Life at the Bottom

Seeing that they are mutually exclusive, one must make a judgment for one or the other. There is no neutral ground and no third option.  

The non-divine reasons for the judgment to favor marriage are biological and psychological and economical and Darwinian.

The biological reason is that humans are Precocial (born helpless) and bisexual (requiring two sexes to reproduce).

The psychological reason is that children reared in broken homes or fatherless homes contribute to general social pathologies, juvenile delinquency, and so on.

The economic reason is that what men gain lightly, they esteem lightly. A fornicating culture lowers the value placed on women: they are treated like dirt, and their hurt feelings and broken hearts are dismissed by playboys as insignificant.  

The Darwinian logic favors families and clans where children have two parents: infant mortality is more rare if the father does not abandon the mother.

There are, in addition, reason of morality, of philosophy, and of honor to judge in favor of marriage, none of which necessarily references a deity.

The moral reason is that it is unfair to exploit the weak and helpless, to abuse the trust of women, or to abandon your child without rearing it. A society that permits and encourages fornication, no matter what it says about the rights of women, in reality permits and encourages exploitation and abandonment.

The philosophical reason is that true love is finer and nobler than cheap sex, and, as sad experience shows, the two are mutually exclusive. Even without making a judgment call between their relative merits, one is a long-term good, inviting a harmony of interests to all involved; and the other is a short-term good, inviting a disharmony of interests. Hatred is the normal and expected reaction between father and mother not bound by marriage: fear and loathing for the child is the reason for the high abortion rate and the high rate of the murder of children by the unwed mother’s live-in boyfriends, who kill them for reasons of Darwinian logic.  

Honor, if nothing else, demands a man pay what he owe, both to business partners, and to his homeland, but also to his family: no one denies a primary obligation of a man who fathers a child is to rear it and see to its education and support.

Tenderness for childhood, if nothing else, recoils at the thought of putting oneself in situation where it is in one’s best interests to kill or abandon one’s own child. The marriage institution attempts to create a harmony of interests between the reproducing couple, and between parent and child, by imposing reciprocal duties not easily escaped. The economics of being able to rely upon a covenant, and having a rational expectation of performance, over mere anarchy, needs no defense from me: it is obvious.

The crux of the argument is that a man, nor a society, cannot support a contradiction. If you admire or tolerate fornication, you do not admire and do not tolerate the demands of marriage.

The axiom of the argument is that a man’s values shape and are shaped by his words and actions. No one can copulate without it having a profound effect on his psychology; the act of treating it casually, as an act without meaning and without consequences, is itself profoundly crippling to one’s sense of romance, one’s sense of self worth, one’s respect for and desire for true love. A woman who shares herself with a man and feels nothing is psychologically damaged: she has the sentiments of a harlot, and healthy folk recoil.

Need I go on? Are you seriously telling me that, if I were to regard all the famous atheists and agnostics of history, not a one of them, these fine thinkers, not one would see any reason to avoid an act of reckless and selfish self-indulgence? Not one of them believes in true love? Not one of them believes in self-discipline? Not one believes in living up to your oaths?

Not one was ever a father of a daughter?

I don’t take your comments seriously.   

“And you talk as though there is some essential psychological difference between men and women, as if they have totally distinct natures from men…”

The comment is extraordinarily naive. You talk like someone who has no manhood and has never met a real women.

There are psychological differences between the sexes, or, if there were not, such differences should be artificially encouraged, as they have survival value for the clan. The prime difference is that women bear children and men do not. Consequently the cost-risk ratio for a woman indulging in sex outside marriage is higher for her than for the man. She ends up with the baby; he ends up with a trophy wife. Hence it is wiser for her to be reluctant to mate, and to select between several prospective mates (perhaps with a father armed with shotgun to drive off too-eager suitors), and to prefer the mate willing and able to vow a lifetime commitment.

Certainly a father does not take proper provision for his grandchildren, or the clan for its generations, if he merely permits his daughter to fornicate, for then his grandchild will be raised as a bastard– and there is an economic disadvantage to being a one-parent-raised child, even where there is no social stigma– or, if the mother is a modern woman, his grandchild might be killed in the womb without even any notice to him. One does not need to be religious, merely aware of ordinary human bonds of love and family, to believe grandparents have a duty to be prudent and to see to the health and safety of their grandchildren when possible.

One of the several purposes of marriage is to prevent this exploitation of women by men: one point of the mating custom, among others, is to identify paternity. Another point is to check male sexual rivalry by placing women who are claimed beyond reach. There are fewer murders of rivals in societies where the marriage custom is respected.

COMMENT ADDED LATER: It occurs to me that the argument being given here is actually highly insulting to atheists. I mean the argument given by my reader, not my argument.

Atheists are often irate (and rightly so) when Christians simply assume atheism means immorality, or simply assume all atheists want to commit crimes and sins. All the atheists I know personally are men of sterling character, honest and trustworthy, and it is their honesty — do you hear me, their honesty!– which does not allow them to believe in a god: they think the tales of god they have heard are fairy-tales and lies, and their honesty will not let them believe in a lie.

But here come this fellow, and his claim is that no one is honest in matter of love and sex except the theist. Look at what he says: if there is no reason, aside from belief in god, to believe in chastity, ergo no agnostic or atheist has reason to be chaste. Not one person, not one soul contemporary or historical, has ever practiced or cherished chastity, or honored the institution of marriage, or ever treated a woman honorably, except followers of a biblical religion.

He just called all atheist and agnostic women Jezebel and he just called all atheist men Lothario.

What do you say,  ladies?  I say you were made for love, that true love is your destiny, and that if you settle for less than a man who loves you with his whole heart and soul, life has cheated you. I say you are all princesses, each woman a queen in her own hearth, or a goddess. He says you are all sluts if you don’t believe in God, and fools if you do.

Whose side are you on, all you women who believe in romance and love?