Showing posts with label marriage.. Show all posts
Showing posts with label marriage.. Show all posts

Thursday, February 26, 2015

Communities Rules About Sexual Conduct.

Rational Christian All religions have rules about sexual conduct.

Believer No, I said that I didn't feel that some forms of marriage are of equal dignity and honor as others.  I commented on aberrations from traditional, normative marriage.

All communities have rules about sexual conduct.

Right now in universities throughout the developed world are having vehement discussions and legal battles about what constitutes rape.  These all boil down to the issue of whether a man has the right to have sex with whoever he wants to.  Note that universities are generally secular institutions. 

These issues have nothing at all to do with the traditional definitions of marriage and adultery, just whether a woman has any choice in the matter. The issue of choice by women is why many religions are so protective of their normative marriage rules.   

In my ERSSG affirmatively consensual, non-procreative, responsible sex has few other restrictions or rules.  And cohabitation agreements may or may not be legally formalized and generally have little to do with sexual conduct.  

The exception is when a (usually) couple decides to include children in their relationship either naturally or by adoption.   At that point all of society's rules, laws, and traditions of marriage become important and the formalization of the relationship becomes imperative.  It is perhaps ironic that the religious marriage traditions which assumed lots of children a few of which survived to puberty, became an established legal structure in which to raise the few children required for replacement of ones memes and/or genes.    

Tuesday, January 27, 2015

Cohabitation and Dependent Children Legal Issues.

Yep.  Civil marriage is secular, but it has been so screwed up by religious BS that it is time to scrap it entirely.  Forget the term marriage as it has been focused on "Leaving her father and cleaving only unto her husband." for so long that people think it is a sex permit.
These days there is no need for a sex permit.  People have sex.  It is none of the state's business who has the right "To do what, and with which, and to whom."  Anon, Limericks Unlimited.  

People may wish to create a household, sharing assets and income and having certain rights and obligations under common law and tradition.  The state might wish to issue a cohabitation agreement loosely based on marriage law to facilitate these arrangements.  Such an agreement would not cover dependent children. 

People wishing to take on responsibility for dependents either through procreation or adoption would be subject to traditional family law, administered by the state, and hopefully reworked for the benefit and protection of the dependents.  Pretty much ignoring the cohabitation status of the responsible adults.
DUO you probably recognise a situation from the old boards where a lesbian chose to have a child naturally with a gay father who lived separately but shared parenting and financial responsibility for the child.  A state that can't deal with that situation shouldn't be in the marriage business. 

Tuesday, June 25, 2013

On Monogamy.

Ebon wrote on beliefnet:
It's especially a pointless question for humans because, unlike any other species, we have learned to decouple sexuality and fertility. In prehistoric times, it was in our biological interest for a child's parents to be committed to one another to ensure the survival of the child to adulthood and thereby, the continuation of the genes. In fact, the extended family was even better (and was, historically, the most common form of childrearing) for exactly the same reason.

But that's fairly irrelevent to us now. Since we have largely divorced sex from fertility, monogamy now becomes simply one option among many. For some people, monogamy comes naturally.

Interesting point.  But the term "monogamy" is linked not to sexual activity but child raising.  For the non-breeders, to use a gender neutral term, it seems to make little difference to the society what form of sexual expression is chosen. 

However, for those who chose to accept responsibility for children whether in the usual way or by adoption, a stable family commonly reinforced by sexual bonding is an important value for society to reinforce.  Unfortunately both civil and religious mores are far behind the curve on this critical issue. 

I would like to see "marriage" as permission for sex completely thrown out of both civil and religious laws.  The state would create family unions to protect those who choose to form families for the purpose of raising children.  Religions might want to restrict "marriage" to those couples with a family union license from the state.  These unions would be structured to protect the family unity with a bias toward protecting the children in the event of a separation of the adults in the union. 

Social units not involving children can be handled better via contractual arrangements, pre-nups, visitation rights, wills, etc.  I doubt that religions would want to be involved in blessing such arrangements.  

Monday, May 11, 2009

Atheist divorce

The Bright Line...:
Still, I think there's more to it [Why there is less divorce among atheists.] More than the lack of religion to not fight about.

"Actually there is. Since atheists do not have a prepackaged moral system handed to them 'From God' they need to have figured out a moral system that works in the society that they find themselves in. Relationships with others in the society will necessarily be an important part of that morality. In all important relationships a functioning atheist will have a good idea of the reciprocal responsibilities in the relationship and be comfortable with them or will not enter into the relationship.

Most atheists I know are almost prudish when it comes to sex, and won't even think of procreative sex without a stable relationship to support it. Even 'Recreational sex' is approached with extreme care due to the implied commitments involved.

It is real hard for an atheist to hide from God and sneak a push in the bush. The atheist's moral judge always knows exactly what hesh is doing and whether it is right or wrong. And if it is wrong the atheist can't just nail it to the cross and forget it. If it is wrong, it has to be fixed."

This does not mean that divorce is not common, but it is generally later in life and usually after children are independent if there are children involved. An important part of this is that much of the married atheist's society revolves around the family, and there is little emotional support for those who choose to leave the family. In a church the congregation will choose sides, but there will always be emotional support for the "Sinner" in the broken relationship. An atheist does not have this support, so the justification for the break up has to be pretty strong to avoid losing a good chunk of one's friends and acquaintances.