Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well, I know the OP and others keep saying to leave God out of it, but I just can't! I do believe that marriage was instituted by God and will continue. Apart from this belief, however, I do think that the most stable family structure is one in which the father is present and actively involved in their children's lives. I don't think men are almost irrelevant to the care and raising of children. Far from it. This kind of male presence, I believe, builds a feeling of security in children. Not to say that women can't raise good children by themselves. They can, but I think it's tougher and not the ideal plan.
By the way, I have been married for many years and I am not sick of the husband yet! I don't think I'm that rare either.
Men and women were never meant to live together longer than 5 or 6 years at a time.
Ancient men and women usually lived seperate lives, away from one another, for long periods of time. You may pick a mate for life, but we actually weren't meant to stay together. Usually the man would stick closer to home until the child reached an age of 6 or 7, which helps to explain the "7 year itch" that many people feel today.
Women are the same way, they don't want us around forever. Every woman I know is usually feed up with their husbands after 5 or 6 years.
Despite appearances to the contrary (fostered by anthropocentric nursery stories), a distinct role for male parents does not exist in nature. Fatherhood was invented by humans during the agricultural revolution about six thousand years ago. Symbolized by the new god-king, it incorporated the mother's originally superior role in primate families—the control or ownership of children. The male deity could even make his own offspring without female help. This inflated political figure was designed to compensate for the male's modest role in procreation, once the facts of life were known. Patriarchy was born out of an envious attack on mothers.
While human fathers obviously have more to do with their children than other primate fathers, that is because we are such a social species. We aren't supposed to be there all the time. A father was meant to be more of a friend than a parent. We are there to play, to protect, and to provide. We aren't meant to care for children, its simply not part of our natural nature.
I'm sure you have some examples of great caring fathers, who stayed at home while the mom worked, but again, this is not the natural way of things. This is a choice, that two people made.
Once you get over the knee jerk defensive reaction and actually think it through a bit, what was posted really makes a lot of sense. I mean, like it or not, we are the products of evolution and the male generally does not have a care taking inclination, sometimes even for himself. I mean we can do it when we have to, but it seems to be contrary to our nature.
I am a father and I love my son and I am closer to him than my father was with me, but it is more of a camaraderie or a teaching relationship. I show affection to him often. But the whole nurturing thing does not come naturally. Perhaps that’s just me, but I doubt it.
Humans are animals. We differ from most animals in that we have learned to use our intellectual will to override some animal behaviors, but not many. Some species mate for life, others just mate opportunistically with whomever is available and move on. There is a great deal of legitimate debate on the question of whether humans are naturally monogamous, and how much of our pair bonding is imposed by intellectual override and imposed social custom.
Marriage customs are highly variable around the world, so it seems to be pretty easy to impose pair bonding on humans, whatever their nature may be. Some intellectual overrides are easy to do, some are hard. See how hard it is to make yourself hold your breath before your body takes over and denies your will. Turn and face a distant wall, and see how hard it is to will yourself to keep your eyes focused on computer screen distance when there is nothing there. Make your heart skip a beat. Don't blink.
Yet, at the same time, look how easy it was to gather up a bunch of Iowa farm boys and send them to Asia to spray burning napalm on helpless children.
If you believe that God made people to be as they must be, then go and find people who have never been told of God by a self-serving priesthood, and see how they behave. They will behave as humans were created and designed (intelligently or otherwise) to behave. This has been done and is well documented.
Well, I think that as you said, jtur88, that one thing that does distinguish humans from animals is their abillity to override behaviours which are not necessarily good for themselves ultimately or for society as a whole. We all override "natural behavior" every day for our own good. Just for example, many mornings I am very sleepy, but I have to override that in order to get up and go to work. For the moment, sleeping might "feel" best for me, but in the long run, not keeping my job and all it provides would not be best for me.
Well, I think that as you said, jtur88, that one thing that does distinguish humans from animals is their abillity to override behaviours which are not necessarily good for themselves ultimately or for society as a whole. We all override "natural behavior" every day for our own good. Just for example, many mornings I am very sleepy, but I have to override that in order to get up and go to work. For the moment, sleeping might "feel" best for me, but in the long run, not keeping my job and all it provides would not be best for me.
Are you sure your behavior override is for your own good? You get up in the morning not because it is good for society or yourself, but in order to avoid the consequences that will be imposed on you for not doing so. At your job today, you will make more money for your boss than for yourself, and he has huge power to influence what you think is "your own good".
Very few of your "intellectual override" decisions are based on what is good for you or society. They are based on what is good for the profiteers at the apex of our society, who have used irresistable persuasion to compel you to fit in with what suits them.
Similarly, you marry your mate selection because your highly persuasive church, family, and domestic laws have an interest in controlling you, and will find ways to punish you and your children if you do comply.
'Similarily, you marry your mate selection because your church, your family, and your domestic laws will find ways to punish you if you do not.
'***************
REPLY: This statement is absurd ; no one twists your arm to get married. Certainly not a Church that follows The Bible . The Bible in 1 Cor. 7 puts Singleness as a high calling and a life that can be fulfilling and joyful in fact.... in addition to upholding the ideals of marriage. You shouldnt make a strawman arguement like you did , then proceed to capitalize on it as if it were the truth. It is not. Further, you should not let anyone like family ultimately dictate who you should marry --- YOU should decide that based on clear-headed objective criteria and since it is such an important profound commitment to another, it should always be preceded with a good formal Counselling Course in Pre-Marital because alot of wisdom is required in making this decision. Disregarding Hollywoods view and method of getting married is a smart move also.
Last edited by RVlover; 09-30-2009 at 10:05 AM..
Reason: typo
You are free to choose whatever you want, but, Cohabitating doesnt offer you any protection especially if youre a female . Theres a long list of reasons why Cohabitating is not a good idea....just so long as you have really deeply considered them.
Says you. It's worked out quite well for me, as opposed to when I was married. Just because you have outdated prudish opinions about sex and relationships doesn't mean the rest of us do.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I do believe that marriage was instituted by God and will continue. Apart from this belief, however, I do think that the most stable family structure is one in which the father is present and actively involved in their children's lives. I don't think men are almost irrelevant to the care and raising of children. Far from it. This kind of male presence, I believe, builds a feeling of security in children. Not to say that women can't raise good children by themselves. They can, but I think it's tougher and not the ideal plan.
I don't think I'm that rare either.
