Amswer157

	Sign In Sign-Up

Amswer157

Question157

Are there observable traits among atheist attitudes to marriage and family? Does any observable atheist model conform largely to the standard model of the Judeo/Christian nuclear family?

I'm unaware of any "observable atheist model" of a family. Attitudes toward marriage and family have more to do with the social context in which one exists. While religion - or the lack of it - certainly may be an element in that context for many people, it is far from being the whole ball of wax. For example, I'm sure my attitudes toward parenting and so on have more to do with the way my parents treated my brother and I than any other single influence - even if, in some cases, it was how I did *not* want to do it. (George Ricker #146)

To be honest, I don't know many other atheist families. I know some partial ones....ie: one of the parties is atheist, and the other not.

But in my own life, yes, we pretty much model the standard Judeo/Christian model of a nuclear family. Marriage is, at the heart of it, just a contract, and though it would not matter to me morally if we were not married, in my own life I've seen my parents divorce and squabble MORE than once. I feel that I and my child need the protection of that contract, should the worst happen. (Liquid Grace #1752)

I don't think so, and, frankly, I don't see how there could be. Atheism has to do with how one answers the god/no god question. Other than making it less likely that one would participate in a church wedding, it really has very little to do with one's attitudes toward marriage and family.

I'm unaware of any "observable atheist model" of a family.

Attitudes toward marriage and family have more to do with the social context in which one exists. While religion - or the lack of it - certainly may be an element in that context for many people, it is far from being the whole ball of wax. For example, I'm sure my attitudes toward parenting and so on have more to do with the way my parents treated my brother and I than any other single influence - even if, in some cases, it was how I did *not* want to do it. (George Ricker #146)

I don't know if there is a definable atheist model for the family. I know some atheist families, consisting of a man, a woman, and a certain number of kids, some with a man and woman and no kids, and some single parent families as well.

From the atheists who I know, and from listening to members of this group, I think that most would tend to be more liberal in their views of marriage and family. I don't think that many would go for the Biblical model of: man = boss, wife and kids = slaves.

On the other hand, atheists are quite independent and differ on just about everything else, except our lack of belief. Look at some of the nightly arguments we have among ourselves. (John Hachmann #1782)

I think attitudes toward marriage and family have a lot more to do with your childhood than atheism. I don't think that atheists conform to a model of any kind. My parents were hardly a nuclear family, not were my husband's, but they were christian for the most part. We have quite a different marriage than any of our parents' marriages were. We fight less and our marriage has lasted longer than most of their's ever did. There has been a lot of cheating and deception in their marriages, but not in ours. It could be that lack of religion made our reasons for getting married different than our parents. It could be that we didn't depend on god or another authority figure into our decisions and therefore thought about it in a different way. I don't know. My parents can't be very open about their past marriages and my husband's parents are in complete denial. (ClayeSkye #4)

I am liberal in my veiws of course. My veiw of a family is a unit that lives together and loves together (for the pervs this does not neccassairly mean sex). I don't see any difference in legaly binding union between a MF, FF, MM, or conversely... MMM, FFF, MFF, FMM or anything. My veiw is.... whatever flicks your switch. Of course child nonconsensual sex or child sex is out of the question. That is my personal opinion anyways.

As for the nuclear model I think that would have come about without religion. IE it is the best way to do things. You have one wife have sex lots get lots of children and you know that your genes are being passedon. I personally will end up with an MM relationship, so all I can hope for is a relaxation of the adoption rules. Of course my own veiws of bringing up a child means I would probably end up adopting a 10 year old or above rather than a infant. Means the child has some sembalence of choice if they want to be bought up in a gay household. Of course this is my own veiw and if gay couples have no quarm about adopting an infant that is their own business... (Evil Bob #1856)

We may like it or not, but we live in a society modeled by the Judeo/Christian tradition, and we tend to accommodate to that standard. I'm married, have a daughter and plan to have a second child... Yes, in general we conform to that standard. And I must add that I don't feel uncomfortable. (Angel Arnal #1443)

One might point out that the "standard" model of the Judeo/Christian nuclear family coincides, approximately, with the "nuclear age"...i.e. M. Curie onwards. (This is stretching a point merely to be poetic, so be kind and give me some slack!)

The Sephardic tradition allows for more than one wife. The Mormon tradition allows for more than one wife. Family models of mediaevel Europe included arents/children, to be sure, but one might more properly speak of "households" that included relatives, servants, ritual experts, etc. Variations even in Victorian times were many, and often the parent-child relationship was very distant indeed.

The standard model is anything but.

Having said that...one might also observe that at least one atheist society (Buddhist Tibet) had enormous variation in family structures. Single male/female marriages were most common, but polyandry (multiple male spouses--often brothers--to one female spouse) were common enough, and polygamy was not unheard of either (though uncommon). These variations seem to have been dictated by local social custom and economic niceties: it prevented familial land from being split up.

Current North American atheistic standards that I've seen are pretty "normal", but they are bound by deeply ingrained social and legal traditions. Polygamy seems...vaguely abusive, though this perception may be more a product of our times than any reflection on the internal dynamics of free polygamous relationships. Polyandry...vaguely silly, I mean, goodness gracious...can't a grrrrl get enough? (No! And neither can I!) Serial monogramy seems the standard, or moderately "open" relationships. I can't formulate any coherent arguments against group marriages, although scheduling might require a very fast computer.

I think people tend to monogamy/serial monogramy because that's what everyone else is doing, and it's easier to go with the flow. (Patrick Gliddon)

Click here to return to master question page.