[mikema63]

Why?

Most evidence suggests that humans didnt evolve to form lifelong monogamous pairs. In fact the only species on earth that seems to do so is turkey vultures.

The only way to supress divorce rates is to force people to stay married when they are unhappy.

[Red_Army]

No mikema, Red Skull is right. The monogamy of pre-Christian Europe is well documented

[ComradeTim]

What is your opinion on Concubinage, Red Skull?

[Hong Wu]

Why?

Most evidence suggests that humans didnt evolve to form lifelong monogamous pairs. In fact the only species on earth that seems to do so is turkey vultures.

The only way to supress divorce rates is to force people to stay married when they are unhappy.

The human mind works in interesting ways. If people are pressured into doing something, they are more likely to find ways to make it work and they might even enjoy it. So while some people say that "difficult divorce makes people unhappy" it may be worth it since a lot of those people might, in fact, reconcile and be happy again in addition to having the well documented benefits that marriage brings to couples and children.

[mikema63]

That's purely speculation though.

[Hong Wu]

That's purely speculation though.

It's not. Things like Stockholm syndrome are well documented and if you believe in that, you should understand how the same effect can apply in other situations. And the benefits of marriage for couples and children is one of the most firmly established concepts in the social sciences. It's a testament to how shallow the west has become that we know these things and ignore them.

[mikema63]

Only 8% of hostages experience Stockholm syndrome, and those aren't comparable scenarios. Being kidnapped is very very different from being in a loveless marriage.

[Hong Wu]

Yes, in that it's much easier to love your spouse.

[mikema63]

That is part of what's just speculation on your part.

You speculate that Stockholm syndrome applies to marriages that you can't escape, you speculate that it happens at a far higher rate than the 8% actually observed, you speculate rather freely on the ease of loving someone you've fallen out of love with, and then you speculate that whatever marriages that are left over that remain loveless or even hostile won't harm the children within them enough to outweigh the benefit of preventing other families form splitting up.

You cannot just claim all of those things as matters of fact.

[Hong Wu]

They were considered an irrefutable part of social policy and theory in the past. Internationally and not just in the west. But I am pretty familiar with the lengths people will go to in denying things like this in the west today and have no intention to argue it when others have done a much better and more thorough job than I could and been ignored. I will do things my way and others will do them their way.

[mikema63]

Just because many people have believed something doesn't make it true, nor does something being traditional do so.

[Hong Wu]

It was thoroughly analyzed in some places. You are just presuming that it was all assertions because that's convenient for your positions.

[Hong Wu]

Sorry if I'm being rude but I went through a period in my life where I would present people with extensive data on things like this, and not one person was ever swayed from their original position. If it really matters to you I suggest you look it up yourself. If it doesn't matter to you enough that you would do that then I shouldn't waste my time quarreling over it.

[Rich]

Couples that are richer, more psychologically healthy, better matched to each other, more committed to each other and more committed to their children's welfare, tend to get married and their marriages tend to last longer. There's no evidence that marriage is the cause of these attributes.

Foe example the rich are more likely to get married than ghetto drug addicts, but there is no evidence that getting married will turn ghetto drug addicts into rich people.

[mikema63]

Sorry if I'm being rude but I went through a period in my life where I would present people with extensive data on things like this, and not one person was ever swayed from their original position. If it really matters to you I suggest you look it up yourself. If it doesn't matter to you enough that you would do that then I shouldn't waste my time quarreling over it.

Then why do you persist on debate forums?

[Hong Wu]

Couples that are richer, more psychologically healthy, better matched to each other, more committed to each other and more committed to their children's welfare, tend to get married and their marriages tend to last longer. There's no evidence that marriage is the cause of these attributes.

Foe example the rich are more likely to get married than ghetto drug addicts, but there is no evidence that getting married will turn ghetto drug addicts into rich people.

Yeah it's a complicated set of issues. But the following things are also true. 70% of violent crimes in the US are carried out by men who lacked father figures. The events we call "mass killings" are almost entirely attributable to mental illness (also correlates with a lack of father figures), gang warfare (same correlation) and Islamic terrorism. So while the way to do it may not be obvious or easy, it stands to reason that if we restored father figures and adequately addressed Islamic terrorism, most of our serious problems would presumably disappear.

The usual response to facts like this is that "correlation does not equal causation" which is basically a way of saying "I don't like where this is going" which usually devolves into "you're a racist".

[Hong Wu]

Then why do you persist on debate forums?

I just like trying to reach people. Winning an argument usually does not result in reaching anyone. A "real debate" means coming to an agreement which is not always possible. It doesn't mean winning. I do believe I could win this argument we were having but I doubt it would accomplish anything. Just google it if you really want to know.

[Red Skull]

Why?

Most evidence suggests that humans didnt evolve to form lifelong monogamous pairs. In fact the only species on earth that seems to do so is turkey vultures.

The only way to supress divorce rates is to force people to stay married when they are unhappy.

Because I am disgusted with women having children from four different fathers.

I am disgusted with seeing professional divorcees that live off of alimony and so on.

No mikema, Red Skull is right. The monogamy of pre-Christian Europe is well documented

Pre-Christian cultures didn't have monogamy whatsoever? Are you kidding me?

What is your opinion on Concubinage, Red Skull?

In my views polygamy is fine so long as everybody involved agrees to the terms.

I personally find multiple relationships to much of a hassle where I prefer monogamy instead.

Prostitution I see as a necessary evil. Although I do believe traditional monogamous marriage should be publicly supported more over both prostitution and polygamy. It is better for family structures that way.

[mikema63]

Because I am disgusted with women having children from four different fathers.

I am disgusted with seeing professional divorcees that live off of alimony and so on.

So your feels hurt, got it.

[Red Skull]

So your feels hurt, got it.

Today's divorcee culture is bad for traditional family households and also not good for population growth.