I'm getting tired of having to spoonfeed this to some of you people individually. As it turns out though, thankfully, I can edit the OP so at least read this. I am not arguing against love, relationships or commitment, or anything the like. Quite the opposite, I'm saying they're good enough on their own without the need for the legal paperwork, money-waste and label of marriage. I welcome any opinion whether I like it or not, but not when you're missing all of the actual points like a little boy splashing the rim and substitute your own. No one's forcing you to read the whole thread, but at least read the damn OP of the thread next time or don't bother. It's getting frustrating having to read through your condescending tones just to find out you just didn't pay attention.
Hey. I'm not sure if I made a thread before but I'd like to put some of my thoughts on marriage here and see what all of you guys think. I see many of you as much smarter than me, and I think I can learn some. This got a little long, and I don't know if I should post it as a blog instead, but since my objective is to get some sort of exchange/discussion going a thread is more fitting. This is my opinion only. I'm not going to talk about gay-marriage or things like that, we all already know enough about that. I want to talk about marriage itself.
My stance on marriage is not that everybody should be allowed to have one, including gays. My stance is that nobody should get married, including straight people. And I'm often confused as to why atheists, secular intelligent people, would want to engage in this antiquated, forcefully contrived and often religious social construct.
I've said this in one form or another before. People like to think about marriage as this magical bond between two people in love, but for the bigger part of its history marriage wasn't about love at all. We know that in the past ages marriage was only used as a form of sales-contract, a political relationship building tool between two parties, and a way for the rulers to keep tabs on their subjects, while making sure they don't run amok fucking and raping each other aimlessly. It was an easy social structure to introduce into a primitive society that would otherwise kill each other over women to rape (which they did, and still do regardless). As a religious construct, it has been solely used for the above mentioned purposes, plus turn women into property. We need only look at some religious men and their harem of wives, to see that in that marriage women have become nothing more than a commodity. In marriage, even today, women are often nothing more than merchandise. Why do you think religious men always emphasize the importance of staying pure and staying away from sex until marriage? Because some men have very small penises. And some men with small penises are willing to pay high prices for a certain commodity: virginity. They want sex with virgins, because the small-dicked man knows the virgin doesn't know any better, so he has a confidence boost. Same reason they marry old geezers to little children, under the ruse of "our prophet did it." It's all about keeping the business running. Tell girls not to fuck. Slut-shame them should they dare to have sex outside of marriage. Call them whores, sluts, whatever. Put peer-pressure on them. Because if they do, the market will run dry.
There are a some popular arguments for/about marriage that I'd like to take on.
- It's a public declaration of loyalty. / It shows commitment.
This is a common error. Marriage doesn't make someone any more loyal then s/he would've been anyway, and if it does it's either because of peer-pressure (look up countries with the lowest divorce rates) or simple disingenuity. If you are in a relationship (which is not open), then you should be able to stay loyal and make it clear you're committed all by yourself, without a ring on your finger to vouch for you. Saying marriage ads to the commitment and shows loyalty is really no different than, for example, saying the bible gives us strength and hope. We should be able to have those things by ourselves, and those who cling to it show only a lack of those traits in themselves; just as someone who can not be as loyal without marriage shows a lack of confidence in their loyalty to begin with.
Now there also many people who say that they want a marriage to make sure their partner is committed. To me, a person who says they cannot expect loyalty and commitment unless their partner agrees to marry them is a person who displays a severe lack of trust, confidence and faith in their partner. A crucial flaw which wouldn't work out too well for a relationship to begin with.
I'm quoting the next point from a post from another member, MikeLong, here. I originally wanted to answer you in that thread, but the lack of a reply button was getting on my nerves, sorry.
- If shit goes south, marriage makes us try harder to preserve the relationship, rather than simply cast it aside as just another failed relationship.
Again, I think this should go without having to be married. If the relationship is worth it you should put all effort in, but not because you think "Oh well, we're married now. And it's kinda too much work to get divorced anyway." If marriage is your only incentive to keep a relationship alive, it's not a relationship of love as it is a cold iron chain locking you together.
More importantly though, just because a relationship is over doesn't mean it's failed. We fall in love, and then often we get jaded, and it's over. But that doesn't mean it wasn't worthwhile, that it was a waste of time, or that it failed. We experience something nice, and then it's time to move on. What marriage does is hold you trapped, after you've had enough. And I believe that the idea of an ended relationship being a "failed" relationship is something, more often than not, pushed into our culture by clergy. They are mostly the ones we hear bitching about divorce rates in secular countries and how it's somehow directly related to the moral decline in that country. That's bullshit. The only thing a divorce means is that two people no longer want to be together. What does the reason matter? Clergy often pretend like it's because people turn gay and the men divorce their wives because they want to go to a gay bar and have wild gay sex out of wedlock (ironically the solution would be to allow same-sex marriage, but I digress). But even if it were so, so what? How would it make those two people any more happy if they were continuously trapped in a marriage? Even when, at first, only one of the two partners wants a divorce, to me it would be much more horrible to force the other person to stay married. I certainly wouldn't want to be in a relationship with someone who doesn't want me anymore. Platonic love doesn't end well for either party.
So what I'm rambling on about it that ending a relationship is not always a bad thing. Call me a cynic, but I believe that it's a good time even most of the time. Something sucks, you work at it. But at some point you have to stop and accept that it might just not be worth it to try and pick up all the pieces off of the floor so you can glue them together and hope it sticks for just a little while longer. At some point you just have to leave the pieces lie and move the fuck on.
- marriage is the sacred bond between a man and a woman
Obviously, this is an argument that comes from the theist camp. Now I'm not going to argue about how retarded it is to suggest that gays have any less of a right to a marriage, we already know that, but instead tell you why I think religion loves pairing different genders so much. It's because man + woman = baby. Baby = another unit in the army. That's it. Nothing profound to it. Sacred bond my ass. It's about growing numbers like a virus. Rulers in all ages understood that if you want to build a powerful nation, what you need are people. Many many people. As many as possible. Living conditions, quality of life - doesn't matter. If he can hold a weapon and become cannon-fodder he's good enough. Same reason religion values men more than women. They're physically stronger. Same reason clergy are against abortion, it kills potential units and dwindles their numbers. (It also kills off all the pussy in the age range they like.)
- We do it for the civil / legal / financial rights.
I actually don't know enough about this to be able to fairly comment, so I'd love some input. Obviously I still don't like it. I know people who have been together for years but have no intentions of getting married for any benefits, my own sister included, and they seem to lead happy lives. But are the benefits worth compromising your integrity?Is there no other way to achieve those rights? Would it be at all possible for us to change this? I'm aware that gays fight for marriage because they want the rights that come with it. Now I remember Strega saying in a different thread that if they made some other civil construct which would allow her, as a gay person, to have all the benefits of a usual marriage provides, she'd do it right away. Even if it wasn't called a marriage. Do you agree with this, or do you think that, if anything, both straight people and gays should get the exact same thing? In which case it cannot be a religious union, because all major religions are homophobic. And so...I'm tired.
That's it for now. I actually have much more to say, but I kinda already wrote more than usual and I'm getting bored and I'm sure I've bored most of you by now too. I might add some later. Cut me some slack!
Well damn this got long, sorry.
tl;dr: marriage is stupid.
So, writing an unrelated post, using childish insults trying to vent your anger over me not caving into the platitudes you made in the other thread. I'd usually feel attacked and respond, but this is just weak. Thanks for bumping the thread though :)
40 years doesn't mean you automatically have proportionate wisdom. If anything, again, it might indicate a lack of objectivity. And even if it did, you didn't elaborate or share your insight with us. You threw a weak jab at thin air and that was it. I could say I have 41 years of experience, but that doesn't mean anything if I just leave it there. It's like old people when they say "I'm 4 times your age, you better listen to me!" and then they pretend like all their opinions magically have merit while they wallow in the mud of their self-aggrandizing agism.
I see you still don't have any arguments, pro or con, or relevant. It's still the same "I'm old therefore I know!" white-noise logical fallacy.
I will be like your perception of "old people"
You already are. You think being old automatically validates your opinions, and negates everybody else's without the need of scrutiny, because otherwise you would've mentioned at least one single opinion, but alas, like I said you have yet brought forth nil. You just came in here, said "I have 40 years of experience" and that was it. Nothing to back it up, nothing to show for it, no opinion, no argument, no insight, no advice, no refutation, no nothing.
You need to back up your claims no matter your age. Whether you're 6, 16, 26 or 66. You also cannot dismiss arguments based solely on age. I'm guessing that the majority of people on this website are younger than you are, but I have yet to see a single person you can surpass in terms of making good points.
What you tried to pull was a heavy-handed attempt at asserting unwarranted authority through ageism, and I called it out. Just deal with it.
will be back in 40 years
Oh, fortunately I don't have such high hopes of your life expectancy. With a little luck in 10 years or so I might be even 6 feet more over your head than I'm now.
Yes, you quoted my profile on the question "Why are you here?" So now you're desperately looking for irrelevant flaws you can nitpick?
I indeed did write
To remind myself every now and then that there are intelligent people on earth too and not put a bullet in my head.
I'm so sad and arrogant that I believe the people here on this forum are intelligent and that communicating with them gives me joy.
Oh the humanity...
Yeah. I find most people here to be very intelligent, many easily more so than myself. You're the exception, frankly judging by our correspondence up to this point you rather seem to be below average, and you'll have to deal with the fact that one person on this planet just isn't going to suck up to you just because you're old or because your daddy died in a war, because those things don't automatically make you great and infallible.
Since, despite your glorious age, you have failed to stop writing and humiliating yourself, I'll do you a favor by being the bigger man and stop responding to you. Ramble on as a derelict army-boy if you like, I don't care to derail this thread any more, and the only reason I originally responded to you was to bump it up. Thanks.
40 years as a Christian doesn't give us any more reason to believe the truth claims about the religion or the fact that you know much about it at all.
So your claim to have 40 years of experience in marriage doesn't really address a lot of KOrsans issues.
Perhaps you could have stayed with this person and not made it 'marriage' and not gotten those rings - Or would you have strayed away eventually without the rings and the thousands of dollars spent on the wedding?
Allso kOrsan is that "O" just to be difficult? It's a bitch everytime I type your name on my phone.
Nah, it's the beginning of my last name, and when you put the k in front of it you get korsan, which is turkish and arabic for pirate. You don't have to cap it at all, in fact people often just use "k." Browsing TA on a phone is a bitch though, I know.
Wow, that's a whole lot of thoughtful material. Luckily you have a very readable style.
Not in any order...
1. Your point about religion promoting procreation - I loved the whole paragraph because I think it is true, and it applied at the time of writing it, to a people that needed to increase their numbers. It is a left-over, nobody at that time could have imagined 7 billion people on an overcrowded planet. It is part of the doctrine that has gone from being positive to negative, a victim of its own success, almost. If we made contraception freely and widely available, the positive benefits are simply too exhaustive to list.
2. The use of the word 'Marriage' to describe a unity between two people. Its a word. Get over it. If the theists want a special word, let them call their version, "Holy Marriage'. It might help them bring their god to mind more frequently. Atheists get married. Jews get married. Muslims get married. Hindus get married. Druids get married. It's not a special Christian word. It never was. The Christian bible may have defined what marriage should look like to its believers, but it did not invent marriage. That already existed. So all this 'special religious bond' nonsense is just that. Nonsense.
3. Civil rights that are entwined in law through marriage. Federal healthcare for spouse of employee. Inheritance tax when a spouse dies. Living will and competency decisions for an incapacitated spouse. Parental rights e.g. schooling, health. Legal rights regarding giving testimony against a spouse. Divorce rights - court based process ensuring both parties rights, equitable distribution of property, access to children of partnership. Immigration rights (close to my heart) of foreign spouse, and that is to just skim the surface. There are so many civil rights entwined through the single institution of marriage, it is almost impossible to list them all. Or to untangle them.
4. Abolish marriage. Well then the civil rights concept would have to be untangled from a domestic perspective, and internationally we have the issue of mutual recognition of marriages. I think that may well be where humanity is going in the longer term, if religion fades as it looks like it might some day.
Someone once said that divorce should be made as easy as marriage is today, and marriage should be made as difficult as divorce is today. I quite like that principle.
Someone once said that divorce should be made as easy as marriage is today, and marriage should be made as difficult as divorce is today. I quite like that principle.
Never heard of it but so do I.
All the things you have listed about civil rights are ridiculous. I can see how many of those things require some proof of the partner really being the partner, but that could as well be done by a will instead of a marriage.
Do you mean inheritance tax? Legally married M/F couples do not pay inheritance (capital gains tax) on the property and belongings that they shared, when one dies. If they are not married, then the surviving one has to pay tax on inheriting of the dead ones interest in the property. A will makes no difference to the tax payable by the beneficiaries.
All the other civil rights are on the assumption both parties are alive and married to each other. Americans only accept marriage as the evidence of partnership.
I never had a desire to be married. I have had a few relationships where it would have appeared to the world that we were a married couple. I was in a relationship with someone and we lived together for 18 years. Neither of us wanted to get married. It was never due to any lack of commitment to each other but rather that the concept being married held no meaning for us nor did we deem it necessary. Even 25 years ago I got lectured by Christians about “living in sin”. The amount of times I showed them the finger beside my ring finger!!
As in another post today I am all for allow people the right to get married for whatever reasons if they so wish. For me though it has no meaning. It is not necessary for raising children either. It is certainly not a fix for broken relationships as I have often seen. It is not necessary for happiness either. For anyone about to be married – I wish you the best.
It is territorial and alpha male bullshit to me.
I agree half and half here. First off, you're right. But there are also many .. let's say not-so-alpha people out there who get lulled into a marriage by their partner's or peer pressure.