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.
beliefnet
I see the big issue not as atheism vs.
God, but atheism vs. religion. Atheists are in a unique position to
separate the two and help people focus on the evils of religion. Cede
them their God(s) they aren't going to give up Big Daddy, but help them
see that just because the religion claims God, believers don't have to
agree.
There are two
big religious issues that are in the process of changing, but must
change from within. The first is the authoritarian tradition in
religions. God, the hierarchy, the pastors must be obeyed in every way,
and the associated transfer of this authority to secular powers. The
second is the incompatibility of faith and learning, especially learning
for all people. Religions know that learning destroys faith and
therefore do all they can to impede learning.
About
all an atheist can do to help is to show that learning has intrinsic
value and promote it always, the internet is a powerful tool for this, and to the extent possible prevent
politico/religious interference in the learning process.
As
for the authoritarian issue, I suspect atheists can usefully abandon
their own authoritarian issues, and recognize and work with those
religious groups that are trying to be free. I don't care if they
believe in God or not, as long as they are challenging their faith
traditions of authority. There are many Christians who are going back
to the Synoptics and Jesus' personal view of God and Jesus' concern for
his neighbors, all of them. I view them as fellow travelers on the
anti-religion path, and encourage them and respect their God beliefs.
As many here know I promote the Jefferson Bible to
all and sundry believers and others for its basic humanism. They can
keep their God intact, and focus on the message of Jesus, not as God but
as God's exemplar on earth. It is a powerful anti-religion book, which
is why I am sure Jefferson extracted it from Religion's Bible as an
important part of his presidency.
