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!
But let me warn you, when you're a bit older and wiser you might eventually fall in love.
I appreciate the sentiment, but I would appreciate it a lot more if we could stop this "you are young therefore don't know anything about love or falling in love" assumption. Again, I thank you, but I think you're now the third person in this thread to tell me I "might fall in love one day," and to my ears that sounds like "you might sneeze one day." I don't know if this is because of some latent agism, or because I didn't quite make clear my aversion was not to relationships and love, but to the label of marriage, and my opinion that the latter doesn't add anything to the former. I really don't know what it is about my writing that apparently gives people the impression of myself being a virgin hermit. Apart from that, sadly falling in love doesn't necessitate any wisdom, otherwise we wouldn't be 7billion on this rock.
You gotta be upfront about these kinds of things because believe it or not, even though it's 2013 there are girls out there that want to meet the man of their dreams and get married. The horror.
I've experienced this already, but it was more of a gradual revelation. Obviously, marriage doesn't come up much in teenage relationships and back then even I wasn't entirely sure how I felt about it. Our relationship lasted very long, and in this time I changed a lot. I realized I do not desire children, or need marriage, at any point. This was a deal-breaker. There's only so many times you can tell a girl you'd rather go on a vacation with the money instead of pissing it away on a wedding, until you have to come to terms with the fact that in some people love can easily overrule rationality.
Blaine, poking fun at the guy because you disagree with him is a pretty dickish thing to do. Drop the "experience" crap and contribute if you really feel the need to voice an opinion on the subject.
There are people who have been married longer than 40 years and divorced, so do they lack experience too? Or do they lack your experience.
kOrsan posted his opinion and wants the opinions of others on the topic, not pointless remarks about lacking experience or "true love."
Not angry at all, just calling it like I see it.
You have no valid argument to bring forward so you are doing what theists do and resorting to childish insults.
And I don't like NCIS, tried watching it, doesn't do it for me. Thanks for the advice though!
1. He did not say anything like that about love, he was questioning the institution of marriage.
2. if you find his discussion problematical, why would you want to participate?
3. Your opening post on this thread was not really worthy of your abilities to write well thought through posts. You're better than that.
Neither you nor Milos should waste your times (I appreciate it :). At this point I have this creeping suspicion that he's a troll.
What's so ironic about this thread is that the behavior of a troll is generally considered immature.
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
Sounds like a question to me.
He does not understand marriage and love read Romeo and Juliet . Then get off your computer, and fall in love. LOL!! DONE!!!
So instead of being the grown up and explaining it so he does "understand" with your 40 years of experience, you instead decide to troll?
He may be inexperienced in romance and love, you seem to be inexperienced in proper etiquette and basic conversation skills.
Children. Parenting is best done by two. The kids get more attention from two parents than one. If a parent has to go out of town on business, they're not fobbed off on a friend or relative for whom it's a favor rather than a duty. Two who stay together for the duration is, on the whole, better than one. Otherwise, marriage seems unnecessary.
Children. Parenting is best done by two. Otherwise, marriage seems unnecessary.
Unseen, not that I disagree with two parents being the best option, but I don't see the difference between two parents who are married and two parents who are not married. Marriage seems unnecessary either way.
Isn't Romeo and Juliet a story about 2x very young teens (12 and 13 years old) that committed suicide because of their naivety and inexperience with love?
You'd think that some schmuck who keeps hammering on about experience and age would see Romeo and Juliet as a prime example of how things should "NOT" be done in regards to love.
"such hostility and anger"
For calling you a "schmuck"? Is that really such an insult that it speaks of hostility and anger? Either way, take it as you want, it's no skin of my back.
Considering that you've mentioned time and time again about the amount of experience that you have, I assumed that you would have grown a bit of skin, enough to protect you from minor derogatory statements such as "schmuck".
it has become forever associated with love.
And I pointed out that this is ridiculous. Two prepubescent teens that commit suicide out of naivety and obsession have very little to do with love.
Perhaps the problem is that people have very childish ideas about love (and consequently marriage).