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: 2798

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Yeah, that's shitty. I hate that mens' feelings are dismissed because "women dream about weddings" their whole life. It's kinda pathetic. I really don't get the obsession myself... and it all seems like such an epic waste of time, and it such a major headache.

It's a fact that weddings tend to be much more about the bride than the groom. Go to the local magazine rack and you'll find that Bride Magazine is almost as thick as a phone book (remember those?).

Look all you want, there won't be a Groom Magazine, no matter how thin. (If you want a laugh, there is a GroomsMagazine website.)

As a rule, men don't sit around dreaming of being married in the same way women do. They don't dream of a bungalow with a boy and girl out in the yard playing with their puppy dog and kitty cat while the wife is in the kitchen baking blueberry muffins.

Yes, I'm well aware of all that.

I still think it's ridiculous. If girls weren't pumped full of fairy tail shenanigans from day one, they wouldn't be daydreaming about this event their whole life. Their expectations for life are centered around this one event which is a huge disservice, I feel. Marriage isn't what we're told it is in books and movies, and husbands rarely turn out to be the Prince Charming we've been waiting for. The wedding is the only facade we can hold up until the whole thing comes crashing down.

And, despite tradition and the gender roles we've all been shoved into, I don't think encouraging this level of epic self-centeredness is a good way to start marriage, either. I mean, it seems like the dude is just an accessory. He's a warm body to fill a tux. I don't know why more guys don't protest.

When you marry someone, you marry their family. If you can't deal with their family and their desires and expectations, you're setting yourself up for divorce even before you start.

If you can't do that, you're putting your partner in the middle of a feud even before you start.

Just loving someone often isn't enough to make it work. 

@ Unseen, 

So, you get to decide what marriage means or "should" mean? Not all marriages are between families, some are simply between two individuals.

If you can't do that, you're putting your partner in the middle of a feud even before you start.

Potentially, yes, but you could also (potentially) prevent a feud by eloping.

Just loving someone often isn't enough to make it work. 

With that I wholeheartedly agree, love is not enough to make a relationship work, marriage is no exception. 

Marriages between individuals with no family involved is possible under only rare circumstances: both people don't have any living parents or they really have no relationship worth saving with their family. 

However, if one does have a family or the other party has a family or you both do, eloping is a very bad idea. 

You can't prevent a feud by eloping because it tends to increase resentment by the parents on each side of their child's partner.

You can't prevent a feud by eloping because it tends to increase resentment by the parents on each side of their child's partner.

And sometimes an increase in resentment is still preferable over a fist fight, possibly involving broken (champagne) bottles and cutlery.

It's MY family I can't/won't deal with. I live 1200 miles from them... by design. Part of my issue with them is their religiosity. Part of it is that my step dad was abusive, and my mom was... I don't even know... naive? Well, she didn't leave him when she should've, and now I just have to pretend everything is peachy. It's not. And, after years of shit I don't care to elaborate on, I don't feel I owe them anything.

If my past means I can't ever have a healthy relationship, well there's not a lot I can do about that, is there? Going through with a wedding to try to prove everything is a-okay won't help... because, regardless of who I'm with, I won't want a wedding to congratulate people on raising me who don't deserve it. If my boyfriend wanted a wedding, then I'd endure it because I love him. But he doesn't want a wedding, either. So why would we both do something we don't want to do just to make people happy who FAILED us?

Marriage is about the two people marrying and how they choose to face the world. If I was inextricably tied to my family then, yes, he'd be marrying my family. But that's just not what the dynamics are. My boyfriend and I (after 3.5 years) have found an equilibrium that works for us... and it's not just about love. It's also about friendship, and having all the same values. We work well together. Adding the stress of a wedding, and the debt that comes with it, would only be detrimental to what we have.

^ This!

I disagree with this 100%. I am not obligated to have a wedding because my mother has been looking forward to it. She had her own wedding, for starters. That's as far as anyone's expectations should extend. She got what she wanted, and I should be able to get what I want. And I think it's equally unkind of them to expect me to endure the drama they created with their divorces and bitter resentments towards other members of my family.

Why would I want a wedding when they haven't even been able to give me an example of lasting relationships that would make such a frivolous ceremony worth the effort and money? I'm sorry, but I don't feel chained to tradition, and it's selfish of parents to put expectations on their children beyond hoping for their success. We each have one life to do with what we want to do.

Very much this^^

Well said.



Blog Posts

Out of the fog

Posted by Belle Rose on March 1, 2015 at 6:27pm 1 Comment

Kids Logic

Posted by Mai on February 28, 2015 at 5:33am 7 Comments

Services we love!

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

© 2015   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service