Another thread on marriage : Is marriage obsolete?

"Is marriage obsolete?"

A free-lance writer called Eric Steinman heard a discussion during a thanksgiving party:

"...some of the male family members were engaging in a crudely philosophical debate, which asserted that the construct of marriage was invented and perpetuated by women (no comment), and that gender relations have developed to such an extent that women no longer have any use for the institution of marriage (still, no comment). Whether you can buy into this argument or not, is irrelevant, a better question would be, is marriage relevant for anyone anymore?"

“...that marriage, whatever its social, spiritual or symbolic appeal, is in purely practical terms just not as necessary as it used to be. Neither men nor women need to be married to have sex or companionship or professional success or respect or even children — yet marriage remains revered and desired.”

He asks: "Where do you think the institution of marriage is going? How does your concept and marriage reality differ or reinforce dominant notions of marriage? Do we need marriage, or do we just need to rethink marriage altogether?"


http://www.care2.com/greenliving/is-...-obsolete.html

Obsolete? Not in my opinion. Marriage is as important and meaningful to me as it is to my husband. That is not to say that another couple places the same importance upon marriage, for it is only relevant to those who consider it meaningful and binding. Not everyone places such importance upon a marriage contract - for that is what it is...a contract. Marriage takes work and commitment, by both partners. I'm not saying that relationships without the "contract" don't take work and commitment, but having the contract binds the commitment by law.

Thats because you and Forge are Soulmates Steelish, Not just married

While I am a bachalor, I have seen friends and co-workers go through divorce. A lot of people go into Marriage without knowing what they are getting into, there is a lot of communication and compromise issues that should be dealt with before the I Do's. Unfortunetly people think marriage is sunshine and lollipops, its acutally a lot of hard work and sacrifice. ( Isn't there some Course on marriage given in schools, college and High School? ) Pre-nuptual agreements are a good idea, these days divorce is just to (!@###$!!@##$#$$@#@!@@) easy, and one partner can find Him/herself totally broken by the end. Gene Roddenberry's star trek universe had marriage as a 5 year renewable contract, sometimes I think that might not be a bad idea.

Comments anyone??

Gay or straight. I think when two people decide to marry each other, and truely understand the responsibilities that come with a marraige, they should be allowed to do so. I hold marraige to be an important part of life and can't wait to find someone who will become my partner in life.

I've seen a few people who've scoffed at the idea of getting married, as some sort of social constraint that was imposed on 'civilised' society. Then they found their one, and promptly forgot all the reasons against a marraige.

Marriage will never go out of fashion and I think it is now and always will be important. I think one of the reasons that a lot of people live in sin [and that’s a laugh]. What about all those one night stands. The cost of a white wedding; and in fact the cost of any wedding is soaring. Women, not all want a white wedding, but as I found out two years ago with my daughter’s wedding it is damn expensive. The cost is a deterrent, and in the end under British law, after three years of living together you are classed as a cohabitating couple, and then come under the same laws as a married person. The only difference is there is no divorce procedure if you get pissed off with your partner. My sister has been married 50 years and has three children, they are not married, but I believe it all comes down to how morally obligated you feel. All the time there is love and romance there will be married couples, because at the end of the day it is the finally to the human mating. This is only my opinion, as we all travel through life in our own way, and with our own thoughts of moral conduct.

Regards IAN 2411{lillirose}

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by steelish

Obsolete? Not in my opinion. Marriage is as important and meaningful to me as it is to my husband. That is not to say that another couple places the same importance upon marriage, for it is only relevant to those who consider it meaningful and binding. Not everyone places such importance upon a marriage contract - for that is what it is...a contract. Marriage takes work and commitment, by both partners. I'm not saying that relationships without the "contract" don't take work and commitment, but having the contract binds the commitment by law.

---

It occurs to me when I read this that things have indeed changed - a lot. Marriage has gone from being a nessecity for survival for most people, to being an option.

Some men discussing this have said: But if women can earn their own living, what need do they have for us?
And the answer was: Being with you because we want to, not because we have to!

What definition of 'marriage' are we using?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thir

It occurs to me when I read this that things have indeed changed - a lot. Marriage has gone from being a nessecity for survival for most people, to being an option.

Some men discussing this have said: But if women can earn their own living, what need do they have for us?
And the answer was: Being with you because we want to, not because we have to!

---

I like that very much! I am with my husband not to pay the bills I could have rented a room out in my house to cover. I am married because I have never slept well my entire life and woke up to everything and everyone. I sleep through the night with him in my bed.

My brother who is gay and got married in CA in 2008. He very much wants to live in a world where he and his husband are recognized the same as my husband and I are no matter what state.

While I agree that the over all approach to marriage and divorce may need to be revisited...I am happy and cozy in my marriage. It is right where I belong.

My partner and I define our relationship a-traditionally. Neither of us is really looking to get married, which suits me fine. We share a life together, and all the stuff it entails. I don't know if that makes it "obsolete" for other people. It's just not something I'm at all interested in pursuing.

I've had rather bad examples of marriage in my life. I don't put much value in it in my own life. That's not to say some people don't have fantastic, loving, caring, fulfilling marriages. I'm just rather biased against them. But that suites me just fine.

I think marriage today is no more obsolete than it was a thousand plus years ago and I am fairly certian that it was no more obsolete to the people back then as it was to the generations that preceeded them, all the way back to our earliest beginings.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stealth694

Thats because you and Forge are Soulmates Steelish, Not just married
Gene Roddenberry's star trek universe had marriage as a 5 year renewable contract, sometimes I think that might not be a bad idea.

Comments anyone??

---

I think that might work well for a number of people, if children are not involved.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lion

Gay or straight. I think when two people decide to marry each other, and truely understand the responsibilities that come with a marraige, they should be allowed to do so.

---

Absolutely. I did not read the article as in 'let's get rid of it', and I do not agree with the pople that marriage is not a human right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 13'sbadkitty

I like that very much! I am with my husband not to pay the bills I could have rented a room out in my house to cover. I am married because I have never slept well my entire life and woke up to everything and everyone. I sleep through the night with him in my bed.

My brother who is gay and got married in CA in 2008. He very much wants to live in a world where he and his husband are recognized the same as my husband and I are no matter what state.

While I agree that the over all approach to marriage and divorce may need to be revisited...I am happy and cozy in my marriage. It is right where I belong.

---

I like to hear about things that work :-)

I was thinking maybe it is isn't as much approaches to marriage and divorce that needs to be revisited, as the conditions marriages have to work under?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by swerve

What definition of 'marriage' are we using?

---

I believe the expression 'institution of marriage' in the article refers to the legal thing. But that does not mean that other kinds of togetherness should not be discussed. In fact, that would be interesting :-)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by denuseri

I think marriage today is no more obsolete than it was a thousand plus years ago and I am fairly certian that it was no more obsolete to the people back then as it was to the generations that preceeded them, all the way back to our earliest beginings.

---

We have no idea how the earlies beginings were, as have often been noted. But if we try to imagine Mr and Mrs Stoneage having a family like today, would it be serial monogamy as we see it today, with lots of singles spread along the way and children pnedulating between parents?

Actually we do have an excellent idea of how our early beginings were where as marriage is conserned.

Odd factoid for you: Marriage customs involving monogamy developed in groups of humans that had little to no contact with each other for thousands of years independently and "predeominated", sugesting that as with many other human behaviors a certian level of hard wireing is involved into our sexual and yes our marriage prefrences.

And perhaps you need to be more specific in your query where as the institution of marriage is conserned if your trying to equate the modern urban westernized version of marrige as stereotypical for marriage in general as nessesarally as a bad thing with all those pendulating children... you may need to re-think your approach.

Divorce rates have always went up in societies that afford personal freedom a higher status over the good of the group as they become more decadent and succesfully urbanized, Rome being one of many excellent examples.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by denuseri

Actually we do have an excellent idea of how our early beginings were where as marriage is conserned.

---

Ideas, yes, scientific proof, none.

Quote:

---

Odd factoid for you: Marriage customs involving monogamy developed in groups of humans that had little to no contact with each other for thousands of years independently and "predeominated", sugesting that as with many other human behaviors a certian level of hard wireing is involved into our sexual and yes our marriage prefrences.

---

Back to religious pop 'science': all the hard wireing ideas are simply that, ideas.
Example: Wilson. His biggest ideas came as revelations, he said his "biggest ideas happened within minutes". His theories, he writes, are supported by "a scarcity of information" and "the epigenetics rules that guide behavioural development are largely unexplored." He admits that these shortcomings are conceptual, technical and deep, "but they are ultimately solvable."

In short, we are talking ideas close to faith. We could discuss much more on this in an entirely new thread, if you feel like it.

Quote:

---

And perhaps you need to be more specific in your query where as the institution of marriage is conserned if your trying to equate the modern urban westernized version of marrige as stereotypical for marriage in general as nessesarally as a bad thing with all those pendulating children... you may need to re-think your approach.

---

Do you mean that marriages in urban areas and marriages in the country are very different? This sounds interesting, I hadn't seen it in that light. Could you say more on this?

Quote:

---

Divorce rates have always went up in societies that afford personal freedom a higher status over the good of the group as they become more decadent and succesfully urbanized, Rome being one of many excellent examples.

---

You mean there is more personal freedom in cities than in rural areas? Still? I wonder. Maybe. I have a feeling that things are evening out, some, but I do not know.

Did you mean divorces are decadent, though? Is it harder for children with parents that do not get along, than with divorces? I think that is tough to answer, but I lean toward better divorce than constant and bitter quarrels. However, divorces do not always end the quarrels.

I think our Western societies are becoming much too individualistic, and I agree that in many ways working in groups would be better. I think it would be great to have a number of legal ways of organising yourselves apart from that of marriage.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by denuseri

Actually we do have an excellent idea of how our early beginings were where as marriage is conserned.

---

Lots of people have ideas, nobody has a scrap of evidence. The only thing we know for certain is that no other primate forms pair-bonded couples, so if you are going to claim that hominids evolved this behaviour, you need something more than an idea.

Quote:

---

Odd factoid for you:

---

I don't think you meant what you actually said here, see the definition of the word: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/factoid http://www.thefreedictionary.com/factoids

Quote:

---

Marriage customs involving monogamy developed in groups of humans that had little to no contact with each other for thousands of years independently and "predeominated",

---

Again, where is your evidence? Humans migrated apart, for the most part, before the last Ice Age. Do you have evidence that they were polygamous (or something) before the migrations, and became monogamous afterwards?

Quote:

---

sugesting that as with many other human behaviors a certian level of hard wireing is involved into our sexual and yes our marriage prefrences.

---

You are contradicting yourself here. If monogamy is genetically determined (which I suppose is what you mean by "hard-wired" then humans would always have been monogamous. If it developed in the last few thousand years, then it's ipso facto cultural not genetic.

Quote:

---

And perhaps you need to be more specific in your query where as the institution of marriage is conserned if your trying to equate the modern urban westernized version of marrige as stereotypical for marriage in general as nessesarally as a bad thing with all those pendulating children... you may need to re-think your approach.

---

So far as I can translate this into English, I think you're saying that thir was mistaken to suppose that marriage has always resembled the present day Western model. But in fact she was saying the opposite, that it's others who are mistaken to think this.

Quote:

---

Divorce rates have always went up in societies that afford personal freedom a higher status over the good of the group as they become more decadent and succesfully urbanized, Rome being one of many excellent examples.

---

It's a long time since I've seen the expression "decadent and urbanised" used in all seriousness. It's true that urbanisation is generally agreed to go along with greater individualism (though I'd be interested to know if this is also true of, say, Japan,) but have you evidence that the breakdown of marriage goes along with urbanisation?

There is a great deal of evidence from folklore that until Xianity imposed strict rules on marriage for moral reasons, rural marriages were a good deal more casual and subject to change by mutual consent. There are sermons on record by early Xian missionaries and bishops, deploring the country folk's lack of respect for the sanctity of marriage, which suggests that rural life did not go along with strict monogamy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stealth694

Gene Roddenberry's star trek universe had marriage as a 5 year renewable contract, sometimes I think that might not be a bad idea.

---

It always made sense to me.

When my first wife and I got together we agreed to have a private 1 year contract and see how it worked. By the end of the year we were convinced we were soulmates and would be together forever.

We were wrong. People change. If we'd been required to make a positive decision to confirm our relationship every, say, five years, rather than committing ourselves once and for all and then having to tear apart legally when we had drifted apart in spirit, it would have saved a lot of heartache.

Well if ever one wished to mix fictional "pop-science" with religion I guess Xianism is the way to go.

We have all the evidence we need, people have been writting things down for a long long time.

And yes I am saying that monogamy is "one of" the several reproduction behaviors that are indeed hardwired into our brains, shrugs, its basic anthropology 101 and yes, primates can be monogamous as well as: a single female and her offspring with limited to no regular contact with her mate outside the mating ritual, or be one-male in a several-female group, or in some cases the less common polyamourous multimale-multifemale group, or a polyandrous family group or a fission-fusion societal model.

While there is considerable variation in social group composition among the primates, there is very little variability within each species. In fact, most non-human primate species are limited to only one of six basic patterns I just mentioned. Humans are an exception in that we form a variety of social group patterns and may even change our pattern, which is just part of evolution in action and to be expected since we are further along than our cousins and obviously more succefful at the whole evolution thing so far. However, each human society usually defines one of them as being acceptable and condemns the others. Only the multimale-multifemale group pattern is not normally found in any human society as the norm. And the one that is ussually considered acceptable is monogamy or patriarchial polygamy.

Most of this is becuause of how one's hardwiring predisposes one to adaptation to their enviroment more so than personal choice does as some groups of primates have found diffrent strokes work best for different primates in different situations depending on the degree or socialization required for survival in their area/ ie enviroment.

The single female and her offspring group pattern altough rare for primates but very common for other mammals. It is found among the orangutans and some of the small nocturnal prosimians (e.g., mouse lemurs and galagos). The adult males lead their lives mostly alone. However, they come together with females occasionally for mating. The males of these species generally have large territories that overlap those of several females. Both male and female children usually leave their mother when they reach sexual maturity.

Monogamous groups consist of an adult male and female with their children. When they are grown, the children leave to create their own nuclear families. While this group pattern is the most common one for humans, it does also exist for non-human primates. It is found paticularly among the small Asian apes as well as some of the New World monkeys and prosimians. Specifically, monogamous family groups are the common pattern for gibbons, siamangs, titi monkeys, indris, tarsiers, and apparently some pottos.

The smallest New World monkeys, the marmosets and tamarins, form both monogamous and polyandrous family units. They generally start with a monogamous mating pair. Later, a second adult male may join the family and assist in child rearing. When this occurs, both adult males will potentially mate with the adult female. This polyandrous mating pattern is extremely rare among non-human primates but does occur in some human societies in isolated rural regions of India, Sri Lanka, and especially Nepal, and Tibet.

One-male-several-female groups have polygynous mating patterns. That is to say, one male regularly mates with more than one female. Polygyny is generally not a promiscuous mating pattern. Rather, the male and his female mates form a distinct mating and child rearing group. This pattern is found among hamadryas baboons, geladas, langurs, howler monkeys, gorillas and many human societies. It has been a culturally preferred marriage pattern in numerous Native American, African, and South Asian cultures. However, polygyny is not as common among humans as monogamy, even in cultures that advocate it.


It would be a mistake to automatically assume that non-human primate one-male-several-female groups are dominated by males. Among geladas, females largely control the social group. This is despite the fact that the males are larger, stronger, and more aggressive. Mothers, sisters, and aunts act as a team in chasing off other unrelated females. They also collectively select their mutual mate among a number of potential suitors roaming in and out of their territory. The male that is chosen usually is one that does not act abusively towards them and is willing to cooperate with them in defending their territory. The relationship with any particular male may be short-term. The stable core of the community is the group of related females. This is a long way from stereotypical male domination.

But as one can see in the following example one's enviroment has a lot to do with it:

One-male-several female groups may take a different form when predator pressure is a problem. (and may take a different form again if the enviroment becomes heavily urbanized...obviously) In open grasslands, hamadryas baboon communities are much larger, often consisting of a number of polygynous families. In such multiple one-male-several-female group societies, males are the dominant, controlling members. The adult males not only "herd" their own sexually mature females, but also maintain order and protect the community from predators. This is not unlike the traditional Arab polygynous marriage pattern in which wealthy men acquire harems.

In contrast, gorillas rarely have to be concerned about predator dangers. Subsequently, their communities usually consist of a single dominant adult male, his mates, and their children. When males reach maturity, they usually are driven off by the dominant silverback male. These exiled males ultimately form their own one-male-several-female groups. As females reach sexual maturity, they also leave their natal families and disperse. They later join with single males to form new families or they join the families of males who already have mates. When the silver back males have unusually peaceful personalities, the gorilla community may have several of them.

The most common social group pattern among semi-terrestrial primates is the multimale-multifemale group. This is most likely the partern we originally developed from, but again, its all dependent on predominate enviromental conditions and success rates. With this pattern, there are no stable heterosexual bonds--both males and females have a number of different mates. This is characteristic of savanna baboons, macaques, as well as some colobus and New World monkey species.

Multimale-multifemale groups commonly have a dominance hierarchy among both males and females (just like we humans). Each individual is ranked relative to all other community members of the same gender. This tends to reduce serious violence within the community since everyone knows in advance who they must defer to and who must be submissive to them. Among rhesus macaques, one's position in the dominance hierarchy is determined by the rank of his or her mother. The top ranking individuals are referred to by primatologists as the alpha male and the alpha female. All other community members defer to them. A female's rank in the hierarchy stays with her throughout life. However, most young adult male rhesus macaques leave their natal community and ultimately join others to find mates. When they do so, they start at the bottom of the male dominance hierarchy again. Alpha males usually mate more often than others. This makes the social organization superficially look like one-male-several-female group. However, younger females often sneak off to mate with males lower down on the dominance hierarchy. The stable core of rhesus macaque communities is the group of female relatives. They stay within their natal community throughout life and work as a team to defend it against other females.

A fission-fusion society is one in which the social group size and composition change throughout the year with different activities and situations. This is a variation of the precceeding patern and some humans still follow this as their back up even while pursuing a monogamous relationship. This is the social pattern typical of chimpanzees. Individuals enter and leave communities from time to time. Adult males occasionally wander off and forage alone or join a few other males in a hunting party. Females casually change membership from one group to the other. This occurs especially when females are in estrus and seeking mates. As a result, foraging and sleeping groups reform frequently. Male chimps are the relatively stable core of the community since they rarely join other troops.

What allows for the generally loose relationship between chimpanzee communities is that they apparently recognize a wider range of social bonds than do monkeys. They often have relatives and friends in several different neighboring troops. When chimpanzee communities come together, they usually exchange friendly greetings rather than show aggression. However, it would be a mistake to assume from this that chimpanzee society is always peaceful. The adult males within each community are frequently engaged in complex political activities involving scheming and physical intimidation in order to move up the dominance hierarchy. They develop short-term alliances with other males by mutual support, sharing meat, and allogrooming (grooming others). It isn't always the largest and strongest males who make it to the top of the hierarchy. Often teamwork used to frighten and impress is more effective than any one individual's muscles in achieving chimpanzee goals. This is an indication of their intelligence.

Chimpanzees are not the only primates that change group membership from time to time. For instance, adult rhesus macaque males usually must permanently leave the community of their birth and try to join others in order to find mates. This is not easy since they are not warmly welcomed in their adoptive troop. Group composition of some langur and baboon species also change as a result of the availability of food and mates. Evidently, none of these monkey species change group composition with the ease and frequency of chimpanzees. As a result, their societies are not usually referred to as fission-fusion types.

Behavioral differentiation of male and female primates involves more than just mating behavior. Males are usually larger and physically dominant over females. Extreme sexual dimorphism is particularly characteristic of the semi-terrestrial monkeys and great apes. The manner in which male and female children are socialized often differs. Following infancy, age-based play groups are usually the primary socializing group for males. These juvenile male cohorts often spend much of their time on the fringes of the troop territory in active physical play. For example, nearly half of the waking hours of young male gorillas are spent in rough play. This is comparable to the amount of time human children play if given the opportunity. For most non-human primates, play is critical for developing social bonds and social skills. Young female monkeys and apes are more often socialized in the safer areas of the community territory by their mothers and other older female relatives. Their play is usually less rough and focuses more on developing parenting skills and social ties among the females with whom they usually spend their lives. As adults, male primates are more likely to leave the community to join roaming bachelor groups and eventually join other communities.

The effects of mordern urbanization have as yet to be determined, but nothing so far in our behavior points to a majior evolutionary change tacking place in levels of monogamy vs non-monogamous pairings that we havent allready recorded from past urbanization periods.

D'Oh...

This and the one before it were written by me but appeared as thir's because I forgot to log out and in again before posting! Sorry for the confusion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thir

It always made sense to me.

When my first wife and I got together we agreed to have a private 1 year contract and see how it worked. By the end of the year we were convinced we were soulmates and would be together forever.

We were wrong. People change. If we'd been required to make a positive decision to confirm our relationship every, say, five years, rather than committing ourselves once and for all and then having to tear apart legally when we had drifted apart in spirit, it would have saved a lot of heartache.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by denuseri

Well if ever one wished to mix fictional "pop-science" with religion I guess Xianism is the way to go.

---

Never thought I'd hear you say this. Perhaps the world IS coming to an end!!

Quote:

---

Humans are an exception ... since we are further along than our cousins and obviously more succefful at the whole evolution thing so far.

---

That's like the strongest kid on the playground claiming he's the best because he's the most successful. Humans MAY be more successful than our cousins, evolutionarily speaking, but the evidence is unclear and the issue is still in doubt. Remember, modern humans have only been around for about 10,000 years, give or take. Dinosaurs were at the apex of evolution for hundreds of millions of years, yet they are gone. For all we know humanity may be nothing more than a backwater mistake in evolution which will shortly be eliminated from the equations. Just because we're the biggest and baddest on the playground does not make us the endpoint of evolution.

Overall, some interesting notes here about primate mating practices, but they are, after all, just that: mating strategies. They say nothing about the institution of marriage, which is a uniquely human condition. True, marriage generally includes mating practices, and even procreation, but neither of these is legally required for a marriage to be valid. Religious groups will disagree about this, of course, but legally (in the US, at least) there is no requirement for the married couple to engage in sexual activities or to have children. It's expected, of course, but not required.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thorne

That's like the strongest kid on the playground claiming he's the best because he's the most successful. Humans MAY be more successful than our cousins, evolutionarily speaking, but the evidence is unclear and the issue is still in doubt. Remember, modern humans have only been around for about 10,000 years, give or take. Dinosaurs were at the apex of evolution for hundreds of millions of years, yet they are gone. For all we know humanity may be nothing more than a backwater mistake in evolution which will shortly be eliminated from the equations. Just because we're the biggest and baddest on the playground does not make us the endpoint of evolution.

---

Well, we are so smart and succesful that we are in the process of destrying everything we are supposed to live on, as well as breeding like rats and waging now very dangerous wars on each other. We may be the endpoint of our evolution.

But as for endpoint as such, it is in the system that there isn't one. Things keep changing, life keeps adapting, or vanishing.

Quote:

---

Overall, some interesting notes here about primate mating practices, but they are, after all, just that: mating strategies. They say nothing about the institution of marriage, which is a uniquely human condition. True, marriage generally includes mating practices, and even procreation, but neither of these is legally required for a marriage to be valid. Religious groups will disagree about this, of course, but legally (in the US, at least) there is no requirement for the married couple to engage in sexual activities or to have children. It's expected, of course, but not required.

---

Earlier on, one could not reasonably seperate the two. Marriage in whatever forms was, I think, a way to survive and making more people - at least as long as the nuclear family has been here. It is loosing that function and becoming something else, but what? That is what I wonder.

[QUOTE=denuseri;911308]
We have all the evidence we need, people have been writting things down for a long long time.
[quote]

I was way back in time, long before that.

Quote:

---

And yes I am saying that monogamy is "one of" the several reproduction behaviors that are indeed hardwired into our brains,

---

This does not make sense to me.

1) You say we can be 'hard-wired' to several different kinds of behaviour which we then choose according to circumstances - that is hardly hard-wirering, that is adaption.

2) The whole idea of 'hard-wirering' as based on Darwin makes no sense. Darwin talks of evolution, meaning arbitrary changes and mutations, some of which make changes that benefit survival in a specific set of circumstances.
Change being the operative word. If we were 'hard-wired' we would not have been able to, and we would have died out, which has happended to a number of other humanoids.

Quote:

---

Humans are an exception in that we form a variety of social group patterns and may even change our pattern, which is just part of evolution in action

---

Ergo we are not 'hard-wired' into any pattern.

Quote:

---

However, each human society usually defines one of them as being acceptable and condemns the others. Only the multimale-multifemale group pattern is not normally found in any human society as the norm. And the one that is ussually considered acceptable is monogamy or patriarchial polygamy.

---

So, my question (or rather, the question in the article) is whether we can now accept other forms, such as polyamory (which is based on any variation of commmitment with more than two people). Poly organisations are found all over Europe and US both, and I have read about the push for legal laws to marrage more than one in US.

Or if, perhaps, marriage can be given better conditions to survive - the divorce rate is, as we all know, very high. Why? Something does not work, what is it with this serial monogamy? Why are people not happy?

Or what the situation is now that people can provide for themselves and their kids without marriage: what is marriage based on now? Seems things have changed, but we have not changed our thinking?

Quote:

---

The most common social group pattern among semi-terrestrial primates is the multimale-multifemale group. This is most likely the partern we originally developed from, but again, its all dependent on predominate enviromental conditions and success rates.

---

I think so too. And if so, it only means that we can change as we like, we are not wired to be mono or anything else - we can choose.

Quote:

---

Multimale-multifemale groups commonly have a dominance hierarchy among both males and females (just like we humans).

---

See the thread on diaster viticms for a discussion on this.

I have read the whole animal section of your mail with great interest, it would be fun in a more broad discussion about Darwin and people and ways to organise and interact.

Quote:

---

The effects of mordern urbanization have as yet to be determined, but nothing so far in our behavior points to a majior evolutionary change tacking place in levels of monogamy vs non-monogamous pairings that we havent allready recorded from past urbanization periods.

---

I am not so sure. I do not know about evolutionary, but certainly with greater freedom things seem to be changing. Mono relationships break in at least half the cases, and new ideas, such as poly or a lifelong single life spring up. Years back people had go at collectives, people feeling that a bigger group had more chance of a good life.

To me this is to a great extent about what people do, now that they can survive physically by themselves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thir

We may be the endpoint of our evolution.

But as for endpoint as such, it is in the system that there isn't one. Things keep changing, life keeps adapting, or vanishing.

---

Short of actually destroying the entire planet, leaving a cloud of rubble and dust orbiting the moon, I can't foresee anything wiping out the entire human race. 90%? Sure. Even as much as 99% gone, possibly. But 100%? Hard to envision. Some will always survive, at least for a time. Long enough to continue our evolutionary branch, I would think.

Civilization, on the other hand ....

Quote:

---

Earlier on, one could not reasonably seperate the two. Marriage in whatever forms was, I think, a way to survive and making more people - at least as long as the nuclear family has been here.

---

Marriage has always been used as a means of maintaining/acquiring property. Since women were always considered to BE property, marriage was a way of asserting ownership, as well as acquiring property from her family. It was also a way of legitimizing the inheritance of property, through the children brought about in the marriage. This is why, for so long, marriages were arranged by the bride's father with little or no regard for the wishes of said bride.

Quote:

---

It is loosing that function and becoming something else, but what? That is what I wonder.

---

With the growing emancipation of women marriage has become more of an emotional contract, as well as retaining its legal aspects regarding property. Far less emphasis is placed on the desires of the parents, at least in Western cultures, and far more on the wishes of the bride and groom. Yet it is still a financial contract, in large part, and a legal necessity for securing inheritance, though with the advent of DNA testing I would think this is becoming less necessary.

There are still legal reasons for marrying, though, as well as religious reasons. I think it's long past time that we redefined the legal definitions of marriage to allow many different forms of creating families, and stop kowtowing to the religions which want to maintain a stranglehold on marriage. Certainly the religions have the right to define what is acceptable within their faiths. They do not have the right to require that others, not of that faith, abide by their rules.

As said before, I don't think that marriage is necessarily failing, or flawed. I think humans are flawed, and bring their own flaws into the mix. And again, in most states it's not legal for my partner and I to be married. ;) In our case, our relationships is not heteronormative to begin with, so there's little need (nor desire) to fit into that particular "box." Our household consists of three adults, and two kids. My partner, myself, and our (platonic) housemate, who is my partner's brother's ex, and her two kids (his niece and nephew.) A lot of love exchanged in all directions, though she's not the right flavor for either of us to click with sexually, all three of us share household responsibilities, bills, childcare, etc.

With regards to wiring... who knows? Some people derive a great deal of security from a lifestyle which is traditional to their culture, and find that it helps them know their place in the world. For some of us (me, haha) who are a little left of center in ALL aspects of life, that kind of thinking just isn't where I derive my sense of identity from. I define myself in sometimes a-traditional ways, but it's what works for me. Defining our relationship in a-traditional ways is what works for my partner and me (and my sub, and his sub, and our housemate...)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DeityorDevil

As said before, I don't think that marriage is necessarily failing, or flawed. I think humans are flawed, and bring their own flaws into the mix. And again, in most states it's not legal for my partner and I to be married. ;) In our case, our relationships is not heteronormative to begin with, so there's little need (nor desire) to fit into that particular "box." Our household consists of three adults, and two kids. My partner, myself, and our (platonic) housemate, who is my partner's brother's ex, and her two kids (his niece and nephew.) A lot of love exchanged in all directions, though she's not the right flavor for either of us to click with sexually, all three of us share household responsibilities, bills, childcare, etc.

With regards to wiring... who knows? Some people derive a great deal of security from a lifestyle which is traditional to their culture, and find that it helps them know their place in the world. For some of us (me, haha) who are a little left of center in ALL aspects of life, that kind of thinking just isn't where I derive my sense of identity from. I define myself in sometimes a-traditional ways, but it's what works for me. Defining our relationship in a-traditional ways is what works for my partner and me (and my sub, and his sub, and our housemate...)

---

Is sounds like a wonderful life :-))))

It is :)