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 I'm not gay! ;)
Apparently you have everything needed for giving marriage advice. I was informed earlier by a 20 year old, that 40 years of knowledge, gained through life experience of marriage, union, and partnership means absolutely nothing.
When you come right out of the gate and insult the OP, shortly after a tiff on another thread (caused by you making utterly irrelevant arguments and sticking by them when called on them), what the hell do you expect?
Yes, the young seem to think wisdom is a myth, so they go on and make mistakes with very predictable adverse consequences over and over and over again.
By the time one reaches 30 or 35 one realizes that one's parents weren't as dumb or out of it as they seemed.
I don't know if you're talking about me, given the context I'm assuming you are, forgive me if I'm wrong.
In this the young, me, didn't think wisdom is myth. I think automatic wisdom by age is a myth. Ageism. I have a great deal of respect for anything what you guys have to add. I don't care about your age. I'll consider your opinion just as much as I'll consider a child's opinion or my grandfather's opinion, as long as you can back it up under scrutiny. This specific tool walked in here with personal insults, to vent his anger over me, and tried to back it up with ageism and nothing else. No opinion or display of said supposed wisdom. Only "I say have experience and I'm old, therefore I'm right." The rest was purely insults, not wisdom of any kind. We have yet to hear a modicum of his supposed wisdom of 40 glorious years. He hasn't dedicated a single word to sharing his insight.
If you're going to try to assert yourself as right and me as wrong, or make assumptions about my, or your own level of wisdom based on our ages, you'll bite granite. I'll call your bluff out, and you'll lose, sorry.
Probably what I said applies more to parents and their kids than in general. LOL
My Grandparents pull this type of age-trumps-all-card. It's very frustrating and insulting--any fool can see through some of their bs. I lose respect for people who do that. Age does not always equal wisdom. Another thing is the expectation of automatic respect for your 'elders.' Why should you respect your elders? Because they're old! It's like asking why the Hole Bile is the word of gourd.
Here's a thought, plenty of dictators die of old age. Aging isn't something that only responsible, intelligent people do. If you have a bad personality, do evil things, or hold erroneous beliefs, you don't get a pass because you made it over the hill.
It's because man + woman = baby. Baby = another unit in the army. That's it. Nothing profound to it. Sacred bond my ass.
Speculative, but I've always had the feeling it is because homosexuality is an easy outgroup against which religious leaders can rally. Homosexuality appears alien, and it's an easy sin for over ninety percent of the population to avoid. When facing a congregation, it has to be nice to be able to say 'congratulations for not doing what you were never that inclined to do in the first place' as if it makes them good people. The last I saw, the number of Americans identifying as homosexual was something like three percent in the older age groups and as high as seven in the younger generations. It's a pretty small minority to risk alienationg.
These days society is starting to identify much more with homosexuals as people, and much less with homophobia. Kicking and screaming about same-sex marriage allows churches to take the passive-aggressive 'Love the sinner, but hate the sin' approach to much the same effect without coming off so hateful to their followers.
There's some good points here. As a single man who wants to find a life mate (or at least one that'll stick around for 20 years) and raise a family, I'm inclined to get married, but I realize now that it's really for the legal benefits. When it comes down to it, there's nothing different between living a committed life together with a piece of paper and living a committed lief together without that piece of paper.
@Teri - What you're saying sounds analogous to the five blind men who described an elephant --
RE: "The only issue I have with the elephant analogy is that they aren't experiencing the same stimuli." - yes they are, an elephant. Does not marriage have many facets, while still one entity?