KØHB wrote:

"Michael Coslo" wrote


Couple bonding is one of the best aspects of religion.


"Couple bonding" isn't an aspect of religion. It's an aspect of human nature
(some might even say of animal nature).

The social contract of the couple bonding is.

And without the social contract nature, is the species going to settle
with one mate? I am firmly convinced that it wouldn't. Porno is pretty
good evidence it isn't human nature. Porno is simply the outlet from
suppression of the instinct to "get some strange".



But I have big problems with unmarried couples having children.



Why?

The couple should have that social commitment before having children.

Children should be raised by two parents - a father and a mother. The
parents should be pretty certain that they are going to stay together if
they plan on raising kids.


The notion of formal marriage is a fairly recent religious invention,
perhaps less than 5,000 years old.

It is one of the good ideas in religion. We are no longer in a struggle
to survive, in which humans need to boink as often as possible with as
many partners as possible in order to ensure the survival of the
species. We live a lot longer. So we can (attempt to) do better, to
raise the kids in a good two parent household. It tends to make for
better adjusted adults, not simply creatures who simply survive to 14 or
15 years, then make new critters, and die of old age at 35.....


Many historic civilizations got along just
fine without it.

Which ones?

- Mike KB3EIA -