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: 2732

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Did I talk about an obligation? I'm just talking about fucking things up in terms of family relations. You don't have an obligation not to do that but the disadvantages of doing so should be obvious. 

Your parents didn't ask you to be brought into the world, but they did. And unless it's an almost illegally dysfunctional family, they fed and clothed you with money they might have used to take a world cruise or two or which they might have used for retirement savings. 

If their sacrifices mean nothing to you, that makes me feel sad.

I've been called worse, you dufus. ;)

Did I talk about an obligation? I'm just talking about fucking things up in terms of family relations. You don't have an obligation not to do that but the disadvantages of doing so should be obvious.

Yes, you are describing obligation.It seems like you are saying that the couple to be married should avoid eloping to sate the parental units. 
Am I misreading that?

Your parents didn't ask you to be brought into the world, but they did. And unless it's an almost illegally dysfunctional family, they fed and clothed you with money they might have used to take a world cruise or two or which they might have used for retirement savings. 

You lost me. The burden of responsibility is the parents for bringing a child into the world, not from the child to the parent for being brought into the world. The child had no say in it, unlike the parents. (obviously excluding rape)
To laud the parent for providing for the child they created by citing forfeiting cruises is weak. A wedding is not a medal for a job well done. The satisfaction of knowing you raised responsible adults and did it while fostering a healthy relationship with them is. 

If their sacrifices mean nothing to you, that makes me feel sad.

Those sacrifices do not equal ownership. Having a wedding to please your parents almost makes those sacrifices seem like a down payment to live vicariously through your offspring later on in life. That is all kinds of messed up. We should empower our children, not hold their futures hostage to our own whims and desires. 

A wedding is not a medal for a job well done

That just about sums it up - well said.

Yes, you are describing obligation.It seems like you are saying that the couple to be married should avoid eloping to sate the parental units. Am I misreading that?

I guess it depends upon whether you have an obligation to take the feelings of others who have sacrificed to bring you where you are into account. What have you ever done for them that can even compare? Is there a debt there? I suppose it depends upon what sort of person you are and how mature you are.

To laud the parent for providing for the child they created by citing forfeiting cruises is weak. A wedding is not a medal for a job well done.

The cruise example applies in terms of an example of sacrifices they have made for you. Parents give up a LOT of potential quality of life to bring a kid into the world and raise them. You might show some regard for that. Of course, if you want to insult them, leave them out of it. Eloping is a great way to display your disregard for them.

Those sacrifices do not equal ownership. Having a wedding to please your parents almost makes those sacrifices seem like a down payment to live vicariously through your offspring later on in life. That is all kinds of messed up. We should empower our children, not hold their futures hostage to our own whims and desires. 

Parents do live through their children to some extent. It's one of the few rewards of parenting.  Parental love and friendship are the only two forms of pure love. You should reward it. Your love for your partner, if it's romantic love, is selfish and obsessive in nature and isn't really love at all. Real love involves sacrifice, not me-me-me-me-me, which seems to be what I'm hearing from you.

Parents choose to have kids. We could make the argument that having children is both selfish and narcissistic. They don't get credit for not going on a cruise when they had kids instead because that was the choice they made; it's what they wanted to do. If they had decided to go on the cruise, there'd be no one to apologize to for not giving birth to them. Everyone who existed would be happy!

And no, you don't get to expect to live through your kids as a reward for having them. I think the most you should hope for is that they'll take care of you in your old age. But you got to live their life, presumably the way you wanted to. You wanted kids and had them. Now maybe your kids want to go on a cruise. They should be able to make that choice and not be made to feel guilty over it.

@Unseen

Real love involves sacrifice, not me-me-me-me-me

Real love is a two way thing, so using your expression, the parent(s) could actually be just as obliged to sacrifice.

It is a pretty shallow parent who demands a wedding for their child if the child does not want one.  Now THAT would be a whole lot of me-me-me.

Not only is Cara right on this point, but your argument here is not based on the concept of mutual love, it is based on the demand of a huge reward without considering the wants or needs of those who would be meant to be the main participants.

Real love is a two way thing, so using your expression, the parent(s) could actually be just as obliged to sacrifice.

It is a pretty shallow parent who demands a wedding for their child if the child does not want one.  Now THAT would be a whole lot of me-me-me.

Who said they're DEMANDING? Of course they have no right to demand anything, but don't they have a right to some regard? I'm not talking about demands but about how grateful one is to one's parents and how one treats them.

Not only is Cara right on this point, but your argument here is not based on the concept of mutual love, it is based on the demand of a huge reward without considering the wants or needs of those who would be meant to be the main participants.

I'm not talking about parent-child love, if that's what you mean by "mutual love." I'm talking about how one treats those who brought one into the world, fed, clothed, and protected you (assuming they did so...if not, that's not the sort of parents I'm talking about). 

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?

RSS

Support T|A

Think Atheist is 100% member supported

All proceeds go to keeping Think Atheist online.

Donate with Dogecoin

Members

Videos

  • Add Videos
  • View All

Services we love

We are in love with our Amazon

Book Store!

Gadget Nerd? Check out Giz Gad!

Into life hacks? Check out LabMinions.com

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

© 2014   Created by Dan.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service