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!
I really don't like how presumptuous you are. I'm tempted to tell you my life story to justify my desire to opt out of a wedding. I don't think it's really for you to judge, however. It just might've been "illegally dysfunctional"... but all that is just a bit too personal to divulge.
Things are already fucked up. This is one of those things that I get to have a little control over and own. I'm not choosing not to have a wedding to spite them, but I'm certainly not concerned about whether they'll have their feelings hurt over it. My feelings were obviously not a huge priority to them in times past. It's not that what they've done means nothing to me, but a wedding is not the way I'll show them gratitude.
If you're sad for their sake, your priorities are as fucked as theirs... but you don't know them, or me, so I'll just assume you don't know better (because you don't).
This discussion isn't about you. However, if things have reached the point that you have divorced your parents, basically, then that's not the situation I'm talking about. I'm talking about a more normal situation where there is some parental love involved.
You do realize over half of all marriages end in divorce, right? My story isn't exactly an exception to the overwhelming rule. My generation's parents are mostly divorced... and the majority of families are quite dysfunctional even if they don't project it out to the world.
I haven't divorced my family, and I do love them. But that doesn't mean I feel I owe them a nice wedding... nor do I feel any family, however happy and whole, has a right to expect such things from their children. You raise your children to become successful, fulfilled individuals. Not to live vicariously through them. That's wrong.
And so, if they end in divorce, there was never anything worthwhile about them? I'm divorced, but my ex and I also have some happy memories of our time before our lives went in different directions. Some divorces involve yelling, punches, broken dinnerware and ugly disputes over property and child custody. Some do not.
Depends upon what you mean by "vicariously." If your children turn out to be good people, successful in their endeavors, and happy, what's wrong with enjoying their happiness?
@k0rsan - "Marriage seems unnecessary either way."
I think that a communities biggest asset would be its mum and dad homebuyers with 1.5 children and a huge mortgage. They are the ones who pay rates and create stability. I think marriage is important.
What has marriage got to do with mortgages? You can be a couple and have 1.5 children and a huge mortgage without getting married.
You and your pesky questions - : )
Yeah I know - when my children started school and we started meeting the families of their school friends, I didnt meet one other single parent. Even though it was a smallish school and Im sure there were other single parents in that year ... I didnt meet one of them. All the families we did get involved with were married and owned their homes. Im trying to think if I ever met a non married two parent family who owned their own home. Nope - I didnt but Im sure their out there.
A few years ago a friend of mine tried to get some of her Superannuation released due to hardship. She was told that she could only get it if she was at risk of losing her home or had a serious life threatening illness. She asked them why a home owner would be more eligable, since they own their home, they could sell it.
Well, the answer they gave her wasnt clear but - homeowners were more important that non home owners.
That probably didnt answer your question did it?
Im trying to think if I ever met a non married two parent family who owned their own home. Nope - I didnt but Im sure their out there.
I think most of the good financial advice out there says that if two people aren't married, they'd be well advised to keep their finances separate, and an investment as big as a house seems like one that one person or the other should own, or else the two of them should rent their dwelling.
If you co-own a house with someone, married or not, the house is likely to be the biggest thing you own together. If they come apart, either one of them has to buy the other out, which they're unlikely to be able to do, or the two of them will have to sell the house in order to create some cash to split.
As poor as the statistics have become for marriages ending in divorce, I can practically state without even investigating that less legally-committed relationships come apart with far greater frequency.
And it isn't just about partners taking legal action against each other. For instance, my greatest peeve about the way unions are treated is that my partner can be held liable for debts which, in fact, I alone incurred. Loans and credit seem to be a big part of life these days, and this legal aspect just adds one more point of stress to it all.
And yet, the creditor deserves to be paid. Unfortunately, when you marry it's an "in for a dollar, in for a dime" sort of thing ("in for a penny, in for a pound " for Strega).
Life isn't fair, but the creditor is the one least deserving of being stiffed.
Good luck getting that changed. Right now, it's something people should take into account before getting married. For one thing, a smart person will want to understand the debt structure their partner would be going into the relationship with. However, as with prenups, nobody wants to break the romantic spell with a request that could muck things up. But that's a decision they make, and by making it they accept what follows, whatever that might be.
"I can practically state without even investigating ...."
You see it as soon as you start having children and start getting involved with other parents - the sort of parents that you would never be involved with if not for their children friending your children. Married couples have power and status, they know it and so does the state.
You virgin hermit! j/k
I didn't mean any slight by my response to you. What I meant by older and wiser was in reference to the minds of women and that there are some out there that still have that fairytale wedding in mind (and you have no idea at the lengths they will go to in order for that to happen) and to the legal/financial things pertaining to marriage (which you admitted you didn't know a whole lot about.)