Atheism and Marriage

This is a big topic and not really one I can do justice to here. But I thought I might throw out a few daring and challenging ideas today. Also, if anyone wants me to write about a particular topic feel free to email me and I'll see about writing an atheist perspective on it.

So let's start. Firstly, every atheist I know has a different opinion on this topic so don't think I'm representing all atheist. Rather in the spirit of the Rabbi's (See first post) postulation that atheists strip away all dogma and idolatry I'm going attempt to strip away all dogma away from the institute of marriage.

Firstly, what is marriage? Many people have different ideas but the best I've heard is apparently from Emmanual Kant (although I've extended it a little): Marriage is a legal agreement between a man and a woman whereby each consigns the access rights to their genitals to the other person for the purpose of reproduction, child-rearing and determining inheritance.

Well the first question that comes to my mind as a liberal is, "Why would anyone be so willing to give up a right? For that matter one that includes access to their body and who gets all of their valuables when they die?"

Now traditionally, and still in many parts of the world, marriage is arranged for the couple and they have no say in the matter. So in this case marriage is simply enslavement forced onto the individuals and the stronger of the two is the master.

So what reasons would a person choose to get married for if it was a free choice?
I'm sure there are more, but in the 5 minutes I was jotting this down during lunch I could only think of these 5.
1. Raising children in a safe, secure and supported environment.
2. Financial security in case of sickness, old age and imfirmity.
3. Emotional security against loneliness, abandonment and depression.
4. Love, because you care for someone at least almost as much as yourself.
5. Guaranteeing the paternity of the offspring and the inheritance of property through the family name.

Now, none of these arguments are very strong. Yes, sure, people might get married for a number of reasons, probably a combination... but if none of these reasons are good ones it begs two questions: why get married at all? OR Why not reform marriage into an institution that you'd like to be a part of?

The problems I see with these arguments are summarised below:
1. About half of families are not safe, secure and supported environments due to neglectful parenting, stupid parenting and poor parents. Even if one parent is attentive the other can just as easily be completely neglecting them. Also, same sex and defacto couples are just as capable providing (and neglecting) children with a safe, secure and supported environment. Because it works maybe 50% of the time I am tempted to say it has moderate strength as an argument then again would you join any other social institution if there was only a 50-50 chance of getting benefits after investing so much time and money?

2. This is actually not a bad argument. Give up a little freedom in return for knowing that if you lose your job, get sick or succumb to depression there will always be someone else there to share in your misery and help you out. Kind of like a third parent. However, the only problem is that no-fault divorce is legal now and so these agreements wouldn't be worth the paper it is written on. But in other countries were divorce is difficult this is a good deal, at least for the men that is.

3. This is similar to the first one except, unlike unfortunate events in ones life that one doesn't have control over, in this situation one can just have friends and an active social life and they don't really need to give up access to their genitals to get it.

4. I really do like the idea of love... but I haven't yet seen anyone actually love someone as much as themselves. For example, if you are a man and you care for the maximum benefit of your wife you will know that a varied and exciting sex life is often important for her happiness. Also, the genetic diversity of her children is a concern for her on a biological level so how many men actively encourage their wives to have multiple sexual partners and a different paternity for each of her children? While still supporting and raising them as though they were his own? Also, how many men are encouraged by their wives to go out and impregnate as many women as they can to fulfil their biological desire to spread their seed? Clearly in a marriage such satisfaction of the other person's desires cannot be met so both parties decide to mutually limit what desires they can actually have fulfilled. So both parties put themselves in uncomfortable anxiety producing situations... such sexual repression is bound to be unhealthy and to appear in other forms such as infidelity, homosexuality, porn addiction, pedophilia, anger, anxiety driven sleep loss, desire not to be home or with their spouse, etc...

If both parties are asexual then I suppose it would work very nicely for them. But what about the children?

Otherwise, if you really loved someone that much... why would you make them suffer through marriage only to eventually divorce them?

5. This one probably makes the most sense. A man might feel uncomfortable about whether or not his woman's children are his own so he'll take her into his house where he can keep her better under surveilance and the institute of marriage can act as social pressure to keep her from abandoning him or sleeping with other men and thus helping to reassure him that his progeny actually inherit his property. What the woman actually gets out of this situation isn't so clear though. As this arrangement is clearly assymetrically in favour of the man so let's just consign this idea to the patriarchal past.

So... what am I saying? End the institution of marriage? No, I am not saying that at all. If traditional marriage works for you then you don't need to change anything. But if traditional marriage isn't enough or is too much then I believe there is no reason why we can't use our natural human inventiveness to come up with a creative solution.

Firstly, it is not wrong to expect more out of marriage, it is a feeling and it ought to be respected. Also, often demanding more isn't a bad thing. Often it leads to improvements and innovations that people more content would never have invested the time and energy into developing.

My personal take on how we should redesign marriage is to come up with a solution that meets all 5 of the previous arguments for a marriage and see how well it goes in addressing those.

One alternative I've considered is a 'quaple' or a marriage of four people.

A quaple is a group of 4 adults (any combination of sexes) who decide to pool their emotional, financial and biological resources into raising children in a safe, supportive and secure environment and taking care of each other's needs.

1. With four people raising children there is a lot more space for discussing parenting ideas, learning from each other, having the right parent nurture the right child in the right way. Help them with their homework and explore their interests. They can also provide more income and greater resistance to financial hardship thus a more stable environment for the children.

2. 4 incomes versus 2, or more realistically 3 incomes versus 1, provides far more financial security.

3. It is harder to get tired of the lifelong company of 3 friends than only 1.

4. There is no law of nature that says a person can only fall in love once in their life or that they could only love one person adequately. While such a devotion can be touching it actually reeks of insecurity and personal weakness. If your life centres around one particular person... what happens if they die or decide they don't love you anymore? Simple: total breakdown. Conversely if you depend on just one person, and they can't always be there to give to you, then you're setting yourself up for disappointment. A strong person loves many people because they are loved by many people. They might give less individually but overall they give and receive the same amount but with the security of consistent support and not occasional support. If you are a jealous person and must control(/have) someone (all to yourself)... then that is your fear for yourself speaking, not your love for them. Confusing them is a common mistake for atheists and non-atheists alike.

5. OK... I don't think men will ever have it this good ever again. Though really, it wasn't a good system for the men anyway on a spiritual level. Insecurity about whether or not ones seed will be passed on in ones children is another form of insecurity. I think it is like insecurity about death. You can stay up all night worrying about it but it won't change the fact you're going to die. You can control and chain up your wife at home with a 24 video surveilance system on her... or you can accept that whether or not your sperm makes it into the mix for the next generation doesn't really matter on three grounds:

1. There are close to 7 billion people who already share 99.9% of your genetics.
2. You won't live to see the future so you can't know if your children live, die, succeed, fail or commit murder etc...
3. In the future genetic engineering will remove all diseases from people and designer babies will be normal. The days of 'your' genetics being special in any way are numbered.

So really, this is an insecurity like any other: it is learned and it can be unlearned. Once unlearned it will free one to experience much more fulfilling emotions.

Honestly, the fact is that quaples are better than couples in all counts of practicality. The only real problem is that we often lack the social skills to have one good friendship in our lives... much less three. It is a frightening idea thinking about all of the arguments and conflicts you could have with three people: all of them ganging up on you for example. However, if one has good social skills and a good sense of empathy then it is possible to do it. And hey, good social skills and empathy are good precisely because they allow one to work in such complicated social structures as a team or a quaple. Why? Because team work always beats individual ability. The champion team is better than the team of champions.