From: epowers@kirk.NMSU.Edu (POWERS)
Subject: Re: Atheist Marriage - not me!
Organization: New Mexico State University
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 03:29:49 GMT

In article <19227.2afa88c1@levels.unisa.edu.au>  writes:
> In article <1d2sfkINNoq@shrike.und.ac.za>, bologna@shrike.und.ac.za
> (Edwin Bologna) writes:
> 
> > Since Marriage is a Relgious belief, why do you atheists get married? 
> 
> I WONT get get married. The only reason a large number of atheists still
> get married because it is seen is the norm and questioning it has, up
> until recently, been considered an extreme nono.
> 
> Marriage started off as a property contract between three men: two
> fathers and the groom, and was justified by religious beliefs.

	This doesn't have anything to do with the rest of my post, but I'm  
curious:  what evidence is there that marriage "started off" this way?  Are you  
sure it wasn't the opposite?  Even in the Pentateuch, it states that "a MAN  
will leave his father and mother..." not the other way around.  Just seeing if  
there's more here than bald assertion...
> 
> Now, just because I don't believe in marriage it does not mean I
> will never enter into a permanent relationship - heck, marriage
> doesn't guarantee that anyway! - but I feel that if two people
> need a peice of paper to make them stay together for the rest of
> their lives then they shouldn't be together, there is a lack of
> trust between the two. 
> 
> Marriage is supposed to lead to families, so here are MY family
> values:
> 
> In a more outlandish radical belief, I think that children should
> not automatically be raised by their biological parents but
> be raised by a couple whose way is paid for by the state. They
> would raise eight or more kids (not all at once, theye'd get a
> new baby to look after every three years). About 10-15% of the
> population woud be raising kids, the rest would be out earning
> tax to pay for it.
> 
> I can hear some objections now, not only stupid religious ones I
> shall ignore but valid social ones:
> 
> 1. "Parents do it because of genetic ties that bind so bio-parents
>    are best."
>    What BS is this?
>    Does this mean we will have damn little love for others with 
>    different genes?? Talk about xenophobia IN THE EXTREME!
	
	Not so quick to judge...this is just the result of evolutionary theory,  
that all altruistic behavior is ultimately an attempt to make sure your own  
genes are more competitive than others'.  There is no such thing as "love" in  
biology, or in any hard science.  "Xenophobia" can be an excellent evolutionary  
strategy.

> 
>    And what about the success of adoptive parents? They are more
>    loving than the original parents are! There are no problems
>    with mother-programming in humans, adoptive children are just
>    as (if not more) well adjusted as other kids. When they find
>    out they are adopted, they go nuts because they feel they were
>    abandoned. I'd say this is because they have been convinced
>    that it is bad to 'abandon' kids to other people.

	You are being overly simplistic.  Not all adoptive parents have acted  
lovingly toward their children any more than biological ones.  And in order to  
gain evidence for your idea, you would have to document the love shown toward a  
particular child who has been raised by adoptive parents AND biological parents  
at the same time in order to compare.
> 
>    Ask youself, who were the most important people in your life?
>    Your parents.

	Sorry, not everyone would say this.

>    Why? They looked after you, fed you, LOVED you, not just because
>    they brought you to life. That's secondary! Anyone can bring
>    people to life. Loving is a little harder..
> 
> 2. What about those who are trying to do solely for the money?
>    I can assure you, they wont last long, there wont be many
>    of them and besides,
 
	On what basis?  I think you underestimate selfishness in humanity.

 it would be a DAMN sight better than the
>    loveless poverty that MILLIONS of children are currently forced
>    to endure.
> 
> 3. Do teachers do it just for the money? Do nurses do it just for the
>    money? Do police do it just for the money? Why should parenting as
>    a profession be any different?
> 
> 4. If the money is only part of it, who cares as long as they do a
>    good job and atleast show some love for the children. With any
>    luck, the responsibility would change them.
> 
> 5a.What about those who want to keep and raise their own children?
>    If they have enough money flowing into the household, let them.
>    If not, then maybe they will want to take in another few kids
>    and get somehelp from the state?   

	What about those who are earning the money to pay for this?  What  
benefit do they get?
> 
>    Those that want to raise their own, can't afford a decent living
>    for the children but wont take in others are to be scorned upon,
>    not even the most fundie of christians would be like that, they
>    are supposed to be charitable. These people would not be doing
>    it for the children or the money, probably some twisted religious
>    belief that promotes fear and hatred of people who are different.
> 
>    Short of ramming these beliefs down their throat, something nobody
>    has the right to do, if they refuse to take part in society we
>    would kick them out. 

	SHORT OF RAMMING THESE BELIEFS DOWN THEIR THROAT!?! What do you think  
kicking them out of society does?

If, on the other hand, the kids are screaming
>    out for help, it is a perfect excuse to step in and rescue them from
>    that nightmare (very poor and very xenophobic parents, don't forget).
> 
> 5b.What of single parents?
>    Again, if they have the resources,

	What do you mean, if they have the resources?  You're talking about a  
state-run society.  Whether or not they had the resources would depend entirely  
on the state!  You can't have your cake and eat it, too.
	
 they can raise their own
>    children. They can be come single parent families with all
>    payed kids if they want. It will be harder, but that means that
>    they care even more!
> 
>    (any more questions?)
>    
> It would wipe out the unfairness of unequal opportunity for children,
> there would be NO poor people and a GIGANTIC chunk of the social ills
> that plague our society would be wiped out without resorting to the
> evils of socialism. Sure it is far from perfect and has it's own
> problems (people doing it SOLELY for the money or as a cop out),
> but atleast the children would be damn sight better off and that's
> what really matters. Todays lifestyle has it's problems, crime
> and so forth, but I still think it's the best the world's
> people have had it EVER, even with famine and the environmental
> problems since we now have the means to solve them! I just think
> that we can still improve them greatly.

	The problems you talk about are, I think, to a large extent due to a  
lack of love in the world.  Love won't miraculously increase in a government-  
controlled society.  Hopefully, I've interpreted what you are saying correctly.   
If not, just let me know.
						Erik Powers
> 
> -- 
> John J McVey, Whyalla, Uni S. Australia    9051467f@levels.unisa.edu.au
> Electronic Engineering student & Terror Tekkie!
> Any email can be posted unless I state explicitly otherwise.
> +-----------------------------------------------------+    ________
> |  Obligatory disclaimer: UniSA hates my opinions...  |  \/Darwin o\
> +-----------------------------------------------------+  /\________/
> An idea is not responsible for the people who believe in it. Marquis