From: epowers@spock.NMSU.Edu (POWERS)
Subject: Re: Atheist Marriage- not me!
Organization: New Mexico State University
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 00:24:45 GMT

I got this by e-mail, and was asked to post it.  Enjoy!

>In article <19227.2afa88c1@levels.unisa.edu.au>  writes:

(I'm having a few problems with my news so I can't post this. You
can post this if you like, infact I hope you do, but don't feel
obligated)

>> 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...

A Christian marriage is more like that (sorry for the TBA), the two
are one but the man is representative, he controls all the property
in both their names, blah blah, which is just the same as saying all
her property, including her person is transferred from her father to
him (read some of the stuff about catholic marriage 'a man leaves
parents and takes on a wife', pretty horrid stuff if you ask me). I
think that's the evidence you are looking for, but my apologies for not
clarifying it, making it look like it went back to the start of recorded
history.

>	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.

NO such thing? What is love but alot of empathy?? True, it's kind of
altruistic, but so would the idea of social raising be. It would be
helping a society so that your own genes are better defended.

Think of this as memetic evolution, a change in thinking that helps
or hinders genetic evolution.

>	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.

To not be simplistic would require several pages of material, definately
not something to be posted to news. As for 'the same time' what
of extended families or mini communities? These were immensly succesful,
so I am kinda of look for a way to emulate that without slipping
back to family dominated feudalism. 100% inheritance tax and a minimum
standard fro all children would do it nicely, as well as trying to get
more families to get together.

>>    Ask youself, who were the most important people in your life?
>>    Your parents.
>	Sorry, not everyone would say this.

Sorry, bad wording. The emphasis was not on the parents side, but who cared
for you. In a conversation with someone else, he said his parents were
materially OK, but a couple down the road were closer to him, thus to all
intents and purposes, he considered the other couple as his 'parents'.

>> 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.

How much is programming, how much is genetic? Society wouldn't stay
together without some degree of selflessness. Selflessness for selfish
reasons. Having a large group of people around each other protecting
themselves is beneficial. I am of the opninon that a society should
exist to protect individual rights, not to impose such selflessness.

For what I wrote to work, all would have to agree to try it, it would
not work if forced upon them.

Yes, there is selfishness in all people, that is why socialism has
and will always fail and why capitalism has brought about some of
the best advances ever seen in all history. However, we are in danger
of slipping back to a feudal system driven by a kind of theocracy.
What I had in mind was keeping the excellent elements of capitalism
with the only redeeming feature of socialism.

>	What about those who are earning the money to pay for this?  What  
>benefit do they get?

(Personal satisfaction of seeing life growing)
Later..

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

'Like us or leave us'. What else can you do??? Really ramming would be
'be like us or we will throw you in jail'. They can always form their own
society, eg Amish, there is no physical compulsion for someone to stay
within. Should someone want to live inside a particular society then
they should obey that society's rules, but that society should not be
allowed to force that person to join.

>> 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.

It is not a state-run society, all it is doing is paying for the raising
of children. Once maturity is reached, they can do whatever they please.
Having resources would mean having a good enough job to not need much
assistance. The money would be for the child, mostly clothing
and housing, it would not be a luxurious free ride.

>> 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),
^^^^^^^^^^^
>> 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

Yes, it all boils down to a lack of love in society. If paying brings
about fake love for the first generation, but if the children couldn't
tell between fake and real, then it they would probably assume it is
real and after a while the money side of it would diminish. It would not
be state-run; the state would initially be steering it in a particular
direction, then once it has set in and real love had set in the state
would just be there in the backgrounnd as support, not force.

I did say it was far from perfect. I did not say it would happen
overnight, I didn't put any sort of timescale on it, BUT, today's
society is noticibly heading that way, and it has been visible
since the fifties. The idea itself is 2500 years old, I was just
restating it for comment.

Another point, I said I was open to questions, and, if given
other evidence I could easily alter my current opinion. I did not,
nor ever will say 'this IS best, no changes, no questions', it
was just an idea. It has also changed slightly from all-state-paid
to a community thing, a few families getting together, most adults
going off to work whilst two or three stay back to actively raise
them. The government would still pay a small amount of money to
make sure all the children get a minimum. The government would only
be there to make sure (with a popular mandate) that a minimum is
paid so that we would not slip back into feudalism, not as a free
ride for people.

I hope this helped, and I would like it if you posted it for me.
(please??)
-- 
John J McVey, Whyalla, Uni S. Australia    9051467f@levels.unisa.edu.au
Electronic Engineering student, Terror Tekkie and T.S.A.K.C. member!
Any email can be posted unless I state explicitly otherwise.

				Erik Powers
Newsgroups: alt.atheism