Fit2Rule: Marriage is just like an ionic chemical combination. The electrons are d responsibilities. Women= metals. Men= non metals. Until i find an element that believes in covalent bonding, i may still be a spectator.

Duduconfirm: How do you view marriage is it a necessity, tradition, all or none of the above

carefreewannabe:

That is your opinion.
No evidence provided.

1k001:

I would have thought that was common knowledge and didn't need evidence, however since you insist here are a few:

1. Farrington, David, and D West. 1995. Effects of marriage, separation, and children on offending by adult males. Current Perspectives on Aging and the Life Cycle 4:249-81;

2. Irwin, J. 1970. The Felon. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall; Sampson, Robert, and John Laub. 1993.

3. Crime in the Making: Pathways and Turning Points Through the Life Course. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; Warr. M. 1998.

4. Life-course transitions and desistance from crime. Criminology 36: 183-216.

5. Duncan, GJ, Wilkerson, B, and P England. 2003. Cleaning up their act: The impacts of marriage and cohabitation on licit and illicit drug use. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University.


There are many more papers that indicate that marriages provide better outcomes for individuals and the society

carefreewannabe:

ok, before you make me read ALL of these papers, which from the titles don't seem ALL to be related to the topic but anyway, you better summarize the arguments that support your view so that we can talk about it.

then, show me a society without marriages and that it is chaotic and unstable and I'll change my view.

1k001:

You're right they're not related to the topic but i recall you looking for evidence that marriages don't make for a better society. Simply said they do! Outcomes across the board are better when marriages are successful.

It is instructive that no human society (admittedly to my knowledge) exists that doesn't have marriage as central in its operation.

Now back to topic. Nothing is for everyone, least of all marriage. Humans commonly segregate in normal distributions. Applying that to marriage (if no one objects) it would mean something around 5-10% of people would probably be better of not being married. So it is not a necessity but chances are if you do it right you and society will be better off

bory09: Marriage is simply God wish to mankind. I mean marriage before pregnancy not marriage after three children

carefreewannabe:

When is a marriage successful?
As long as we don't know ANY SINGLE society without marriages, we can't say IF it was a worse one.
Am not against marriage in any way but as you said some people will be better off if they don't marry.
Moreover, all societies known to me have families as their core institution and some of them are kind of messed up. So there is rather evidence that marriages DO NOT necessarily add up to a society being better off.

1k001:

Not strictly true, we can study sub populations within a group. The references i posted look at that and affirm that for example illicit drug use and criminality are higher in unmarried groups. The societies that are 'messed up' can be largely attributed to the subgroup within it that have dysfunctional families. Look at every developed countries social strata and consistently lower socioeconomic groups have high incidence of dysfunctional families. If you're in the UK the Jeremy Kyle show is illustrative or the Jerry Springer show in the US.

A successful marriage is not hard to detect. In any case what we need concern ourself most with is making our own marriage/ family work. When many families are successful, our society is successful.

carefreewannabe:

I agree with you to some extent.
Good marriages / good families are good for children and therefore more likely to bring about healthy individuals who in return add up to the well being of a society.

But what about high divorce rates in some countries that are nevertheless very successful, well - off and well organized? Despite divorce rates being on the rise.

1k001:

I think there's always a lag of at least a generation. Those countries are reaping what their parents have sown. In many cases they have sown great institutions and systems that will stand the test of time.

I think that the future will however see far less progress and far more social problems. It's already happening really - Jails are full, drug use is rampant, morality is declining etc.

I think that it is almost better that one doesn't get married and has a vasectomy/ tubal ligation than get married/ have children and not work hard at being the best damn husband/wife and father/mother you can be

carefreewannabe:

You have to refer to a specific society / country to prove it because it's not the case in all of them.
Then, consider ALSO that there are some very conservative societies that have MORE of these problems.
It's a very complex topic and the explanation is not that simple.

1k001:

The most complex of problems often have the easiest solutions. Yes i can give you evidence but the question is will it be read if i do.

xseed: i will begin with the story of creation,God created man in his own image and likeness. Everything God created was good and was commissioned to fruitfulness and multiplication,man wasnt in this category till God created a helper for her. So,marriage is a divine institution by God and with that its more than a necessity and tradition. Thanks

Abrantie: Marriage is a purely human institution whose purpose is debatable. After all, lower form animals don't get married but have been pair-bonding since the beginning of time. The boy goat in my village just chases the girl goat around and mounts her when needed. A few months later baby goat is born and life goes on fine -- until Christmas . Some, such as lions or species of birds would stick around with their partners for a while before and after a baby is born.

So the question remains -- what exactly is marriage? I'd say marriage is what has made us superior animals. The human baby takes a very long time to mature or reach adulthood. Our brains are bigger and takes a while to fully mature in order to invent stuff. Since our goal is to propagate and continue being the dominant species, we needed to take pair-bonding (as practiced by lower form animals) to a higher level. A level where mommy and daddy stick together longer to properly raise and shape junior. Secondly, sex is a biological need just like food and water. Marriage also fulfills that need and we can now have more time to invent cool stuff instead of having to worry about where to get sex.

Fair enough? but there's a problem to that idea. The problem is, we humans are not monogamous by nature. The human male is coded to seek out as many human females as possible to increase his genetic survival. See, in nature, success is not measured by how much money one has or the size of their house or by which car one drives. Success is measured by how far and how much your genetic code carries through generations.

So to ensure that human couples stick together, we have created an institution called marriage, which is founded on strong societal forces -- religion and culture. We respect those two forces so much that, we will do anything in their names. Heck you even get a paper certificate, after swearing that you'd remain together "until death do you part". This is all meant to instill a sense of pride and give encouragement.

However, underneath it all is the simple idea of pair-bonding. The idea that, a species would be much more successful if parents cooperate to raise their young. An idea which started a long, long, long time ago.

carefreewannabe:

I like this explanation a lot. Some very good points. You have also added some new aspects that are very important, such as for example the development of a child.
The quesstion that remans now is, is it necessary to stick to the instituition marriage to raise children properly? Could other concepts work as well? Considered the fact that some or even many people are not monogamous, which leaads to a lot of drama in marriages and also affects children negatively, could there be a different solution?

Abrantie:

Should the institution of marriage be abolished simply because humans are not monogamous? Remember that, over all, marriage has served us (humans) rather well. I personally refuse to accept that infidelity is the cause of most marriage dramas.

So to your question about alternatives to the institution of marriage (long term pair-bonding) -- there is none. The fact of the matter is, continuous contribution of a child's biological father and mother is needed for a well-adjusted development.

HOWEVER, other concepts have been employed, not as replacements for marriage, but as safety net or support or backup plan. There's a popular saying, "it takes a village to raise a child" (ITAVTRAC). This means, raising children takes a lot of effort so lets spread the workload. This concept is not new, and pre-dates the modern concept of marriage. Today, ITAVTRAC is employed mostly in less developed societies.

Developed societies, within the past 50 years or so, have taken ITAVTRAC and applied it in a different way. Their version is meant to eliminate the male from the nuclear family. They have passed laws so the government can interfere in the family unit. Their government has become mom or dad by proxy to a child, or husband by proxy to a wife.

Responsibilities as parents, and as husband or wife, has been signed away to the federal government. Whole departments have been set up to uproot children from their parents on the slightest complaints from nosy neighbors.

Single-motherhood abounds because the male authority in a family has been severely weakened. Marriages in those societies are on the decline, which has resulted in lower birth rates. To make matters worse, they have embraced homosexualism -- an antithesis to the propagation of our species.

carefreewannabe:

Thank for your answer. It's very interesting and I feel like I can learn something. Let me ask you some more questions.

1. You say that the marriage institution has served us quite well. In how far, exactly? What has it contributed to that we wouldn't have without it. Could it be that some other form of bonding could be more beneficial and less disadvanatageous?

2. I don't think that there are no other alterntives. Simply speaking: Two people can decide to be parents and but refuse to be lovers. They BOTH take care of their common children but at the same DO NOT have a love relationship. They raise their children as (best) friends. As for the child, it can FULLY enjoy the care of his father AND mother. The workload is also spilt and well divided between the biological parents.

3. I don'T agree that modern societies and their governments AIM at eliminating the father from the nuclear family. IN FACT, if you DEEPLY get into the politics of countries such as the NETHERLANDS, GERMANY, GREECE, SPAIN, POLAND, ENGLAND and some more, you'll very soon discover that their governments favour the traditional form of a nuclear family, through regulations, labor market policies etc. ONE of the reasons why governments in modern societies CAN interfere in the family unit is, for instance, protection from child abuse, which per se is NOT a bad thing. Modern societies are not "anti - father", neither are their governments.
What you're saying about "set-up givernment people" to "uproot" children from their families is absolutely UNTRUE.

4. Single parenthood CAN SOMETIMES; IN SOME CASES, be better than an abusive family THAT is UNHEALTHY FOR THE CHILD.

5. A lower birth rate is INDEED problematic. What these countries look for now are WELL EDUCATED foreigners. A way to face and solve the problem. As the world is over-populated and climate change (among other reasons due to overpopulation) is one of the biggest DANGERS to the life of the human race, this may have enormous advanatges for the world as a whole. (Same-sex marriages are a whole new topic, lets omit it here.)

Last but not least, it's worth noticing that people from rather traditional societies look down at people from rather progressive societies and THE OTHER WAY ROUND. No matter the differences, IN THIS THEY ARE THE SAME

Abrantie:

If you have some ideas as to what might work, please say it for debate sake. My explanation is from the point of view of what's good for the human species, not what's good for the Mensah family or Adeyemi family. I'm looking at this from ten thousand miles up, not from a closeup where marriage's imperfections are glaring. Now, I'm quite surprised at your question especially after my previous posts. Marriage has served humans well in spite of its shortcomings. It has given us a code of conduct to ensure our dominance. Humans are the only species that have regulated pair-bonding, why? Humans are the only species capable of making tools to survive, why? I think those two might be related. Marriage can be considered a survival tool, same as how the discovery and use of fire was revolutionary in our species' history.



Aha! In the words of Tina Turner, "what's love gotta do with it?". Love has no bearing on the intended goal of marriage. Please, don't use that word "love" because it really muddies our debate. Your example falls right under long term pair-bonding, so it's not different from what I have already said. Again, marriage is an artificial construct meant to prolong and encourage long term pair-bonding. It's an endorsement by societies that says, "Good job! You two have done the right thing. Remain together for eternity and you shall eventually be rewarded. Oh, by the way, here's your certificate of recognition".

Some people have internalized and adopted the marriage concept without any ceremony or fanfare or a certificate, but it's still a "marriage". In fact, some societies call that a "common law" marriage. Common law marriage is one where both parties live together and perform all the proper rituals of an endorsed union, but without an official government paperwork. However, it's given the same legal standing as an official marriage.



Let me ask you this question. So prior to say 50 years ago, children weren't being born and raised properly without government intervention? Most of our great inventions where done by people who were born over 50 years ago. So who do you think raised and nurtured those geniuses? Aliens? Contrary to your belief, I think western societies and some are slowly dieing out.

Throughout history, empires have fallen because the institution of marriage was corrupted or compromised. An example is the Great Roman Empire. The quickest way to bring down an empire is to corrupt their women folks, which in turn affects the institution of marriage. You are witnessing that right now with low birth rates in developed nations. We sometimes make fun of how Nigerians (or the third world) breeds like rabbits, but it's actually a long term human survival strategy.



No situation is perfect, but over all, dual parenthood trumps single parenthood.




Well said. They have to import people because they're not producing enough. That's all good because after all, were are all humans regardless of our varied genetic traits. The may be good or bad depending on how you look at it. In America today, the population of non-whites is on the rise and one beneficiary of that shift is Barack Obama. He won the US election due the demographic shift.

Abrantie: So humans just woke up one day and became the dominant species? Isn't it from how we adapted to our environment? Isn't it from changes we made to our environments and how we employed new survival techniques and habits? You'd rather prefer we go about mounting each other with no long term commitment just like the hyenas in the Serengeti plains of East Africa?

My point is, marriage or to be precise, long term pair-bonding was one of the techniques we used to rise above other animals. I'm talking from a time frame of several thousands of years but you seem to be debating from about 200 years of recorded history. I don't recall saying that marriage is the antidote to all human problems, but you seem eager to arrive at that conclusion.

Any way, I strongly believe that single-parenthood is not conducive to the proper development of children. Let me repeat, human societies that marginalize the sanctity of marriage become extinct. Human societies that undermines the importance of a man's role in the family unit eventually die out or accrue all other sorts of problems. Look at what's happening in those liberal socialist Scandinavian countries where the government have taken center stage in family affairs. What happens when there's no government or a disruption in government services?

The Roman empire fell mainly because values were compromised, which led to more money being needed to keep the empire afloat. Some of those values included family values.

I am tired of typing. Will continue tomorrow. Good night.

Duduconfirm: How do you view marriage is it a necessity, tradition, all or none of the above

pro01: It depends on the society or environment in which you find yourself. Only a fool would underestimate the power of one's environment to shape his or her life orientation and choices. At the end of the day, we humans are products of our environments. The environment is the most important determining factor. Marriage is neither a necessity nor a traditional requirement in most western countries. However, in Nigeria, it is a different story altogether. . .

In a country like Nigeria, where the deep-rooted cultural, religious, social, and familial ideal is that 'normal' people - especially women - ought to be married (and have children) at a certain age, marriage is almost a necessity. Any never-married 45 year old woman in Nigeria would be sneered at overtly and/or covertly, that is certain. . .

For women, the Nigerian society deems it more important to be married (or at least previously married) than to have a career and never been married. As such, having a regular career is not enough consolation for being single at 39. .at least in the eyes of your family, relatives, neighbours, colleagues, and the larger society - irrespective of what you choose to believe. The alternative is to relocate overseas where you would be free from such perceptions and cultural judgments.

For men though, it's more a matter of choice (based on tradition) than necessity. Even then, is almost a cultural imperative. . .although society is more forgiving of unmarried men than unmarried women.