conduct a wedding here which has absolutely nothing to do with love!" - Spaceballs

Aug 27, 2011#16

@Li3n

@Gas

Send my condolences to the missus.