I appreciate this will turn in to a "CAPSLOCK at 10 paces" in 3 ... 2 ... 1 ...

But this is a topic I'm genuinely curious about.

Man was designed to breed and hang around till around when the kid was 3 years old then sod off and sow his seed again. I'm sure you evolutionists wouldn't disagree with that. Would you?.

The concept of what we call marriage more or less came about due to tribal law and lack of other breeding options, I'd suggest. They basically divied up the chicks so everyone got one to negate murder and the tribe breaking down to a slaughter.

Our society's concept of marriage has obviously evolved past the historical definition to be based on the Christian version. If you used a celebrant then you had a Pagan ritual, which fundamentally is based on higher power anyway.

My question really is. Why, being an Atheist, did you choose to marry into a monogamous union when really it goes against the concept of Evolution as philosophical concept?.

StG: << Man was designed to breed and hang around till around when the kid was 3 years old then sod off and sow his seed again. I'm sure you evolutionists wouldn't disagree with that. Would you?. >>

Hi StG - as an atheist who accepts Darwinian evolution, I'd certainly disgree with any notion that "Man" was "designed" by anyone or anything.

In answer to your more substantive question, having been married a couple of times I would say that I did so because of my subscription to the notion of romantic love that I learned during my socialisation as a child. Nothing to do with Christian or "Pagan" rituals at all, rather a civil contract that was intended to formalise what we intended to be a permanent and exclusive emotional and sexual relationship.

I really don't understand why we still allow Christians (or other religionists) to interfere in what is essentially a civil contract between two adults.

CJ >>>"Hi StG - as an atheist who accepts Darwinian evolution, I'd certainly disgree with any notion that "Man" was "designed" by anyone or anything"<<<

G'day CJ. "Designed", as in, 'evolved to function as', if that suits ya better?. Bit sensitive though.

Why choose a ritual - which it is - over say, an ACTUAL civil contract through a lawyer?

Monogamous unions are not against evolution as a "philosophical concept". Evolution is more than that though, it's a biological reality.

Monogamous unions appear to be good for the raising of offspring, and throughout history serial monogamous unions were quite common.

'Marriage' predates Christianity and indeed monotheism, probably all societies on earth have a concept of it in some form or other, just the details (rules) change.

As for this: "Man was designed to breed and hang around till around when the kid was 3 years old then sod off and sow his seed again. I'm sure you evolutionists wouldn't disagree with that. Would you?."

You aren't being serious aren't you?

Marriage is designed as a public declaration between a mature man and a woman by promise and concent to each other and to society to engage in acceptable mutual sexual relations and together commit for life to that relationship to give a secure environment to raise a family.

Human society is not a maurding herd but is structured by laws.

Bugsy,

'Marriage' is a societal construct. Monogamy is a choice, it's not a fundamental part of our genetic makeup, IMO.

I don't disagree 'marriage' predates Christianity. But the MODERN western idea of marriage - IMO - is beyond a 'civil agreement'. If that's all a marriage is then why not just do it at a lawyer's. Love and monogamy is an agreement between two people. That doesn't need to be done during a ritual in front of witnesses