The institution of marriage is indeed declining, as it should be.

You shouldn't need a priest (or a judge) to tell you that you're in a committed and loving relationship. Marriage is an ancient paradigm, and I think it is completely unnecessary in the modern world.

I support polyamory, although I have not participated in it. I am in a committed (monogamous) relationship, and my partner and I have no intention of being wedded by this fake institution.

And, to answer your question in bold, no. I think it would be terribly limiting if everyone's primary goal was to "settle down" and get married. There is so much more to life than that. We should not model our lives after previous generations. We should be the pilots of our lives, not the fleet.

No, it is not. That is culturally determined.

Have you ever heard of a people known as hunter-gatherers? Throughout human history, there have been nomadic cultures.

We should be the pilots of our lives, not the fleet

As I've already said, George Clooney in the Academy Award nominated movie "Up In the Air" made a speech in which he said "Life is better with a co-pilot!" Your viewpoint would make him and that comment sound like the words of an "idiot" and a "moron", right? (Of course, I myself am vulnerable in this particular forum because I've posted comments on both side of this issue; cf. my remarks about Thomas Edison and Mother Theresa). I do value marriage highly, however, because it has been shown since time immemorial to be by far the best way to raise children and have a family, especially when both parents remain together. And may I add, I can't imagine raising my three beautiful daughters (ages 20 - 24) in any other setting than that of the nuclear family -- their mother and me. What a world this would become if all nuclear families ceased to exist and all children were raised in single parent homes, or worse, no homes at all. Isn't that why all the children in "Slumdog Millionaire" (the Academy award winning movie) were trapped in a life of child slavery and crime -- they had no mothers and fathers? Yes, we are all free to become Hedonists, but that does not mean living the life of a hedonist would be good. We are all free to be cannibals if we choose to do so, but does it mean cannibalism would be good just because we are free to do it? My view is, it would be a frightening and terrible world if families did not exist.

You have made nothing but inferences based on my comments. Here is a list of things that I have not said:

-That anyone is an "idiot" or "moron"
-That the nuclear family should be dissolved
-That children should be raised in single-parent homes
-That I recommend hedonism
-That families should cease to exist

Nice job of building a straw man and knocking it down.

Your actual argument (that families are essential for raising children) is a total non sequitur. The institution of marriage is not a necessary condition for the existence of the nuclear family.

Thanks for the clarification and I humbly stand corrected. I think I misread your comments, because if you had not made the five corrections you listed, I would have continued to believe that is what you were saying. If you are not saying those things then I admit I came to the wrong conclusion about what you were saying. It is indeed reassuring to hear that you are not saying the things I thought you were. HOWEVER, your final comment still leaves room for further discussion because you say that the "INSTITUTION OF MARRIAGE IS NOT A NECESSARY CONDITION FOR THE EXISTENCE OF THE NUCLEAR FAMILY". I find that to be a very interesting statement. It was a thought that was not triggered in my mind when I read your original post, and a facinating clarification, for me, of your original post. Now that I understand better what you are really saying, it sounds like you agree that the nuclear family is a good thing for rearing children and for society as whole -- I think on that precise point you and I would find ourselves in complete agreement -- something I did not realize when I read your earlier post. That's exactly why I say "I stand corrected". Still, there is a second idea implied in your post that says "THE INSTITUTION OF MARRIAGE IS NOT A A NECESSARY CONDITION etc. . . ." that sounds like you are suggesting a better way exists to establish and maintain nuclear families than the institution of marriage. For me that idea still needs some further clarification. Are you saying nuclear families do not need or require marital vows (i.e. solemn promises, which I assume we all agree is what "marriage" is) in order to exist. If that is what you're saying I would have to agree to a certain extent -- there are no doubt thousands of nuclear families that have existed throughout history and exist even still today that exist without the actual ceremony of marriage and/or the exchange of marriage vows. I strongly suspect, however, that whenever and wherever those nuclear families were successful in remaining intact long enough to raise children to maturity there was a strong sense of commitment on the part of the moms and dads in those cases to make the nuclear family work. Yes, it's easy to imagine that one could have that strong sense of commitment without the formal ceremony we call "marriage", but to me it is the strong sense of commitment and the will to stay together that makes a marriage a marriage, not the formal wedding vows, which so many today say so readily and still find so easy to violate when the thrill wears off. So again, I think we are in agreement so far, and our fundamental agreement is on the idea that NUCLEAR FAMILIES ARE A GOOD THING AND THAT A STRONG COMMITMENT TO STAY TOGETHER IS WHAT MAKES NUCLEAR FAMILIES SUCEED. Where you and I may, and probably do, disagree, is on a point of considerable lessor importance as far as this forum goes, but a point I'd still like to make and that is this: I believe the marriage ceremony (the exchange of vows) can often help a couple remain strongly committed to their nuclear family relationship whenever self-interest or selfishness or hedonism creeps in and tempts them to call the whole thing off. Let's face it, marriage is hard work, it means to promise to keep the nuclear family going in spite of "sickness or health, good times or bad, for richer or poorer til death brings it to an end". So the point of lessor importance I'd like to make is this: Although the ceremony of marriage can be and often is a "sham", it also can be, and often is, a highly effective glue or cement which holds the couple together in this common venture (called nuclear family) -- especially when times are rough -- and this moral and spiritual glue is good for them and good for any children they may eventually have. So in the end, I have to come out and say, as far as I can tell, marriage is a good thing, not a bad thing, if by marriage we simply mean the formal exchange of solem promises to be in a committed nuclear family relationship -- promises made in the presence of friends and family and the God, if any, that one believes in. As I see it, taking and making such marriage vows helps keep the nuclear family intact. I will not be suprised if you have a different take on this, and I still think our basic agreement that NUCLEAR FAMILIES ARE A GOOD THING is far more important in the long run than any opinions we may have about formal wedding ceremonies. And thanks again for the many corrections you made to my earlier misinterpretations of your position.

Yeah, that's why it is best not to make inferences about what people say or do. That single bit of advice would solve a stunning amount of conflict in the world today.

Of course I acknowledge that the nuclear family is a useful paradigm, to say the least. However, I find it strange that you would consider that the most important point of this topic. This topic is not primarily about family structure; it is primarily about marriage, and I maintain that marriage is an unnecessary institution in general, and it is a harmful institution in the modern world.

On the related topic of monogamy and polyamory, I think that there are advantages to both. I would primarily defend monogamy for biological reasons. There is a lot of evidence to support the hypothesis that being in a committed relationship increases the success of reproduction and survival.

However, I can also produce some strong arguments to defend polyamory, again from a biological perspective. Love is fundamentally a process in the brain. The neurochemical process of love shares many properties with other neurochemical processes such as diminishing returns and opponent processes. Basically, the intensity of love naturally diminishes over time. Like a drug, it is only a matter of time before you've had enough of your addiction to one person, and the opponent process kicks in, causing your feelings to neutralize. From this point of view, it is very natural to go through life having multiple partners. (This is to say nothing of the practical implications of doing so.)

Here are some reasons why I am against marriage:

Marriage is primarily a religious institution. I happen to be opposed to religion as well. Regardless of one's position on religion, though, it should be fairly obvious that a "holy person" standing in front of you telling you that you are in love has nothing to do with the fact that you are in love. This circumstance is entirely independent of your being in love. Contrary to what you said, the "vows" of marriage have very little effect on a person's level of commitment. If you really want to make "vows" to someone that you love, you shouldn't need a holy person to do it for you. If you are truly committed to someone, then you will not need a ceremony to increase that commitment. And if you really need a ceremony to seal that commitment, then ask yourself: Were you really committed in the first place? If the answer is yes, then the marriage was unnecessary. If the answer is no, then you should not be in a long term relationship.

I will concede that marriage may have been a necessary part of human social evolution. Like all institutions, marriage had its time. But paradigms do not last forever. They come, and they go. It is time for marriage to go. Marriage in the modern world is a mere shell of what it once was. Today, marriage has more to do with material values than personal commitment to a lover. The amount of time, money, and resources that go into a single marriage is ridiculously wasteful. There are simply better uses of that time and those resources. In more ways than one, businesses exploit the institution of marriage as a profit mechanism. More importantly, marriage is a highly stressful situation, at least in the American culture. These levels of stress are very unhealthy and unnecessary.

1. "OF COURSE I ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THE NUCLEAR FAMILY IS A USEFUL PARADIGM".
This is a good place to begin because it is a point where I can say we are in complete agreement. We both believe the nuclear family is a good thing.

2. As far as whether this forum is about "marriage" or the "nuclear family" it is my belief that both terms are being used interchangeably here, and that is certainly true of me, for I see only minor differences between the two, not major differences. When Red asks "is marriage still considered 'normal' by society" I think he intended the question to cover belief in "nuclear families" as well. Marriage as everyone has been using the term in this forum implies a commitment to establish and maintain a nuclear family. Yes, I know there are marriages that have been and will continue to be "childless" over the years, but they are not the prevailing pattern, and it is the prevailing pattern being discussed here, don't you agree?

3. "BEING IN A COMMITTED RELATIONSHIP INCREASES THE SUCCESS OF REPRODUCTION AND SURVIVAL". Another great thought which I completely concur with. Commitment is good for nuclear families, because it helps them keep on keeping on when times get rough. And times always do get rough, always.

4. 'IT IS VERY NATURAL TO GO THROUGH LIFE WITH MULTIPLE PARTNERS'. I suspect the Mormons would totally agree . . . they have built a whole religion around this idea. And to some extent, they have even made the nuclear family work in this multiple partner setting. All I can say to this is: I prefer monogamy. It is less stressful I'm sure, and it has less potential for producing conflict. It is also completely legal, and polygamy is not (except in some Arabic countries which follow a very conservative version of the Muslim faith). I would agree that most men are born with sexual instincts that cause them to be attracted to nearly every beautiful woman they see, but just because it is a natural instinct does not make it right or good. Urinating in public and going naked on the street could also be said to be a "natural instinct" (all dogs do it without hesitation) but that doesn't mean it is good behaviour practice for humans. Isn't it obvious that just because a man has a natural instinct for a thing, doesn't automatically qualify that thing to be good at all times and in all places. Civilization is the result of 1000's of years of refinement from acting without inhibition on our natural instincts to showing decent restraint. Monogamy is good for the establishment and survival of the nuclear family and since we agree the nuclear family is good, then monagamy must also be good (except possibly for Mormons). An corollary to this is that multiple partners is not good for the nuclear family, isn't that obvious?


5. "I'M AGAINST MARRIAGE BECAUSE IT IS 'RELIGIOUS'."

But is this necessarily true? Are there not millions of "civil" weddings performed every year by Justices of the Peace which have almost no connection with religion? It really isn't "religious belief" that makes marriage vows stick so much as it is a strong sense of commitment on the part of the couple and a strong will to succeed, combined with a sincere belief belief that if one makes these solemn vows to one another, then one is morally obligated to keep them.

6. "VOWS HAVE LITTLE EFFECT ON LONGEVITY".

Again I ask, is this true? Although there obviously are no hard and fast statistics to back me up on this point, it is still a very easily observed phenomenon that, whereas 1 in 2 marriages end in divorce -- a number much higher than that exists for couples who live together without being married and then break up. I personally know several guys who have lived with multiple women (one at a time, to be sure) who break up, move on and get another, and then another. One fellow I know has had at least 20 such live-ins and break ups. I know of no one divorced 20 times, do you? Why not? Apparantly because vows do have an effect on longevity. Let's face it. The vows are made in front of family, friends, and persons holding public office. And just because some people don't take those vows seriously, doesn't mean there aren't millions of others who do take them seriously. I have a married daughter who has a new baby boy. She is a "stay-at-home-mom, and sometimes she gets stressed out washing diapers, cooking supper, and cleaning the house. She tells me she often opens up her photo album and looks at her wedding pictures, and just doing this makes her feel good and helps her realize her hard work is for a very worthwhile purpose. In her case, remembering the vows helps her keep going. I don't believe she is alone in feeling this way - - I believe there are millions more just like her.

So, at the risk of repeating myself, I will say, if we agree that nuclear families are
good, then we agree on the basic point of this forum. I say that because I am confident that nuclear families and marriage are essentially the same thing (except for the Mormons, as previously noted.)

No. Under discussion is the institution of marriage. The pattern of family structure following the act of marrying is less relevant to me.



I disagree. To view civilization as a mere "restraint" of human behavior is a terribly limiting paradigm. I view civilization as a stage of human evolution and progress. The cornerstone of civilization is advancing our behavior, not limiting it.



No, and this is a logical fallacy (correlation without causation). The fact that most successful families in our culture have been the result of monogamy does not allow for the conclusion that monogamy is the cause of successful families. There are too many confounding variables. It is entirely possible that polyamorous relationships could result in stable families.

Also, let me emphasize that I am defending polyamory, the acceptance of having multiple lovers at one time, not polygamy, the act of marrying multiple people at one time. I am criticizing marriage in general, including both monogamy and polygamy. Obviously, my views share nothing in common with Mormon views. Your argument there was completely inappropriate.



I have two points to make here.

1) Whether or not religious belief makes the marriage vows stick is irrelevant. The problem with the institution of marriage (as related to religion) is the mere fact that it continues to remain an expected feature of modern human life despite the fact that it is an ancient religious ritual. Even if modern people do not perceive it as an ancient religious ritual, that doesn't change the fact that it is an ancient religious ritual. Such a thing does not belong in modern society.

2) I am well aware of the fact that many marriages are purely legal. I am also opposed to this kind of marriage. How is this any better than a religious marriage? I said from the beginning that we should not need a holy person or legal proceeding to confirm our commitment to a lover. Why should love in any way be connected to the legal system? That's just weird to me. (In general, I also find the American legal system to be very problematic, but that is another topic entirely.)



If anything, this point supports my argument, not yours.

I think you are confusing the need for commitment with the desire for commitment. That distinction is extremely important. Of course, marriage gives people an extrinsic reason not to separate. I do not think that is necessarily a good thing. I think people should be allowed to separate as they wish with no obligations (assuming they have no children). I agree with you that committed lovers with children should remain together, but they should not require marriage to do so. The desire to care for children should be, and often is, sufficient motivation for lovers to remain together. (I also think that uncommitted lovers should not have children.)

Is it really a good thing if the only reason why you are committed to someone is that you made vows in front of your family, friends, and public officials? I would say quite the opposite. That is a very bad thing. At that point, commitment has nothing to do with love. But a healthy relationship requires passion and commitment, as I'm sure you know. This all culminates in my point that a truly good relationship does not require marriage because 1) if it is a truly good relationship, then marriage is not necessary, and 2) if it is not a truly good relationship, then marriage is inappropriate.

So far you have done nothing to counter my point that a truly loving and committed relationship needs no extrinsic motivation to continue. Intrinsic motivation is far superior, and there is a whole century of psychological literature to support that claim.

"OF COURSE I ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THE NUCLEAR FAMILY IS A USEFUL PARADIGM".

Mercury is a slippery substance, and characteristically will try to slip out from one's finger when one tries to touch it. Something like that seems to be going on here. The key statement for building some consensus in this forum is the one made above "Of course I acknowledge that the nuclear family is a useful paradigm." Forget all the obfustication and issue clouding arguments about "religion" or "legal system"
or even the concept of the "institution of marriage". If we can agree, even if only for the sake of this discussion, that the "nuclear family" and "marriage" are being used interchangeably here, and if we can accept the statement that the "nuclear family is a useful paradigm", then the primary issue to be addressed in this forum is "whether it is a good thing to establish, promote and maintain the nuclear family." My argument is simple and to the point: one male and one female in a mutually-committed relationship that produces and nurtures children, and that endures good times and bad, rich times and poor, sick times and healthy ones, is by definition what we are speaking of when we say "MARRIAGE". A rose is a rose is a rose, no matter what you call it. And if that is what we can agree that we mean, and if we agree with the statement already proposed that "THE NUCLEAR FAMILY IS A USEFUL PARADIGM", then RED'S question at the outset of this forum is now answered, "Yes, the nuclear family - and by mutual agreement based on the definition - marriage - is considered "normal" by society (if by normal we mean "a useful paradigm").

Now a complete new forum could be set up to discuss whether a multiple-partner relationship based on love and commitment could establish, promote and maintain a nuclear family -- and perhaps arguments could be proferred that contend that such relationships could do just that, but it is the Nuclear Family that is the primary issue here, simply because it is already agreed to be a "Useful Paradigm". (As has already been stated, Mormons have multiple partners within the paradigm of the nuclear family -- however, I for one believe this system is too stressful and too prone to producing deep conflict, and also it is unlawful).

The issue of whether one calls "a committed nuclear family" a "marriage" or not is nit-picking. As already stated a rose by any other name is still a rose.
Can a "nuclear family" exist in a polyamorous setting? Probably so, as the Mormons demonstrate. Is this a useful model for most of the rest of society. My reasons for saying I don't think so have already been given.

Again, at the risk of repetition: "Yes Red, nuclear families (i.e., moms and dads committed to each other and to producing and raising children in a stable family setting) is still considered 'normal' by most of us answering your question posed on this forum". (Psst., Red, some of us may object to using the term "committed nuclear family" and "marriage" interchangeably, so avoid the term "marriage" if you please.) :)