Disclaimer
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!

Tags: commitment, divorce, gays, i hate children, loyalty, marriage, relationships, rights, scam

Views: 2796

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

and thats a really good reason to make a long term commitment and stick with it.

Do you mean by getting married, or just like that? Because you don't need a marriage to commit or have a baby.

And if you meant that a baby should be reason enough to stick with a marriage already in progress, I don't think so. You need more than a baby to keep two people in love with each other, otherwise there would never be any children of divorce. If a relationship isn't good, you shouldn't stick with it just for the sake of the child. You don't need a partner, and long term commitment to stick with to raise a child anyway, and I'm sure most single moms would concur. As Strega said there's also the issue of abuse. I think if a person took his/her child and left the abusive partner, it's still a lot better than living with that abusive person. Not one bit of abuse should be tolerated, it's detrimental to everybody, including the child. And so is an unhappy couple.

But it would be EVEN BETTER if she had chosen her partner wisely and for the right reason, which shows why anecdotes don't propel the discussion forward and tend to become sideshows or distractions.

 

Hi Thomas 

Has anybody asked the children what they want?

I don't think you need to be an expert to know that children are very conservative in their wants. Children don't want to feel different, or to have to explain an unusual or non-"normal" home situation to their peers, because children can be so mean. They want to feel wanted and not abandoned. To a child, quantity time IS quality time. I'm glad that when I was young, the normal situation was that children came home to a parent after school. What came to be called "latchkey children" were very uncommon then.

My dad was a latchkey kid in the 50s. You can tell too.

 "You need more than a baby to keep two people in love with each other"

Staying in love with your partner has very little to do with it - this is why theres no commitment in marriage or long-term partnerships.

"In love" probably lasts about two years. Respect and support is what keeps it going for the long run.

 

 

 

But are the benefits worth compromising your integrity?

Believe it or not, a lot of those benefits are necessity in life. Prime example is: family insurance. There is no point of spending tons of money to get separate insurance from both partner's jobs when one can get it and apply it for the entire family. Then you have things with life insurance, ownership of property. If your partner suddenly dies, and if you were never married, most likely the government won't recognize your beloved one and you will not get one ounce of their belongings (unless of course there is a deed). This is currently a huge problem for Gays in the military. Since we have a federal law called Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) that recognizes that marriage is between a man and a woman, gay couples are not recognized by the military and its a  problem for them since they can't access the benefits they deserve.

Marriage was never a religious things. Humans have always participated in matrimony in all different cultures, starting back from the ancient cultures. Many of them had no contact with each other, yet in all of those civilizations, there was some form of marriage. I think you are looking at marriage from a religious perspective. I know you said you are Turkish, so Im guessing you are an Ex Muslim like me?  I can see why you would not be fond of marriage, since marriage is shoved down the throats of Muslim men and women starting at an early age. By a certain age it's all about finding a wife/husband because as the prophet said, marriage is  "sunnah" and you should get married as quick as possible. The consent pressure of marriage in Islamic society can be quite reprehensible and disgusting. However you can get married for the simple reason of being in love and wanting to be with that person forever in a binding relationship closed off from all other possibilities of relationships 

I know you said you are Turkish, so Im guessing you are an Ex Muslim like me?

I'm Turkish but I actually grew up in Germany, and I have a very liberal family, so I was lucky to never have been indoctrinated. I was always an atheist.

Marriage was never a religious things. Humans have always participated in matrimony in all different cultures, starting back from the ancient cultures. Many of them had no contact with each other, yet in all of those civilizations, there was some form of marriage. I think you are looking at marriage from a religious perspective.

I touched on this in my OP, but I think my lack of writing skills did a number on me there, I know what you mean. Marriage wasn't always part of religions, but they have adopted the concept of binding people together into easily manageable man-woman brood-machine pairs, and now they pretend like they came up with it. And they also pretend like it has always been about love and whatnot, when really most of the time it was about trading your daughter for some cattle and land, not "god."

Yes you are right about your last sentence. It goes hand in hand with women's right. Back then there was no real way for a woman to live and raise children by themselves. The moment they were born to the moment they died, they under a man's rule, whether their father or their husband. Religion made it so that daughters are property of a father until he gives her off to her husband where she becomes his property. Hence where the "walking down the aisle" with your father came from in Western wedding traditions. 

Nowadays those things really don't matter. A woman can live on her own and earn her pay just as a man for the rest of her life. So those traditional reasoning for marriage are still there in society, however they are becoming more and more obsolete nowadays. So you can start to see marriage for a binding contract of love. Everyone is different. Some people will want that and some people will not. Just the way our individual selves are programmed. 

Nowadays those things really don't matter. A woman can live on her own and earn her pay just as a man for the rest of her life.

That benefits the woman, but if she has a child, in general that's not the best possible situation for a child. Unless a woman can work at home to be with her child all day long while making enough income to stay well above the poverty line, the child would typically be better off with his/her parents in an intact family home. 

I think no responsible person should go into childrearing not even intending to give them a two-parent family to grow up in.

I don't think there's any disputing, either, that children are better off with a stay-at-home parent. They are safer, better supervised, and are more likely to feel secure and well taken care of.

 

The girl that my son is going out with at the moment often says that she wants a baby- Theyre both 20 ...

I told my son to beware of girls wanting babies because a girl who says that, does not have the guy in the picture ...

I told him to look for the girl who wants a family.

Tell him to use condoms and put some Tabasco sauce in it before he throws it away, that way she can't make a baby through homemade artificial insemination without at least paying a price. I think the Tabasco would probably kill the sperm anyway.

Better yet, take it straight to the toilet and flush it.

RSS

Services we love!

We are in love with our Amazon

Book Store!

Gadget Nerd? Check out Giz Gad!

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

In need a of a professional web site? Check out the good folks at Clear Space Media

© 2014   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service